http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
In naval warfare, a fleet in being is a naval force that extends a controlling influence without ever leaving port. Were the fleet to leave port and face the enemy, it might lose in battle and no longer influence the enemy’s actions, but while it remains safely in port the enemy is forced to continually deploy forces to guard against it. A fleet in being can be part of a sea denial doctrine but not one of sea control.
Even more so than other surface vessels in the German Navy (Kriegsmarine), the powerful German battleship Tirpitz served her entire career as a ‘fleet in being’ in her own right. Although she never fired a shot at an enemy ship, her mere presence forced the Royal Navy to allocate powerful warships in defending Arctic convoys, and caused a major convoy (PQ-17) to scatter, suffering huge losses, mainly to U-boats and aircraft.
Thanks for an interesting conceptual post.
Do you suppose that President Roosevelt did not understand this concept as it related to the US "fleet in being" at Pearl Harbor?
Do you suppose that FDR might not have considered possible Japanese options relating to his "fleet in being"?
What then would the term be used to describe the U.S. Asiatic Fleet whose blue water vessels left Manila Bay and fled from the enemy while the 29 submarines which did not flee from the enemy responded to the early morning Dec 8, 1941 war notification and orders to prepare for a dawn attack by submerging in Manila Bay?