Huh? I don’t see your response to why your math doesn’t add up anywhere?
Did you think I would forget?
My math adds up.
Forget what? You are the one forgetting stuff here - namely, the fact that Admirals are not the only strong fighters that the Navy has.
Besides that, do you not know what the “=~” sign means? You can’t start backtracking and pretend you never said that just 1 Yonko empire was comparable to the Navy & Warlords.
Those were your own very words. Navy + Warlords =~ 1 Yonko empire.
You’re only changing your tune now that I’ve shown how silly that is.
Uh, ~= means
approximately. Meaning it balances out.
Besides that, the Navy needing to deploy 2 Admirals to defeat a Yonko applies regardless of whether the Admirals are exactly equal or slightly stronger or weaker. I already mentioned that, so that excuse doesn’t work.
They will always need to send 2 Admirals for a guaranteed victory unless there’s so much of a difference in strength that 1 Admiral is always guaranteed to win against a Yonko or so much weaker that even 2 Admirals had no chance of doing the job. Both those options are clearly silly.
You are forgetting (or rather, deliberately ignoring) that Navy has Fleet Admiral + 3 Admirals + a shitload of Vice Admirals.
Which then means that you need
two Admirals against a Yonko, not just an Admiral and a bunch of Vice Admirals, which would be enough if we assume that Admiral = Yonko.
So why doesn’t the math add up even when using the disingenuous reasoning of pretending that Cross Guild bounties are equivalent to WG ones? Curious, no?
Except it does.
If Admiral = Yonko, then you don't need two Admirals to ensure victory against a Yonko, just an Admiral + some Vice Admirals. We saw that Yonko Commander can stall another Yonko, and stronger Vice Admirals are not that much weaker.
But if Yonko is stronger than an Admiral, then you
need two Admirals against a Yonko.
Stop acting like Admirals are the only strong fighters in the Navy.
All I did was point out the lies, omissions, prevarications and illogical statements you were making. Again, it’s not like your comments just disappeared:
- you tried to equate clearly distinct things like CG bounties & WG ones
- Ignored context for situations involving the Admirals while conveniently only remembering it when it came to the Yonko
- Made illogical claims like “a military shouldn’t consider all possibilities. They should only expect their multiple enemies to attack 1 at a time.”
- CG and WG bounties are obviously going to be relative to each other. Yes, it doesn't mean much in-universe, but bounties are a
story tool.
- I never ignored context, you simply made stuff up.
- No, you are just making stuff up to make Admirals look better. Fact of the matter is, if Admiral = Yonko, then the World Government could have wiped out Yonko empires one by one. Yet it didn't. Why? And no,
balance of power excuse doesn't work: any government wants to be an absolute authority, and Yonko aren't mafia, they are literally rulers with their own territories and subjects. The only way WG wouldn't wipe them out is if it
couldn't.
Where’s the lie? Are you going to try to dispute that when your comments are right there? Come on now.
If you are
seriously using "Eustass Kid vs Red Hair Pirates" as an argument for
anything, then you are lying about having read the manga. Because Red Hair fleets are
specifically pointed out as having been unusually pathetic, with the Red Hair Pirates' own crew being the
only crew that has
any fighting power of all of the Red Hair allied fleets.
Capisci?
Also, your excuses still don’t work. Countries throughout history still attack each other because would you believe it, unlike you they consider all possibilities and cover their backsides. They make pacts, keep forces in reserve, prepare contingencies, etc.
They don’t have the luxury of expecting their foes to only attack one at a time like you suggest. Again, even beyond just basic military sense, it’s common sense 101.
The WG doesn’t have the luxury of thinking that the Yonko have a set schedule where the others agree to do nothing when one makes a move.
LOLno, they do not consider all possibilities and they don't cover their backsides. If you really believe they do, then you don't have the first clue about history.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, do you really think they considered all possibilities? No. OK, maybe the Navy did - and Yamamoto warned against the attack. But the government (consisting of generals) failed to consider any possibility other than surprise attack = victory.
When Hannibal invaded Italy, he had a plan to defeat the Roman Republic, and
utterly failed at considering what may happen if he didn't succeed. In fact, he didn't even have a Plan B.
When Crassus invaded Parthia, he failed to consider
any of the things you had listed above.
French Republic decided to invade Egypt, and completely failed to consider a) the fact that they were invading a hithertho ally and b) question of how are they going to supply and support an effort overseas in face of British naval dominance. Needless to say, the invasion failed.
When Hitler invaded Poland, he failed to even consider the possibility of UK and France declaring war. Had the Allies made any serious offensive in 1939 or even 1940, they will have overran the weakly-defended German Western border and won the war then and there. Things is, they
assumed that Hitler
did in fact consider the possibility of the attack, and that any such offensive would have unacceptable casualties, and so decided not to do it.
Mao did his Great Leap Forward, and murdered 30 to 60 million of his own people.
United States invaded Afghanistan, and then proceeded to simply form a "democratic government" with absolutely
no regard for Afghan culture, tribal loyalties or literally anything they should have considered when forming a new Afghan government. And then went all surprised Pikachu face when the Taliban
won.
Humans are
shit at "considering all possibilities", and governments are not exempt from that fact. In fact, being bureaucracies, governments are distinctly
worse at it.
And Yonko are
not allies. World Government has
no reason to believe that
all the other Yonkos would gang up on it the moment it moved against a single Yonko.
We don’t have all eternity to be going over this. Just answer the simple question of why your math doesn’t add up. Navy & Warlords vs Big Mom pirates bounties…why is it so far from “=~” ?
Because "=~" was never supposed to be equal. I was clear from the beginning that only the Whitebeard Pirates
may have been capable of even challenging the Navy + Warlords one-on-one, and no other Yonko had a chance at that. But at the same time, you cannot have a Yonko being 1/4 the strength of the Admirals, because then Navy could wipe them out one by one.
It is like pre-WWII United States, United Kingdom, USSR and Japan all being great powers, or today, United States, China, India and Russia. Doesn't mean that they are all equal, but at the same time, no single great power could match all the the others at the same time in war.
Even his accelerated kick did nothing and luffy highlighted barrier for damage.
