Armed Force War: United States vs Any Country
Round I: Acceptance and descriptions of armies (not missiles)
Round II: Strategic battle moves - United States attacks your country FIRST; United Nations, NATO and other military alliances not allowed
Round III: Responsive moves and rebuttal
Round IV: Re-presentation of arguments
Round V: Responsive moves, rebuttal and conclusive arguments
Data of my military force (the United States Armed Forces):
GDP (PPP): $16.72 trillion
Nominal GDP: $16.768 trillion
Defense budget: $612.5 billion
Oil reserves: 20.68 billion barrels per day
Active frontline personnel: 1.43 million
Active reserve personnel: 850,880
Total aircraft strength: 13,683
Transport aircraft: 5,222
Trainer aircraft: 2,745
Fighter aircraft: 2,271
Fixed-wing attack aircraft: 2,601
Armored fighting vehicles (AFVs): 25,782
Self-propelled guns (SPGs): 1,934
Towed artillery: 1,791
Multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRSs): 1,330
Total naval strength: 473
Aircraft carriers: 10
Coastal Defense Craft: 13
Mine Warfare: 13
Labor force: 155 million
Merchant marine strength: 393
Major ports and terminals: 24
Roadway coverage: 6.58661 million
Railway coverage: 224,792
All data from Global Firepower except PPP GDP and nominal GDP (from Wikipedia).
Anyone accepting this debate must argue against certain ratings of energy, training and technology given by me. Once the country is given by my opponent in Round 1, in Round 2 I will give the rankings by energy, technology and training. Morale in armies does not count. The debaters will be acting commander-in-chief, chairperson of the joint chiefs of army staff, chief strategist and President of the nation. Money in international debt will not be counted. For further reference, these are the top ten most powerful military powers (by my own ratings, after research from Global Firepower, Wikipedia, Forbes magazine, Business Insider, technology developmental programs, military training and size videos and various strongly reliable and accurate sources):
1. United States
3. China (People's Republic of China)
4. United Kingdom
9. Pakistan = Canada
10. South Korea = Japan
The energy, technology and training ratings will be based on rank, in addition to published Global Firepower firepower rating. All subject to the terms and conditions of the Instigator (tejretics).
Lol @ how stupidly made-up this is going to be. But I accept and agree to the rules as outlined in Round 1. My country of choice is Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia's economic, domestic, and military figures for the coming conflict are published below.
GDP Total: $1.652 trillion
Nominal: 777.870 billion
Total Population: 26,939,583
Total Aircraft: 652
Total Naval Strength: 55
Oil Production: 9,900,000 bbl/day
Labor Force: 8,012,000
Defense Budget: $56,725,000,000
Square Land Area: 2,149,690 km
United States Air Force sends 2 aircraft carriers and 200 fighter aircraft to the Al Sulayyil ballistic missile base, most aircraft being Lockheed MC-130s. Send one Lockheed MC-130 (Combat Talon II) and launch a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb-tipped missile. With a blast yield of 11 tons of TNT, it obliterates the whole ballistic missile base. Send a positional assault of the King Faisal Naval base with 13 destroyers, 46 submarines, and 3 aircraft carriers with 250 fighter aircraft; launch 15 Tomahawk missiles with submunitions dispensers with BLU 97/B Combined Effects Bomb warheads, shattering frigate and corvette armor and destroying oil-carrying ships on accurate ballistic aim. Also launch an air offensive at the King Abdulaziz Naval Base; with a swift following naval offensive, launch another 20 Tomahawk missiles with the BLU 97/B Combined Effects Bomb, causing great damage and destruction to both Saudi naval bases. Also send a fearsome air-strike of Sana'a, and gain control over the anarchic Yemen; position land troops at the Yemen-Saudi border.
Source: Wikipedia, Global Firepower, Britannica Encyclopaedia Online, the Forbes magazine, CIA World Factbook
OMFG did you just seriously invade the #2 oil producer in the world and the birthplace of Muhammad (with a non-Muslim country to boot) without any legal, moral, or political justifications and without any economic afterthought to yourself and the rest of the world whatsoever?!?!
Lol let me show you how this actually plays out:
Saudi War Aims
Art of War 101 says the first thing a commander should do prior to even going to war is to know clearly what your military & political objectives are. Mine are two:
1) That the sovereignty of the Saudi government and people remains separate from the United States.
2) That the United States Armed Forces ceases armed hostiles against Saudi Arabia.
