The Lesson of History
Sea power has been important down through the ages. In ancient times the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Greeks and the Vikings — to name a few — built ships to trade with distant lands and to protect an integral part of the economic and defense stature of these ancient nations.
Throughout history, whole societies found their environments sharply altered by rare innovations in ships, naval warfare and commercial marine activities. Then, as now, the vigorous nations flourished, while the complacent fell behind.
The importance of sea power was proved again during World War II when the U.S. built and operated the world's largest merchant fleet and naval fleets and succeeded in gaining full military control of the seas and denying free access of them to the enemy.
The significance of sea power is also illustrated by the fact that Britain's eminence as a world power has diminished almost in direct proportion to her demise as a sea power. On the other hand, the Soviet ascendency to world power status has been accompanied by a spectacular increase in her naval and maritime strength.
The Russians believe in the historically proved axiom that control of the 70 percent of the earth's surface that is water is an important means of controlling the 30 percent that is land.
Americans believe in this axiom, too. Admiral David L. McDonald said: "Nations, and ours certainly is no exception, must view strength at sea — or the lack of it — as a large portion of national posture."
President Kennedy observed: "If there is any lesson of the 20th Century, and especially of the past few years, it is that in spite of the advances in space and in the air . . . this country must still move easily and safely across the seas of the world."
And President Johnson stated: "All through our nation's history the prosperity of our people and their safety have been tied very closely to the role we play on the seas of the world. That is a role we can never wisely or safely neglect."
But today America is neglecting that vital role! The nation gives lip service and says it believes in sea power. But believing and doing are two different things. The Russians don't just believe in sea power — they are actively, vigorously doing something about it.
In a report issued by the House Committee on Armed Services less than one year ago, a detailed assessment of the Soviet's sea power development and its significance to the U.S. and the free world was given.
This disquieting report pointed out that "The naval forces now being created by the Soviet Union and the uses of sea power now being made by the USSR are part of the overall Communist design of total victory in the struggle against the United States and other free-world nations."
The report continued: "It is not enough to consider the construction and deployment of warships. The USSR's maritime strategy also involves the build-up of a massive merchant fleet. This merchant fleet makes possible the leapfrogging of Soviet power from the contiguous land masses to countries that are dependent on sea transports, such as Cuba and North Vietnam."
The report emphasized that "to contemplate a loss of U.S. naval supremacy is to contemplate disaster on an epochal scale. The freedom of the United States and its allies is anchored in control of the oceans . . . In order to prevent the Soviets from realizing their ambitions at sea; the United States will have to move aggressively in the next few years in a crash build-up of all sea-based strategic forces."
But will the U.S. embark on such a crash program? Or will she lose control of the seas?
An Undeclared War
Admiral John S. McCain, Commander of U.S. Forces in the Pacific, says that the U.S. is presently engaged in an undeclared — but very real — war with the Soviet Union: "It is a war of design and construction, of manpower and national resources, of money, planning and organization — and the signs are that we are losing it."
Those are frightening words — but true!
This undeclared war is not yet directly military. Rather, at this stage it is largely psychological, political and economic.
The psychological impact of seeing the stars and stripes flying above American vessels seemingly everywhere around the world cannot be overemphasized. But today, ever increasingly, the stars and stripes are being replaced by the hammer and sickle in world ports. The Russian merchant fleet is stealing the show in the Far East, Near East, Atlantic, Pacific, and around the world. The U.S. is losing the psychological part of this undeclared war.
It is also losing this war economically.
Since 1946 about 1,200 large commercial ships (more than 35 million deadweight tons) have been built in foreign shipyards for American companies or their affiliated interests. During the same period, slightly more than 400 ships of less than 8 million deadweight tons were built in U.S. shipyards for American-flag companies.
The purchase of these foreign-made ships has cost the U.S. an estimated total of $6,000,000,000 in its balance of international payments.
But while U.S. yards were operating at only partial capacity, the Russians were working at full capacity in their shipyards. They have been conserving critically needed foreign exchange. Foreign building was used only to supplement what they could not build at home with production at maximum capacity.
Now that they have a substantial fleet, the Russians are further saving hard currency by transporting some 75 percent of their import-export trade in their own ships. By sorry contrast, the U.S. loses about $1.5 billion annually as it pays foreign bottoms to transport 94 percent of its import-export trade.
U.S. international trade constitutes roughly one-fourth of the world total. This means that while the U.S. uses one ship in four in world commerce to carry its goods, it supplies only one ship in forty. And those that are supplied are mostly slow, small and obsolete. This causes a further drain on the dollar — a drain it can ill afford and a drain which can be avoided by having an adequate fleet.
So America is losing the undeclared war economically, too. Will the nation continue in this state of decline until finally defeated militarily as well?
The High Risk of Relying on Others
Here is a striking example of the dangers confronting America by relying on others because of the inadequacy of the U.S. merchant fleet:
"Once again the United States has been reminded that it cannot depend on foreign ships to transport its cargoes.
"This time it was the West German Government which refused to grant permission for one of its merchantmen to transport M-60 tanks to Iran though there was a plea of urgency attached to the request.
"If West Germany, considered one of the United States' staunchest allies, rejects such a request, then the people of this country can rightly ask whether there is anyone other than ourselves on whom we can depend. . .
"As a result of West Germany's rejection of the request, the tanks ultimately were shipped on two American World War II built Victory ships and one Norwegian vessel chartered by an American steamship line. All the tanks had to be loaded and discharged by special cranes. And they arrived in Iran more than a month later than they would have on the Wallenfels . . .
"Undoubtedly Germany had her own reasons for not granting permission," the article continues, "She certainly is entitled to them. But the United States should not be in the position of having to embarrass her friends with such requests because her own merchant fleet is inadequate (not a single heavy lift in it) and, in turn, be embarrassed because of their rejection" (Los Angeles Times, Nov. 20, 1967).
What a disgraceful state of affairs!
This same article listed five other incidents involving ships flying the flags of Mexico, Greece, and Britain — the latter with Indian and Chinese crews — which refused to transport U.S. military cargoes to Vietnam.
And this was in 1967! A number of similar incidents have occurred since that time — and will continue to occur.
Right now about one third of the U.S. merchant fleet is involved in carrying supplies to Vietnam. And Vietnam is just a "limited" war. What would happen if another war started in a different part of the world?
Also, American-owned ships flying "flags of convenience" are presently carrying about 40% of oil and bulk commodities. These flags-of-convenience ships (ships registered for economic advantages in other nations and flying their flags) constitute a larger fleet than the U.S. flag fleet. But one must never forget that these are ships of convenience. In a real national emergency they might not necessarily deem it "convenient" to carry our goods.
Dependence on the uncertain service of ships not under our flag is a tenuous thread on which to predicate national survival!
How did the U.S. ever manage to get into such a bind? And will the nation be able to get out of it before it is too late?