Military Hierarchy

Ok so me and PD got into a rather long and drawn out discussion about what is better in the military. Somehow we went from Gundam vs Zoids into this but I'll skip that part. We more or less both agreed that Space > Air > Sea and Land but got into the argument about which is better... Sea or Land. So after arguing ourselves into a corner we throw it out to you guys. Explanations why would be appreciated and no just cause crap either. We both already tried that and it doesn't work.

Another important piece of info: neither party can use objects outside of their respective territory. For example: Sea can't use jets from aircraft carriers, land cant use boats, etc.

Missles are allowed, though.

BTW, I'm supporting land. They've got bunkers and shit.

Im just speculating... but to me it would seem cheaper to build more stuff thats landbased, sentry-wise at least.


Carriers? Destroyers? Those are expensive as shit.

lol we are not doing this from a economic stand point. Its more of a which can fuck each other up more kinda thing. Otherwise space would be dead last considering how expensive that it

oh well... shit I wish I could change my vote.


Fuck the land. Sea wins. Big time

Explain.

well cause... they got..

stuff.

First and foremost... submarines.

I guarantee the most badass ship of the sea is the submarine.
You said missiles counted so subs would definitely count.
Ok ok sure they can be intercepted but so what, pretty much everything from both sides can be. Ballistic ICBMs arent going to get a submarine. Thousands of feet underwater is probably the safest place for a ship.

Well.. you said carriers cant send off planes, so really they cant do much except transport. Besides this isnt Starcraft where land bases can fly, this is a real mobile base, so to speak.

Destroyers would just lob shells into said "bunkers and shit". Nothing actually in military use is going to stop that once its shot. Though Ive seen some prototype "anti bullets" before. But who cares about that.

If any cruiser missile would fire at a ship in a fleet with a destroyers in it, the Phalanx miniguns would take care of those no problem.

Frigates are basically... like, shields for a Carrier should a torpedo shoot at it but no worries there...

Since theres no limit on the amount of money... theoretically, anything from the sea could make something of equal or greater worth than something on the land.
What about a boat that goes 100mph, but shoots nukes and shit and it can go underwater?

I mean cmon.. thats badass right there.


With all that said though... both are still pretty equal. Sea doesnt really win big time like I said before. I just happen to be biased for the matter since Im actually in the Navy ;)

Also I dont know if this matters but Im posting this as if it were a duel between the two of them. I dont really know if its supposed to be about who would do their job better or who would kill each other first.

First of all, ICBMs have a high chance of taking out subs whether submerged or not. Going by the principles of how depth charges work, just a shock wave can rupture a sub and they'll sink. If not for the shock wave, then the EMPs gonna do half the job for land. All that cool badass shit: no electronics = fucked. I know some (not all) ships are fitted with countermeasures for EMP. For those, missiles are fine.

Boats can go 100 mph? Missiles go an excess of 2000 mph. Game over.

Sea's got bunker busters? Then just dig deeper. They're in a safe zone, while not losing the ability to launch missiles. Submarines aren't safe as there are anti-submarine missiles out there.

meh *shrugs shoulders*

Well my vote still went into land.



still more safe than a giant carrier on the surface though :/

Then going by your logic would mean, who ever can burrow deeper is the winner? Land's got bunkers... Bunkers > Subs for safety. I know you voted land, but just making sure you voted for the right reasons. :)

Yeah? Well Id like to see a bunker do a barrel roll.

Sea. Some submarines carry nuclear missiles and are capable of firing them. Sure you can fire nukes from the land but you wouldn't know where to fire them at. I'm pretty sure most of these are "stealth" subs (I don't know the technical terms and such) so it's not like you can't destroy them, you just would have no idea where they were as the only ways of detecting them as far as I know is by using other subs.

I went with the sea.

The reason is nuclear warfare. This would screw the land based armies. Large armies would be destroyed. Entire cities would be destroyed. Not to mention nuclear radiation is terrible. Any large standing army on the surface would be decimated. Even if the missile is shot down, fall out would fall onto the land. I guess winds could blow it to the sea...BUT WE HAVE NUCLEAR SUBS! I dunno... xD Guess you can go underground...

If they dig underground, fire some bunker busters. You say dig deeper, then build better bunker busters. How deep can you dig anyway? You have to dig deeper than 20 meters underground to escape a nuclear bunker buster. Anyway, if you're underground, how can you attack? Lol.

Defensively... Missiles get shot down just like over land. Same thing. You mention shockwaves from explosions... But how far can such a shockwave go? Why don't we move away from where the missile can impact? Assuming a missile can impact and doesn't get shot down first...

If boats sitting in the middle of the ocean... You can't really hit them with anything other than a missile... And missiles are easily shot down, especially if you can detect it really early which you pretty much can nowadays... That's why you never see any land to sea combat. It's always sea to sea or air to sea combat... =A=

Did boats kick Hitler's ass out of Africa, Italy, France, and Belgium? I think not!

SCREAMING EAGLES!

They would've done the job a hell of a lot faster with the firepower we have now.

But then all our wonderful WWII based games would just consist of pressing a big red button with the word "NUKE" printed on it.

Actually...they sort of did since without the ''boats'' the Allied soldiers wouldn't even have been able to reach Europe / Africa to fight at all.

land without land you cannot resupply or recruit new soldiers.

Land. I Will Follow My Brothers Footsteps Into Becoming A Ranger.

Land has nukes too.


'Cause I'm sure you can build new types of bunker busters at sea where it's brimming with fresh materials. Also, they've got wireless controls and missile silos and shit now-a-days. They can attack with a push of couple buttons. Easy shit.


Submarines can't shoot missiles down. If all the surface ships were destroyed by nukes launched by land, then the submarines are fucked by anti-submarine missiles that can be launched from the land.

As for the shockwave:
I'm pretty sure a nuke can make a pretty big ass shockwave with an even bigger EMP radius.


I'm guessing you don't keep up with military technology. If missiles were shot down as easily as you claim, they'd be obsolete. Also, missiles aren't as easily tracked as you claim. They can be tracked in one of 3 ways:

1. Satallite. Which belongs to space and therefore is not included in this discussion.
2. Radar. Cruise missiles (prominently used missile to take down ships) fly too low for it to be detected by radar.
3. The naked eye. Once you see this shit, it's too fucking late.

Argument invalid.