If I can accomplish these wartime objectives above then I win the war.
Muslim World Declares Jihad
Just like Iraq 2003, the US (under Pro's presidency) has just unilaterally invaded a Muslim country without first knowing the amazing complexity of the Koran and Islamic culture or understanding the awe-inspiring forces that religious fervor can bring to a protracted war. In this case -though Pro's rules forbid me of making a grand military alliances with other Muslim countries- Pro's rules do NOT prevent the massive influx of Muslim paramilitary groups and flooding of Islamic freedom fighters (literally in the millions) from around the world that are going to rush fervently to my defense. And though Pro's rules explictantly forbid enlisting civilian population figures into the Saudi Armed Forces, I need not do any such thing. In fact, I let the influx of foreign freedom fighters operate exactly as they are presented; government independent paramilitary organizations. And of course, under Geneva Conventions, international law, and military definition, non-state paramilitary groups (like terrorist organizations) are NOT formally counted as military combatants. The effect of this colossal blunder by Pro is a massive muslim fighting force and expected insurgency numbering literally in the millions, especially if the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca is any great indicator )http://en.wikipedia.org...
Next, this political-military blunder by Pro also has the effect of immediately tying down US Armed Forces at home and around the world. If the White House hasn't been burned down yet due to enraged Muslim-America protesters or even a spectacular terrorist attack, then Muslim civilian populations in Iraq, Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and Europe are going to be in all out riot mode. US military bases and embassies in the UK, Germany, Italy, and Turkey, are going to be stormed with Muslim rioters and burnt down to a crisp. Meanwhile, the rioting Muslim populations in Egypt is going to very crucially shut-down the Suez canal to all Western trade - cutting off lifeblood energy supplies to Europe, and sending US and European economies and stock-markets into galactic free fall. Pro will therefore have no choice but to eventually divert US military assets from the Saudi campaign to other parts of the world or face diplomatc & economic costs that are spiraling out of control. And all of this will occur within the first 48 hours of war or less.
Also, no matter what happens then on the battlefield, the whole world -and likely even America proper- is going to be fervently against Pro and the insane Government of the US.
Europe, China, India, and Japan will immediately pass crippling Economic Sanctions against the US.
Pro's rules have forbidden formal diplomatic & military alliances with other countries, but they have NOT dismissed the "involvement" and "existence" of other countries. The political effect of the US invading one of the largest oil exporters in the world (and foolishly destroying Saudi oil tankers) is the logical assumption that all major energy importing countries (which is basically everybody) will pass economic sanctions on their own merits against the US. And these independant actions done by other states will NOT meet the definition of an alliance at all; which according to foreign policy defintions must include "a pact, coalition or friendship between two or more parties ," or a " and there is no military component to it. By invading Saudi Arabia and dismissing the importance of oil trade and global commerce to the world economy, Pro's government has inadvertently attacked the intrests of other players on the world-map, and it will be perfectly logical to assume then that they will independantly respond someway in kind to safeguard their own political interests (but within Pro's conditions that they do not make an alliance and treaty with me, the US, eachother, or offer any military assistance whatsoever). I will argue then that most countries will conclude to pass crippling economic sanctions against the United States in order to stop the war.
Saudi Arabia will morally bankrupt and politically defeat Pro's government.
Pro's rules have stated that army morale will not be a factor, however he has errantly dismissed that political opinion and morale at home won't be. My opening strategy then, is to morally bankrupt and politically defeat Pro's government. I will use every opportunity to post pictures on the Internet and showcase through Saudi state run television and popular Muslim news networks (like Al Jazeera) that Pro has unprecedentedly -and unilaterally- attacked a Western ally, deployed 5 aircraft carriers to the region, deployed US ground forces to the Middle East, used MOABs, destroyed Saudi naval bases, and attacked civilian operated oil tankers. I will play this up in dramatic Nelson Mandela like fashion to the people of the world and western/American news reels who will also surely be watching my speeches and every move. My government will argue that Pro's administration has sinisterly launched a US war for oil; that he is attempting to eradicate the religion of Islam through racism, decimation, and enslavement; has attacked civilian infrastructure and populations including women and children (will exaggerate and use propaganda on this point if need be), and has done all this truthfully without first being attacked by my military, and all visibly in the face of international law without any lawful authorization for the use of force by the US Congress or any other world government organization (UN excluded per Pro's rules, so Pro won't be to arm twist for UN approval either).
