From: Washington D.C.
Sea mining is often as important for its ability to deter or constrain a given course of action, as it is for its ability to actually destroy ships. If someone knows there's sea mines somewhere, they generally just won't go there unless they have no other choice. Because of their ability to influence an enemy on levels beyond the purely tactical consideration of destroying ships, mines have operational (e.g. constraining maneuver) and strategic implications (e.g. legal considerations, treaty considerations), which suggests that sometimes just placing or clearing them is a win. A great historical example would be the mining of Haiphong Harbor with B-52s during the Vietnam War. They didn't lay the mines to destroy ships. They laid the mines so that they wouldn't have to (they'd just stay bottled up in port and not leave). Just seeding the minefield was a win. Similarly, during Operation Earnest Will, US minesweeping helicopters and minesweepers worked to keep the sea lanes opened to commerce, and minimize the impact on the global economy. Successfully clearing the mines was a victory which was frustrated by Iranian minesweepers, aircraft, CDCMs, etc.
How would one implement the successful placement or removal of sea mines as a victory condition?
< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 9/15/2018 3:18:06 PM >