Navies for all...activists

Navies have long been the very symbol of why it takes a nation-state to go to war. Traditionally, the logistics and manpower involved, as well as the more recent emphasis on ship-shore interface takes a heavy wallet. Furthermore, the strategy of sea-power is very much based on you protecting your sea lanes of communication or disrupting other states'. Clearly, any insurgency group or sub-state actor that wanted a punch for their pennies, would go for an army.

Or would they? Just as the Airforce's monopoly has been broken by fx LTTE's airforce and homemade UAV's, there are actually examples of sub-state groups that builds up a navy, when their objectives are at sea. LTTE is another good example, but this interesting article on Sea Shepherd from The New Yorker tells how activists were able to field a two-ship fleet with a helicopter to attack whalers in the Antarctic waters.


In the total opposite direction:

Sweden plans for a "old new" SIGINT ship - demonstrating classic nation-state capability, especially one of a neutral, self-dependent state that has to rely on its own intelligence in all aspects. Sweden has long been known for their strong SIGINT capabilities. As I came across once doing research, Denmark should actually also be able to send a SIGINT capable ship to sea (in the form of a STANDARD-FLEX type Flyvefisken class patrol-craft, equipped with the one available SIGINT/ELINT container), but I don't know if it ever happens.