North Korea News

[DBTrek]

You knew Smitty wasn't going to come down on the side of "We don't need a navy!"

Not after all the energy he put into the fishing trawler/nuke mine theory.

[The Conservative]

We've seen this before, you know. The British ruled the waves for a century - as the Spanish had before them. In the end, it made absolutely no difference on the ground.

Genius proclamation from Commander Commie Cat #171:

Naval forces make no difference on the ground!!!!



Man, I've missed this.

I wonder if he ever heard of Normandy?

[SuburbanFarmer]

We've seen this before, you know. The British ruled the waves for a century - as the Spanish had before them. In the end, it made absolutely no difference on the ground.

Genius proclamation from Commander Commie Cat #171:

Naval forces make no difference on the ground!!!!



Man, I've missed this.

I wonder if he ever heard of Normandy?

Ever heard of Hastings? Get that horse brigade warmed up.

[The Conservative]

Genius proclamation from Commander Commie Cat #171:

Naval forces make no difference on the ground!!!!



Man, I've missed this.

I wonder if he ever heard of Normandy?

Ever heard of Hastings? Get that horse brigade warmed up.

Right, so in other words, you want to take away the ability to do amphibious landings, and just fly them in. Sorry, you went right past obtuse to potato in about 3 seconds flat.

[TheReal_ND]

Never go full potato

[SuburbanFarmer]

I wonder if he ever heard of Normandy?

Ever heard of Hastings? Get that horse brigade warmed up.

Right, so in other words, you want to take away the ability to do amphibious landings, and just fly them in. Sorry, you went right past obtuse to potato in about 3 seconds flat.

There is no conceivable scenario in which we need to do an amphibious landing until perhaps after WW3... Just fly the troops in, missile strikes, paratroopers, etc. Nobody needs to get on a beach. It would be suicide.

[The Conservative]

Ever heard of Hastings? Get that horse brigade warmed up.

Right, so in other words, you want to take away the ability to do amphibious landings, and just fly them in. Sorry, you went right past obtuse to potato in about 3 seconds flat.

There is no conceivable scenario in which we need to do an amphibious landing until perhaps after WW3... Just fly the troops in, missile strikes, paratroopers, etc. Nobody needs to get on a beach. It would be suicide.

You've played too much Command and Conquer...

[StCapps]

There is no conceivable scenario in which we need to do an amphibious landing until perhaps after WW3... Just fly the troops in, missile strikes, paratroopers, etc. Nobody needs to get on a beach. It would be suicide.

There are plenty of conceivable scenarios where you need to do an amphibious landing. If you haven't already captured a port on the coast of whoever it is you are attacking then your ground troops need a base of operations and you can't just bomb them and send in paratroopers to capture such objectives. An amphibious landing will be required, if there are no ground troops nearby to move in and take the objective.

The only reason you are having such a hard time conceiving of a use for the navy, is because you don't know anything about the navy, if you knew even a little then you could easily conceive of a use for this shit. You argue from ignorance and then are like "well if I can't conceive of a use for a navy, then there must not be one". You are criticizing things you don't understand and act as if that misunderstanding is proof that the situation actually doesn't make any sense. You never stop to think the problem might be on your end and the scope of your knowledge on the subject is not where it needs to be to understand naval warfare.

[DBTrek]

Beaches lined with SA-21 Growlers and troops packing MANPADS.

General Commie Cat: "Damn, guess we can't land any forces. Anything flying near that beach is toast."

[SuburbanFarmer]

There is no conceivable scenario in which we need to do an amphibious landing until perhaps after WW3... Just fly the troops in, missile strikes, paratroopers, etc. Nobody needs to get on a beach. It would be suicide.

There are plenty of conceivable scenarios where you need to do an amphibious landing. If you haven't already captured a port on the coast of whoever it is you are attacking then your ground troops need a base of operations and you can't just bomb them and send in paratroopers to capture such objectives. An amphibious landing will be required, if there are no ground troops nearby to move in and take the objective.

Why would we dick around on the coast? Again, there are 800+ American fucking bases in the world. There's no where that we can't simply fly troops to, and proceed from there in armored convoys. What the fuck are you going to do from the beach, march on foot to the local capital?? Wrong century, man.

The only reason you are having such a hard time conceiving of a use for the navy, is because you don't know anything about the navy, if you knew even a little then you could easily conceive of a use for this shit. You argue from ignorance and then are like "well if I can't conceive of a use for a navy, then there must not be one". You are criticizing things you don't understand and act as if that misunderstanding is proof that the situation actually doesn't make any sense. You never stop to think the problem might be on your end and the scope of your knowledge on the subject is not where it needs to be to understand naval warfare.

Shall we presume that you possess some intimate knowledge on every topic that you argue here? Just to pick the easiest one, how many times have you had lunch with Donald Drumpf? Stop trying to reject everything with "You don't know, man", and actually respond to what I'm suggesting.