You've still got to protect against invasion, enemy heavy units raiding your convoys in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, dealing with enemy's battlefleet at sea, and of course your former ally's fleet in harbour.

And even then I don't think it's accurate for the Second World War either. Especially early and mid war in Europe.

What enables the old Armoured Cruisers and Armed Merchant Cruisers to maintain their distant blockade to choke the life out of the enemy's economy without being attacked by superior enemy forces? The battlefleet.

What prevents the enemy battle fleet from sortieing out of harbour, providing cover for minesweepers to clear those minefields and attacking those convoys and their escorts? Could be having a battle fleet of your own.

That shits expensive! Actually fighting is for cruisers and destroyers, battleships are for making fighting impractical to keep the enemy from leaving their ports. The Royal Navy was decisive in WW1 to the point where the naval submarine was invented as a going concern to asymmetrically mitigate it!

Reading too many nostalgic stories of menswear forums and setting off on my own journey as a poster-errant

“Read theory.” The closest Angela Davis comes to talking about an alternative in her book, Are Prisons Obsolete, is talking about how a white American forgave a Black South African man for killing their daughter during riots immediately prior to the fall of apartheid

The rhetorical move of the midwit abolitionists will be, you just haven’t read theory. I’ve read theory. This is explicit in Mariame Kaaba’s work. it’s all over the anarchist zines you love. The theorists who won’t go there still will not present an alternative that isn’t prison by another name.

The Starmer re-elect is dead. The souffle does not rise twice, the prime minister does not come back from that kind of approval rating, or indeed the level of hatred he inspires in the country now.

The Ye-8 (Fishbed/Eurofighter forbidden love child) also had vertical 2D ramps scheduled according to πₖ.