NationStates Jolt Archive

Going back to one of the world's original debates (Probably beaten in age ONLY by religious debates) which one, army or navy, do you think is more important in terms of defense/offense for a nation-state? Any composite of both forces is acceptable (Modern or old, brown water or blue, volunteer or conscripted, etc.).

I know there's enough military geeks here to keep this going, so discuss!

Navy, unless you expand army to include Airforce (original army component) then I would say equal.

There seems to be more musicals about the Navy....for some reason....

Depends. If you're an island or peninsula nation or surrounded by allies/nutrual countries and water, then navy is the way to go. If you've got a landlocked nation, then army is the obvious choice.

Of course, unless it's a landlocked or island nation, then composite is the best route. Navies can't attack in-range land targets as effectively as armies and are useless against out-of-range land targets. And armies are useless against naval forces. Mostly because marching on water Jesus-style is harder than it looks and tanks aren't the best floatation devices.

As for the other options, modern blows up old, but old is cheaper and doesn't rely on dwindling non-renewable resources or produce the deadliest waste product known to man. Volunteer forces fight better than conscripted forces of similar circumstances and training because volunteers actually want to fight and conscripted troops often don't. Navies need to be able to venture out to sea. Rivers be damned, inland is where the army fights, not the navy. Navies fight in seas and oceans.

Navy has more buttsecks, and is consequently much more of a blow for enemy morale.

But if Navies truly are more prone to teh high kicks, then they could just counter with another Navy...or worse, the enemy could be like Yuropeens and not care too much about teh Gay.

I'm amazed and impressed that nobody has come in with the old:

"Navy! Navy rocks! We have aircraft carriers with naval aviators that would waste the Air Force like Tom Cruise wasting a barely credited actor whose face you never see! And we got the Navy Seals, that would waste the Army like Charlie Sheen wasting a barely credited vaguely Middle Eastern looking actor! Navy! Accelerate your life!!!!"

There really shouldn't be a distinction in modern warfare, it all just becomes a game of who has the biggest, fastest, shiniest toy.

I mean, tanks are pointless, only thing they're good for is to fight another tank, once air superiority comes in, they're big hunks of pointless metal on the ground.

Huge ships, pointless, I'll accept an aircraft carrier I suppose.

Mobile troops with actual equipment, air cover and aircraft carriers, throw in some submarines and you're all set to go, backed up by some nuclear weapons for when the shit goes down.

I'm amazed and impressed that nobody has come in with the old:

"Navy! Navy rocks! We have aircraft carriers with naval aviators that would waste the Air Force like Tom Cruise wasting a barely credited actor whose face you never see! And we got the Navy Seals, that would waste the Army like Charlie Sheen wasting a barely credited vaguely Middle Eastern looking actor! Navy! Accelerate your life!!!!"

But, see, there are some problems with this.

First is the fact that the Army can also claim Charlie Sheen. The fact that, while in the army, he served with both the Green Goblin and Dr. Percival Cox really does push Sheen to their side.

Second is the fact that Tom Hanks > Tom Cruise. I really shouldn't need to go into this, as it's rather self-evident.

And, just in case you were still on the fence, the Army holds the tiebreaker in Mel Gibson. Not only can he waste faceless asians, but he can insult jews and cops all in one breath! I mean, come on! What more can you ask for?

ARMY STRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!

***************************************************

I refuse to endorse the Navy.

Go Army. Beat Navy.

***************************************************

In before 'Marines FTW'.

I'm amazed and impressed that nobody has come in with the old:

"Navy! Navy rocks! We have aircraft carriers with naval aviators that would waste the Air Force like Tom Cruise wasting a barely credited actor whose face you never see! And we got the Navy Seals, that would waste the Army like Charlie Sheen wasting a barely credited vaguely Middle Eastern looking actor! Navy! Accelerate your life!!!!"

I wouldn't say Navy jets are superior to air force jets. The thing about land is that you can build longer airstrips and launch bigger, often better planes.

And the Navy Seals require more time and money to train. The Seals are more limited in number and are just as vulnerable to snipers and air strikes.

Again, it depends on the circumstances. More countries bordering you via land=more army. More coastline=more navy.

But, see, there are some problems with this.

First is the fact that the Army can also claim Charlie Sheen. The fact that, while in the army, he served with both the Green Goblin and Dr. Percival Cox really does push Sheen to their side.

