War

[unicorn69]

I never said the navy was the strongest point, but it played a huge role in invasions. You're fumbling here my friend, I said that in a military point the navy is a huge factor. It plays a part in amphibian invasions regardless of manpower. Don't have a good navy? Kiss your ass goodbye when you step on the beach. And how am I missing your point? You keep changing the subject, your view on the subject kept changing. Is navy a huge role or not? If so, you proved my point, if not, then expain why. You're fumbling the subject, I can't see what side you're taking. If you're saying that a strong navy is needed for an invasion of China, then you just proved my point with China's sea and airforce being outdated compare to US fleets and aircrafts. It takes a combine attack from land, air, and sea to invade a country. But luckily China isn't ruled by the infantry/air force standard. Better yet, I ironiclly did the same thing you did in a game and I will show you. Don't bash me, but it's pretty interesting to a point:

As you see here, I outnumber the Japanese by FAAAAAAAR, I have over 7.5 million Chinese troops, with a stable but small airforce. I invaded Korea and made it a Communist nation. But what's the point? Well, I focus on industries, which you can clearly see the major cities near the coasts. And as for Japan? They are blocking my sea, while you can see on the list, my industries and military put me to number one. But with a lack of even a strong navy I couldn't even invade the simpliest of the Korean islands. Japan prevented me from doing anything.

Which also proved my point, I never said the United States or China would win, I was just stating facts. In a huge chance, the United States and China would have a statemate war or even worst. M.A.D.

My stance is that the navy is not a huge factor because of today's advanced technology, as I have said above. You also contradicted yourself when you said you need a combined attack from land, air, and sea to invade a country. You previously said you need only a strong navy. You statement just repeated what I said above.

[Mouzie]

My stance is that the navy is not a huge factor because of today's advanced technology, as I have said above. You also contradicted yourself when you said you need a combined attack from land, air, and sea to invade a country. You previously said you need only a strong navy. You statement just repeated what I said above.

Then I can say you're wrong, a naval force is very important, it's a requirement and a leading factor. I also never did, I said that the navy GOT all of that written down with aircraft carriers. I was making a point of the navy that is large like the United States having the entire requirements and thus should be leading in ANY invasion. Unless you're landlocked, you must focus the navy as a first lead and airforce next.

Saying is just silly and just false, I was just simply arguring your statement about naval. If you want to debate against the land or air forces then I would be happy, but we're debating purely on the idea that a naval force isn't as important, if so tell me WHY with PROOF. Showing me a so-called Chinese weapon is invalided, because even we don't know what the Chinese has or what the US has.

[unicorn69]

Then I can say you're wrong, a naval force is very important, it's a requirement and a leading factor. I also never did, I said that the navy GOT all of that written down with aircraft carriers. I was making a point of the navy that is large like the United States having the entire requirements and thus should be leading in ANY invasion. Unless you're landlocked, you must focus the navy as a first lead and airforce next.

Saying is just silly and just false, I was just simply arguring your statement about naval. If you want to debate against the land or air forces then I would be happy, but we're debating purely on the idea that a naval force isn't as important, if so tell me WHY with PROOF. Showing me a so-called Chinese weapon is invalided, because even we don't know what the Chinese has or what the US has.

I said the navy is partially useful for the INVADING FORCE. The army on the defensive would not need a big navy because of modern day technology that basically renders all but a aircraft carrier obsolete.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Russia got more than the US, so what are you talking about?

That isn't accurate. Russia's top sources for accessing stockpiles of wmd's says the US has more, while the USA's sources say Russia has more. So I think it is safe to say that this subject is under speculation and can't be answered with any real credibility by either you or I.

[Mouzie]

That isn't accurate. Russia's top sources for accessing stockpiles of wmd's says the US has more, while the USA's sources say Russia has more. So I think it is safe to say that this subject is under speculation and can't be answered with any real credibility by either you or I.

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Current U.S. and Russian Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Current U.S. and Russian Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles

Exactly. There is your American source.
Now go find Russia's and see if it matches up...
Somebody is obviously lying here.

[Cyberdyne]

This is all just speculation. How the hell do we know what the government is trying to hide from us? We don't.

So sleep well...

[Empire]

I said the navy is partially useful for the INVADING FORCE. The army on the defensive would not need a big navy because of modern day technology that basically renders all but a aircraft carrier obsolete.

navy is 1/3 of the power needed to win a conflict overseas. It is just as important as the air force and the infantry(the other 3rd's).

Navy not only restricts trade, it gets everyone over there, it provides tactical air support(yes the navy has planes), and is the basic seige force for costal offensives.
-------------------------------------------------

What really bothers me is how you keep saying "because of modern advancement" like the navy hasn't advanced like the air force and infantry have.

I mean you do realize that the navy has the most effective missles/airforce/nukes right? Their advantage is solely in tactical availability. You could fire off a nuke from 1000 miles away or you could fire it from 100miles. The cuban missle crisis?

The infantry is great, but china has billions of people. If you wanted to take them out man-vs.-man on a battlefield, it would take decades.

While the air force goes hand in hand with the navy, i see no point to descredit them is as being non-useful.

