>>510501261
>Is "all surface vessels are obsolete" the new "tanks are obsolete" of the schizo-based online community?
A few points.
1. Military navy vessels are orders of magnitude more difficult and costly to produce than tanks.
2. They require way more crew.
3. They take way longer to deploy.
4. They take way longer to produce or replace.
5. They are all of remains of the military prestige of the jewnited states. Losing them to missiles while trying to chase updoots from losers on roddit and twatter would be devastating. Way more damaging than losing Abrahams tanks, which was pretty damaging in and of itself. If you lose a carrier to a missile you're fucking cooked.
6. They cannot be protected even from Kh-22 from the 60s, or Kh-31 antiship variant from the 90s or. Let along more modern anti-ship missiles like Onyx, lmfao.

>>509664697
LMAO
>>509665082
You can still build a brick facade better than ever. I'd do that. It's truly the White man's choice.
>>509665096
>they are stronger against wind
Buuuuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiit!
>and earthquakes
We get earthquakes. With enough reinforced concrete you can build a house that withstands it perfectly.
If an unusually strong earthquake breaks it though, it's time for demolition. Still very very very unlikely you will die.