Good point...and Sheen's dad was so loyal to the army, he killed Colonel Kurtz for criticizing them on Cambodia AM Talk Radio...


Second is the fact that Tom Hanks > Tom Cruise. I really shouldn't need to go into this, as it's rather self-evident.

But Tom Hanks was Navy, wasn't he? I remember seeing him in a dress naval uniform...oh, wait, that was the halloween party scene in Philadelphia.


And, just in case you were still on the fence, the Army holds the tiebreaker in Mel Gibson. Not only can he waste faceless asians, but he can insult jews and cops all in one breath! I mean, come on! What more can you ask for?

Mel Gibson, Army? "We Were Soldiers?" "The Patriot""? I was thinking "Bird on a Wire"...

I wouldn't say Navy jets are superior to air force jets. The thing about land is that you can build longer airstrips and launch bigger, often better planes.

Nuh uh, because Mav and Goose could launch the Spruce Goose off a saltine with nothing but a short load of fuel and a Kenny Loggins cassette!


And the Navy Seals require more time and money to train. The Seals are more limited in number and are just as vulnerable to snipers and air strikes.

The Navy has plenty of budget and time to train as many Seals as they want...and if they run out, we just send more workers to harvest gold, iron, wood, vespene gas, and whatever else you build those guys out of.


Again, it depends on the circumstances. More countries bordering you via land=more army. More coastline=more navy.

But every country has more sky than either land or sea! 4 pi r^2, so as you go up in radius from the center of the earth, the area increases!

So, what we need is giant robots that transform from submarines to destroyers to tanks to space shuttles to locomotives to robots.

I think that the Army (that is, ground forces) is paramount, except for archipelago countries maybe.

By the way, ground forces include also anti-aircraft and anti-ship defences (like coastal batteries, SA missiles). So ground forces first and foremost.

Sea and air forces are complementary in defensive operations, and the key support for offensive operations. But one cannot rely on sea and air forces alone.

For Britain it was always the navy.

For Britain it was always the navy.

Just bend over and think of England...

Good point...and Sheen's dad was so loyal to the army, he killed Colonel Kurtz for criticizing them on Cambodia AM Talk Radio...

Egads! I had forgotten about Papa Sheen toppling the Green Beret. This changes things.

As I'm sure you know, R. Lee Ermy aided in that endeavor. As a Marine, he served in the Department of the Navy. This is enough to cancel out Mel Gibson.

And Papa Sheen wouldn't have made it anywhere near Kurtz without a ride on that Navy Swiftboat. This makes up for the discrepancy between Hanks and Cruise.

It appears that the tide has turned to the Navy's favor. This is a Truth that I can't Handle.

Of course - and really, Toomey, you know this better than anyone - there's an x-factor that has yet to be mentioned. Matthew Broderick.

Now, Broderick wasn't much of a soldier. But he WAS banging Sarah Jessica Parker, even back when that was actually something worth bragging about. So I think this is the new tie-breaker.

SJP has won this battle. Advantage: Army.

ARMY STRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For Britain it was always the navy.

Meh.

Hastings 1066. The consequences of losing ground battles.
Waterloo 1816. The consequences of having a good army.
El Alamein 1943. The consequences of having a good army.

Of course Britain, being an archipelago country and having a vast overseas empire, had to rely strongly on navy, but that doesn't mean that the Britons have always undervalued ground combat.

Egads! I had forgotten about Papa Sheen toppling the Green Beret. This changes things.

As I'm sure you know, R. Lee Ermy aided in that endeavor. As a Marine, he served in the Department of the Navy. This is enough to cancel out Mel Gibson.

And Papa Sheen wouldn't have made it anywhere near Kurtz without a ride on that Navy Swiftboat. This makes up for the discrepancy between Hanks and Cruise.

It appears that the tide has turned to the Navy's favor. This is a Truth that I can't Handle.

Of course - and really, Toomey, you know this better than anyone - there's an x-factor that has yet to be mentioned. Matthew Broderick.

Now, Broderick wasn't much of a soldier. But he WAS banging Sarah Jessica Parker, even back when that was actually something worth bragging about. So I think this is the new tie-breaker.

SJP has won this battle. Advantage: Army.

ARMY STRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I suppose it would do no good to use Bruce Willis for the Coast Guard...

Coast Guard: What's Our Recruiting Motto Again?

Can you get navies of undead, like you can armies?

Let's see... Switzerland, Slovakia, Nepal, Mongolia, Chad, Rwanda, Paraguay...
Yep, definitely the army! :D

Meh.