[unicorn69]

navy is 1/3 of the power needed to win a conflict overseas. It is just as important as the air force and the infantry(the other 3rd's).

Navy not only restricts trade, it gets everyone over there, it provides tactical air support(yes the navy has planes), and is the basic seige force for costal offensives.
-------------------------------------------------

What really bothers me is how you keep saying "because of modern advancement" like the navy hasn't advanced like the air force and infantry have.

I mean you do realize that the navy has the most effective missles/airforce/nukes right? Their advantage is solely in tactical availability. You could fire off a nuke from 1000 miles away or you could fire it from 100miles. The cuban missle crisis?

The infantry is great, but china has billions of people. If you wanted to take them out man-vs.-man on a battlefield, it would take decades.

While the air force goes hand in hand with the navy, i see no point to descredit them is as being non-useful.

I never said the navy is obsolete, however, it is playing an increasingly impratical role in modern warfare.

Are Navy surface ships sitting ducks to modern enemies?

To send troops to fight overseas, even against a modern army, all you need are transport ships, small but fast moving convoys, and a strong air force to protect the transport ships.

[Empire]

I never said the navy is obsolete, however, it is playing an increasingly impratical role in modern warfare.

Are Navy surface ships sitting ducks to modern enemies?

To send troops to fight overseas, even against a modern army, all you need are transport ships, small but fast moving convoys, and a strong air force to protect the transport ships.

Wow, and that guy actually graduated college? I mean wow, the sheer level of stupidity is just astounding.
1. He keeps making +1 scenarios. From radio-shack missle to nukes. The guy just adds firepower to prove his point.
2. He contradicts himself.
Example: No way to defend themselves. Then list several, proven/efficient ways for them to defend themselves.
3.Repeats defend themselves twice? What is this guy in highschool?
4. Quotes one ship being sunk repeatedly proving the entire navy isn't needed. Its pretty silly to say because "anti-ship" missles exist, ships are useless. Specialized weaponry is just that, special. not every single thing a combatant runs into willl be anti-w/e.
5.Talking about subjects he has no knowledge in:
Engines.
Ship Design.
Fuel.
Specific ships.
Reloading a weapon.
Really, really stupid weapon analysis on the gattling gun.
He doesn't understand flares. REALLY?
6. Sticking to one outdated ship. What most highschoolers do. They pick ONE thing and stick with it like it explains everything. Yes, someone messed up my order at mcdonalds, doesn't mean mcdonald will intentionally give me bad service for the rest of my life.

----------------

In conclusion. Please do not post links that are from biased, uninformed, childish opinions. I do not claim you to be any of these, but the author of that link is.(checked his other articles, apparently war is better than peace. nice).

[Atrox]

The time when someone will invent stealthy nukes, or invisible ones, we're all fucked.
Actually invisible nukes are not even sci-fi.
Add displays, some cameras.
??
profit.

[unicorn69]

Wow, and that guy actually graduated college? I mean wow, the sheer level of stupidity is just astounding.
1. He keeps making +1 scenarios. From radio-shack missle to nukes. The guy just adds firepower to prove his point.
2. He contradicts himself.
Example: No way to defend themselves. Then list several, proven/efficient ways for them to defend themselves.
3.Repeats defend themselves twice? What is this guy in highschool?
4. Quotes one ship being sunk repeatedly proving the entire navy isn't needed. Its pretty silly to say because "anti-ship" missles exist, ships are useless. Specialized weaponry is just that, special. not every single thing a combatant runs into willl be anti-w/e.
5.Talking about subjects he has no knowledge in:
Engines.
Ship Design.
Fuel.
Specific ships.
Reloading a weapon.
Really, really stupid weapon analysis on the gattling gun.
He doesn't understand flares. REALLY?
6. Sticking to one outdated ship. What most highschoolers do. They pick ONE thing and stick with it like it explains everything. Yes, someone messed up my order at mcdonalds, doesn't mean mcdonald will intentionally give me bad service for the rest of my life.

----------------

In conclusion. Please do not post links that are from biased, uninformed, childish opinions. I do not claim you to be any of these, but the author of that link is.(checked his other articles, apparently war is better than peace. nice).

Bad link. But I stand by my argument.

[Mouzie]

Exactly. There is your American source.
Now go find Russia's and see if it matches up...
Somebody is obviously lying here.

It's acutally a non-biased source (I assume), which what I wanted. It also have Chinese, French, and supposed Israeli nuclear weapons.

[Empire]

Nukes are simply a waste. Doesn't matter which side has which, it would be stupid to launch them.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

It's acutally a non-biased source (I assume), which what I wanted. It also have Chinese, French, and supposed Israeli nuclear weapons.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan research organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security in the 21st century. The Center is funded by grants from private foundations and the generosity of thousands of individual donors.

Non profit, non-partisan or not..if they're funded by the right people, I'm sure they can be influenced to throw disinformation out there.

I'm not at liberty to say if that is the case or not,
but the sources I researched, say that Russia claims the complete opposite of what U.S. states.
To be honest, I don't think either Russia or the U.S. would put all their cards on the table for public view..
Just my opinion. UN sanction or not. It's not like we always went by UN sanctions anyway if you know what I mean.