America would defeat China in war
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 is for acceptance only. Burden of proof is shared. Good luck.
teenconservative forfeited this round.
My opponent has resigned the debate in the face of such an awe-inspiring opponent. God bless America.
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  . 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 .
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.  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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by amey 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
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
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.