Hastings 1066. The consequences of losing ground battles.
Waterloo 1816. The consequences of having a good army.
El Alamein 1943. The consequences of having a good army.

Of course Britain, being an archipelago country and having a vast overseas empire, had to rely strongly on navy, but that doesn't mean that the Britons have always undervalued ground combat.

I didn't say the army was unimportant, but the navy was always more important to us. There would have been no empire without it, no discoveries and exploration, no trade.

Defeating the Spanish Armada
Battle of Trafalgar
Battle of the Nile
Battle of Jutland (somewhat pyrrhic but important)
Battle of the Atlantic (we would have folded long before El Alamein without it)

Where would the Venetian Republic have been without their navy?

Can you get navies of undead, like you can armies?

They have to be specially trained to develop gas bladders that gather the efluence of their rotting to help them float.

Better than the "Bat and Mist" vampire air force, though...

I suppose it would do no good to use Bruce Willis for the Coast Guard...

Coast Guard: What's Our Recruiting Motto Again?

Dammit, I forgot about Bruce Willis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_of_the_Sun)...

This will never end. Should we just make a DMZ at the 38th parallel between the Army and the Navy?

lets see which side has one the most Football games.

Going back to one of the world's original debates (Probably beaten in age ONLY by religious debates) which one, army or navy, do you think is more important in terms of defense/offense for a nation-state? Any composite of both forces is acceptable (Modern or old, brown water or blue, volunteer or conscripted, etc.).

I know there's enough military geeks here to keep this going, so discuss!

無 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BA)

It entierly depends on one's situation.

Imagine a war between Switzerland and New Zealand. A navy is useless for attacking/defending Switzerland but of utmost importance for New Zealand.

All that having been said, army for offense. You really haven't won until you've got boots on the ground.

As for the Hollywood crowd, ya'll haven't accounted for Clint "Heartbreak Ridge" Eastwood yet.

John Wayne splits it 3 ways - Green Beanie, SeaBee, and Uncle Sam's Misguided Children - so he doesn't count.

(And Chuck Norris runs home to mama and pisses his bed when Clint and John come hunting...)

Dammit, I forgot about Bruce Willis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_of_the_Sun)...

:eek2: How'd I miss that one?!?!? Any good?

This will never end. Should we just make a DMZ at the 38th parallel between the Army and the Navy?

Sounds like the best plan - if the Duke can find enough love to spread around for both, that's good enough for me...

:eek2: How'd I miss that one?!?!? Any good?

Not really.

Not terrible. Just not worth going out of your way to see.

無 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BA)
As for the Hollywood crowd, ya'll haven't accounted for Clint "Heartbreak Ridge" Eastwood yet.

Oh, yeah...and what was that one he did, "Where Eagles Dare"...

And he was USA(ret) in "Gran Torino"...

I'm really having a hard time finding a Hollywood figurehead for the National Guard...

I didn't say the army was unimportant, but the navy was always more important to us. There would have been no empire without it, no discoveries and exploration, no trade.
I agree.


Defeating the Spanish Armada

Though there a storm helped a bit, didn't it? ;)


Battle of the Atlantic (we would have folded long before El Alamein without it)

Yep, quite important because it kept the supplies coming to Britain.
Anyway, I think that the best strategical naval feat of Britain in WW2 was winning the Mediterranean and keeping Malta.

Where would the Venetian Republic have been without their navy?
Though without a strong army and the Count of Carmagnola they would have been totally screwed by us Milanese at Maclodio - like it happened to the Superb Republic of Genova.

I'm really having a hard time finding a Hollywood figurehead for the National Guard...

Hmmm. Tough one.

Rambo kicked NG ass, but that doesn't really count, because Stallone wasn't in the guard.

I'm going with Ellen Barkin (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082608/). In a shout-out to my alma mater.

In the security field, peaceful diplomacy is far more preferable than deployment of military forces in the vast majority of cases, so choosing between using the army or the navy to tackle a problem is a bit like choosing between watching "Big Brother" or "Deal or No Deal" i.e. choosing between two stupendously shit selections. So my answer will be "bah, humbug" :D

無 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BA)

It entierly depends on one's situation.

Imagine a war between Switzerland and New Zealand. A navy is useless for attacking/defending Switzerland but of utmost importance for New Zealand.

