Download - Royal Australian Navy

The Relevance of Maritime Forces to Asymmetric Threats
295
Fighting terrorism is only one aspect in a war aimed at defeating it. Countries engaged
in fighting terrorism must accept that in doing so, they become a target, if they are
not already, for retaliation. The US, in particular, have been examining a number of
maritime terrorist scenarios, including a nuclear device in a container ship, 13 and have
deduced that the navy’s ability to transport large amounts of equipment, particularly
medical equipment, would be crucial in any response. Many navy vessels are also
designed to withstand weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly chemical
and biological weapons. If WMD were used in a terrorist attack on a major population
centre, the navy’s ability to provide vessels to safely house emergency crews and
survivors would be useful.
Mobility of mass has been more successful in combating other asymmetric threats,
particularly in the maritime environment, although it remains ‘vulnerable to superior
asymmetric maneuvring in time, space, and materials’. 14 The Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam’s (LTTE) ‘Sea Tigers’ have had considerable success, mainly due to their
ability to attack isolated Sri Lanka Navy units, while avoiding Sri Lanka’s main forces.
However, if an opponent elects to conduct asymmetric warfare in a region where it is
possible to muster a superior naval force, the superior naval force usually prevails.
Certainly asymmetric warfare will have some successes, such as Iraq’s use of mines
in the previous Gulf Wars, 15 but had little overall effect against the large number of
coalition warships. While an enemy engaging in asymmetric warfare may retain the
initiative, 16 a large navy’s ability to exercise mobility of mass will enable it to prevail
in any area its forces can reach.
Reach
Reach is defined as the ‘distance from home bases at which operations can be carried
out’. 17 Much has been made of the importance of this characteristic, particularly in
conducting the War on Terror in Afghanistan, 18 where naval units launched missiles
at suspected terrorist bases, and supported marines and Special Forces on the ground.
Another important factor was the ability of US forces to attack terrorist bases from
naval platforms, rather than invading Afghanistan with large numbers of troops. 19 These
platforms not only provided safe havens to interrogate prisoners, but also denied the
enemy the ability to strike back. Importantly, it did not give the impression that it was
an invasion by US forces, even if it probably was. 20 It enabled US and coalition forces
to attack terrorists on their home soil, which proved extremely popular politically. The
extended reach of conventional maritime forces made all this possible.
The reach possessed by conventional naval forces can also be effective against
asymmetric threats. Many weapons used for asymmetric warfare, such as speedboats,
mines and mini-submarines, have a limited range. To defeat these threats using
conventional maritime forces, it is necessary to concentrate a significant force in
locations where asymmetric tactics and weapons are being used. Once again, it is