Hi there, actual veteran here. Worked alongside the Navy many times.
No they're not. They're not the safest branch of the military but that's mostly because of electrical and mechanical accidents. You're talking out your ass.
It's been too long since we have had a war with anyone approaching a peer force. People forget that planes and helicopter can be shot down and ships sunk, when you're fighting someone with anywhere approaching the same level of tech.
It doesn't take being a vet to realize that basic truth.
Which is correct, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what he was talking about. It's true that the united states has lost war fighting potential due to focusing on counter insurgency rather than conventional warfare.
But Antonio on the other hand was just chestbeating as though he has the slightest clue about branch differences within the military.
I'm not saying we've lost any effectiveness necessarily, just that a lot of civilians, like myself, have lost all prospective on how dangerous and deadly war can actually be. If you don't make military history a hobby, you forget how bad it actually gets. Sure the navy is safe now, because insurgents don't have a navy, but it'll be a lot less safe when a bigger threat presents itself.
I'll say it. We've lost effectiveness. NATO would get smoked in a ground war with the Russians. We've gotten too used to shooting desert rats that don't have artillery and air power.
The Navy is safe now. That's the point. They aren't putting their lives on the line for much besides diabetes. That has been the case for more than half a century.
Hi there, actual veteran here. Worked alongside the Navy many times.
No they're not. They're not the safest branch of the military but that's mostly because of electrical and mechanical accidents. You're talking out your ass.
It's been too long since we have had a war with anyone approaching a peer force. People forget that planes and helicopter can be shot down and ships sunk, when you're fighting someone with anywhere approaching the same level of tech.
It doesn't take being a vet to realize that basic truth.
Which is correct, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what he was talking about. It's true that the united states has lost war fighting potential due to focusing on counter insurgency rather than conventional warfare.
But Antonio on the other hand was just chestbeating as though he has the slightest clue about branch differences within the military.
He doesn't. He's a foreigner and a faggot.
I'm not saying we've lost any effectiveness necessarily, just that a lot of civilians, like myself, have lost all prospective on how dangerous and deadly war can actually be. If you don't make military history a hobby, you forget how bad it actually gets. Sure the navy is safe now, because insurgents don't have a navy, but it'll be a lot less safe when a bigger threat presents itself.
I'll say it. We've lost effectiveness. NATO would get smoked in a ground war with the Russians. We've gotten too used to shooting desert rats that don't have artillery and air power.
The Navy is safe now. That's the point. They aren't putting their lives on the line for much besides diabetes. That has been the case for more than half a century.
So not enemy fire, like I said.
The exact opposite of what you said, retard. The Navy is almost perfectly safe save for accidents, that's the point.