The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

America would defeat China in war

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,136 times Debate No: 32171
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that the United States would defeat the Chinese in the situation of full blown declared war. My opponent must argue that China would defeat the United States.

Round 1 is for acceptance only. Burden of proof is shared. Good luck.


I accept this debate. It would help, however, to clear up the term "win" a war. History has shown that wars are one primarily based on goals accomplished and winning a war could fall into either complete occupation or perhaps smaller struggles based on control over Taiwan, etc. As I understand it, China does not have sufficient Naval power to launch a land attack on the US and thus if I am to proceed it would be America invading the turf of China--the only plausible way if there is to be a war.
Debate Round No. 1


teenconservative forfeited this round.


My opponent has resigned the debate in the face of such an awe-inspiring opponent. God bless America.
Debate Round No. 2


I'll have you know that I still wish to continue the debate. You are unwise to blow your opportunity to get an extra argument in. Anyway, lets look at the facts.

1. The U.S.A spends more than the next 10 countries COMBINED on military readiness.

2. America has 13 active nuclear aircraft carrier groups traveling in all seven seas.

3. China has a whopping 1 active carrier- it's not even nuclear!

4. America has the support of many allies. Ex. GB, France, Germany, Israel, South Korea and more.

5. The United States has 5,208 active nuclear warheads.

6. We also have hundreds of high-tech ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missile) that can deliver these nukes.

7. The Chinese have NO ICBM's capable of reaching our shores.

8. America would enjoy complete air supremacy, with stealth technology such as the B2 bomber and F22 Raptor.

9. The Chinese would be forced to rely on cold war era MIG fighters. (We would eat them for breakfast.)

10. The economic power of the U.S. is much higher than China's. In the event of war, we would produce much more much faster than the Chinese.


There was nothing to argue against since my original post was meant in context of the clarification of what type of war, which is just as important in debating the general statistics of military force by which is the basis of your argument. You didn't do that. There is no discussion about "Who can win a war" without the goals and situational context by which something is "won." I find it a little silly debating this on the pure merit of military might when the US gravely over-powered Vietnam and yet lost. When the US forced itself upon the middle-east and by all sane professors of politics and history the US has suffered a defeat by the ends to the means of its goals [1] [2]. Even in the past the US has lossed battle with China inn WW2, however today is a different time and I like to go passed that.

A war with China would be a very different course of action than Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan but a comparison is helpful nonetheless when considering the "US Grand Strategy", if not "US Grand Imperial Hegemony" as Noam Chomsky would put it. I'll consider a likely hypothetical situation in global war strategy as opposed to simply comparing armies, which is silly. My opponent can rattle off US militaries superiority until he is blue in the face and yet circumstances beyond their control, geographic considerations and the "goal oriented wars" essentially dictates a won war. As I've said in my first argument China does not have the military capability to launch a ground invasion on the US. If a direct war between these two nations occurs it will be US attacking China, unlikely; the most likely scenario being a war between the control of Taiwan [3].

If I am to take teenconservatives debate in the most literal sense than I will have to tackle complete occupation of the two countries, neither by which is winnable by both countries. Any discussion of war becomes the discussion of nuclear capabilities by which the US can essentially obliterate humanities population several times over, only being beaten by Russia's quantity of nuclear bombs. China does not have a capable anti-missile defense system and thus, if the US chose, would obliterate the country of China by dropping 200 of its 1000 nuclear warheads. [4] Is this a win? I can certainly see how this is justifiable as a win in my opponents argument on the basis of a complete country and its million year history being destroyed in one day. If this were to happen the "win" achieved by obliterating a nation would be unmatched by the loss of world-wide credibility of the US; tantamount to this display of genocide would be the comparison of the US 1000x the evil of Al-Queda and lose support of every nation on Earth by which would then send the US into a collapsing disarray that no country could ever overcome.

My references are deleted in light of teenconservatives character limit among large chunks of paragraphs and points. Other-wise I cannot go in-depth in an in-depth type subject.I will re-post and respond.

Debate Round No. 3


The goal of each country in war would be the surrender of the other via treaty. There is no question that the United States would win. (See my above arguments)


My opponent has by all sense of the word has resigned. You obviously have a hard time reading and understanding basic points in paragraph form and cannot refute anything specifically of what I say. For the sake of the argument, Ill conclude the debate written prior and encourage my opponent to stop making debates when you obviously have a comprehension problem.
An interesting scenario of war is a modern "Battle of Midway" that is completely dominated by the US. When we talk about Pacific control we talk 100% domination of the US. Is this helpful to winning a land occupation/military dismemberment of China? Yes, and by the most marginal sense of any and all external factors that it almost becomes negligible in the face of other challenges. The goals in a land invasion will be both the East and South China sea by which it will have to take place. This is not a debate as far as an opinion of the "quality" of military might, this now becomes a statistical significance beyond by which any rational person can see how a land invasion would be a complete and utter failure by the US. China's active military is the largest in the world, and the reserve military forces double that of the US. The US needs more military and more ships to get our personnelle on the coast of China than what we have in our federal reserve. At 37 total transport ships with an average of 800 soldiers aboard each ship, if all of them were to be put in service at once then 21,000+ soldiers on the coast of China with all the aircraft and auxillary ship support the US could muster would be a failure so catastrophic that no General would ever plausibly initiate this attack.

I can see where this debate will go. Its not about the amount of soldiers, but rather the superior technology of the US. Currently the US is 20 years ahead in military technology of China. The aircraft, naval vessle and missles indeed would bombard China in very direct, sharp attacks if need be and will kill many soldiers. China doesa have some ground-defense anti-missiles, but it is probably inevitable that it will fall short of more advsnced missle offensives. Let me say this clearly to my opponent: I do believe that in a limited scale engagement the US can win certain strategic missions, and if this includes winning an objective in a single small war, the US most likely can win. My opponent has included that these two nations, however, would be a full-scale war that includes obsoletion of the military and no amount of technology can defeat the incredible numbers by which China's communist Government can mobilize their forces. Without proper land-forces and the transports needed as discussed above, a land-invasion is a logistical nightmare that only ends in US death. Even by the most hard-figures, facts and statistics of military technology in use on the massive coast of China it will always fail short of actually stepping on land and making any meaningful progress in defeating the entireity of China's army.

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by theunionforever61 2 years ago
The US and China would not be able to defeat each other in a war unless nukes were used. There is no way the US could invade China and force it to surrender, and there is no way the Chinese could invade the US right now and force it to surrender. China is such a large country that air power alone would never defeat it. The war would most likely be fought on the sea rather than on the ground or the air. It would, in my judgment, degenerate into a stalemate. How this would affect the Koreas is anyone's guess.
Posted by Alchemind 3 years ago
teenconservative, you are a troll. You had an attempt to debate me and squandered not even attempting to make use of anything I've typed, and flagrantly go around the things I said in clear syntax. I recommend you not make any more debates unless you're serious and take the time to read and comprehend others thoughts.
Posted by teenconservative 3 years ago
alchemind, I will start by saying that I don't appreciate the insults that you dished out during the debate. Also, you keep stressing the idea of land invasion... there does not have to be an occupation for a country to be victorious in war. The United States has a superior military in all aspects of fighting. if you found it so difficult to prove your case you shouldn't have accepted the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by amey 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: i am voting for con since he had better conduct and he also listed out many good facts about the american weaponry and con did not do so and also for showing patriotism for his motherland