All that having been said, army for offense. You really haven't won until you've got boots on the ground.
Maybe, but how are you going to get those boots there in the first place? Unless you happen to be connected to that country...

Not really.

Not terrible. Just not worth going out of your way to see.

OK, thanks. :)

Oh, yeah...and what was that one he did, "Where Eagles Dare"...

And he was USA(ret) in "Gran Torino"...

Yep.

I'm really having a hard time finding a Hollywood figurehead for the National Guard...

Keith Carradine and Powers Boothe Southern Comfort
Ronny Cox in Taps

Can you get navies of undead, like you can armies?

Yes you can. See "Pirates of the Caribbean".

Maybe, but how are you going to get those boots there in the first place? Unless you happen to be connected to that country...

Exactly why the answer is still that Zen Mu.

Maybe, but how are you going to get those boots there in the first place? Unless you happen to be connected to that country...

You just hitch a ride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yo-_qpfPNA).

:D

Maybe, but how are you going to get those boots there in the first place? Unless you happen to be connected to that country...

ICBMPC. InterContinental Ballistic Missile Personnel Carrier.
Or
TTTCOTEWSK. Tunnelling Through The Center Of The Earth With Swiss Knives.:D

Keith Carradine and Powers Boothe Southern Comfort

I've never even heard of that movie.

must.rent.now.

Exactly why the answer is still that Zen Mu.
I was wondering what that was doing there.

ICBMPC. InterContinental Ballistic Missile Personnel Carrier.
Or
TTTCOTEWSK. Tunnelling Through The Center Of The Earth With Swiss Knives.:D
Hmm... Option one puts boots on the ground, but also other parts of your troop as well. Option might work, but seems to lack the ability to get there on time for the battle.

Hmmm. Tough one.

Rambo kicked NG ass, but that doesn't really count, because Stallone wasn't in the guard.


Yeah, that guy he truckjacks isn't exactly Eastwood...

Ronny Cox in Taps

Oh, yeah...the guy saved from sniper fire by a gate.

You know, that actually was a decent movie.

In before 'Marines FTW'.

But in a lot of countries the Marines are not a separate branch but are instead part of the Navy.

ergo... Navy FTW.


Bah, in any case, my family ties mean I'm going to have to say the Air Force drops bombs on both branches... often literally.

I've never even heard of that movie.

must.rent.now.

Twas pretty good.

I was wondering what that was doing there.

:-)

But in a lot of countries the Marines are not a separate branch but are instead part of the Navy.

ergo... Navy FTW.


Bah, in any case, my family ties mean I'm going to have to say the Air Force drops bombs on both branches... often literally.

Hmm...does the Air Force include our eventual Space Navy?

Hmm...does the Air Force include our eventual Space Navy?

Ah but that depends. There are two views - a) that whatever space military will run like the Navy, with appropriate ranks and focus on big ships (see Star Trek) or b) it will be run like the air-force with more of a focus on fighters (Wing commander)

So take your pick. Personally I like the 40K take, with the Imperial Navy consisting of killometer long gothic battleships with gargoyles, buttresses and loading guns using ropes, pullies and slave labour :D

You need both. You can't control the ground war without the army, and you can't fight over seas without the navy.

Yeah, that guy he truckjacks isn't exactly Eastwood...

Indeed.

Oh, yeah...the guy saved from sniper fire by a gate.

You know, that actually was a decent movie.

Indeed it was.

But in a lot of countries the Marines are not a separate branch but are instead part of the Navy.

ergo... Navy FTW.


Bah, in any case, my family ties mean I'm going to have to say the Air Force drops bombs on both branches... often literally.

USMC still falls under the Department of the Navy, AFAIK.

I'm amazed and impressed that nobody has come in with the old:

"Navy! Navy rocks! We have aircraft carriers with naval aviators that would waste the Air Force like Tom Cruise wasting a barely credited actor whose face you never see! And we got the Navy Seals, that would waste the Army like Charlie Sheen wasting a barely credited vaguely Middle Eastern looking actor! Navy! Accelerate your life!!!!"
That sort of hyperbole is reserved for overlooking Obama's failings.

I was wondering what that was doing there.


Hmm... Option one puts boots on the ground, but also other parts of your troop as well. Option might work, but seems to lack the ability to get there on time for the battle.

Bring glue.

If you're on an island, it's a navy. If you're part of a continent, it's the army.

If you're on an island, it's a navy. If you're part of a continent, it's the army.
Psychic copycat...