A battle fleet is often assessed by the enemy fleet it might fight, whereas naval aviation offered a wider range of politically usable actions. Shelling a target from a warship was readily understood as war, while punitive airstrikes against a sufficiently weak target were sometimes treated as something short of full-scale conflict. Carrier aircraft therefore provided a graduated instrument of coercion as well as a means of fleet battle. The logic of that distinction is openly questioned and left politically uneasy, with no claim that it was morally or legally settled. Perceptions of escalation could therefore shape the strategic value assigned to carrier airpower.
Notable Point · 32:18-33:28
Carrier airpower and coercion below perceived full-scale war
Carrier aircraft offered punitive and coercive options that governments often treated differently from overt naval bombardment, even though the distinction was politically uneasy.