I will also immediately move the Saudi government and most my valuable military assets to the Muslim holy sites surrounding Mecca and will showcase on TV and YouTube me and the entire Saudi civilian population praying for peace. I will dare Pro to bomb me there in front of TV cameras and western journalists, and will order that Saudi military forces make no offensive counterattacks to Pro's ongoing troop deployments in Yemen or naval battles at sea. And just to cover my political tracks, I will denounce Muslim paramilitary activity and ongoing Muslim rioting inside the United States and other parts of the world, (though I secretly have no intention of stopping it). The resulting political leverage I will gain from these acts combined with Pro's blunderous oil embargo and economic collapse upon himself and the rest of the world will be the US Congress and American people's immediate demand for Pro's impeachment. To make sure this happens sooner than later, I will -though secret state department channels and oil lobbying- bribe the Speaker of the House, the US Supreme Court, and key members of the American government to demand Pro's resignation. Pro will be unable to counter this hidden treachery by me because his rules have foolishly outlawed the use of intelligence agencies and special forces operators in this scenario, leaving the CIA, NSA, FBI, and intelligence community no means to wiretap, interrogate, translate, or uncover the secret undercover dealings that have just taken place.
Without a US Congressional authorization for war, an America public fervently against more US troop deployments to the the Middle East due to previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global alienation everywhere, no hope of making allies with other countries, economic & energy collapse of the world economy, and without any hope at all of saving his political behind from the wrath of the American anti-war movement because he has no Intelligence agencies to uncover Congressional bribery and no appealing moral/legal justification on his end for acts of aggression (going to be propped up as an illegal War for Oil, Iraq War Part II. and human rights abuses). Pro must resign as CINC of his armed forces or face immediate impeachment from domestic instability.
And just to make sure the permissible political collapse above doesn't happen to me. I'll have Pro know that religious zeal and hereditary rule through the Saudi Kingship makes regime succession clear and easy for me, and loyalty of the Muslim people and Saudi military and government absolute. There is no way to pacify the political forces that Pro has just unleashed upon himself and he is toast.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Art of War 101. 
2. Other nations are completely nonexistent; as stated clearly, this "is an armed force war debate, in which any country of your choice FIGHTS my nation". The political circumstances of this war are not applicable to this debate; no militant groups may be involved. This war is purely just Saudi Arabia vs United States, no intervention whatsoever.
3. Therefore, the only effect this has is on trade sanctions posed by Saudi Arabia ALONE, and no other country strictly; this is only a military debate, not an international political one. The only politics here is the trade and economic sanctions posed by THE TWO NATIONS IN WAR.
4. Yes, I have attacked the #2 oil producer of the world. Except that, right now, United States is the third largest oil producer in the world.
Now, I forfeit the strategic and military bases of this round, keeping this as a rebuttal. There will be Islamic rebellion in the United States, but we will pacify them: this is a war against Saudi Arabia, not Islam.
To my opponent: as mentioned earlier, I must start the attack; as a result of this attack, sanctions being made is completely invalid,
Lol what?? The reason why I'm assuming other countries are passing sanctions against you is because you made the strategic miscalculation of disrupting oil trade and global energy supplies by attacking civilian run Saudi Arabian oil tankers while simultaneously blocking shipping lanes with your 5 gigantic aircraft carriers. You could have just let those go you know.
for this is purely strategic warfare, not a realistic situation.
According to military historians, strategic warfare includes "the art and science of employing national power." http://www.clausewitz.com... Why then would national power not include political and economic might as well?
This war has a Congressional authorization: as mentioned,
Where in Round One or in Round Two did you say you ever had Congressional authorization before launching your ill-fated attack? Please show me.
the debaters have complete control over their own country.
According to your own rules stated from Round 1:
"The debaters will be acting commander-in-chief, chairperson of the joint chiefs of army staff, chief strategist and President of the nation."
Your rules therefore, have only provided for our complete control of the military and NOT the complete control of the country. Lucky for me though, I've chosen to represent a Saudi King and an absolute ruler, while your just a President.
Other nations are completely nonexistent; as stated clearly,
Show me in Round One or from Round Two were you said other countries were nonexistent?? Due to your opening move of deploying US troops to Yemen in Round 2, I must infer that other countries do in fact exist.
this "is an armed force war debate, in which any country of your choice FIGHTS my nation".
And no other nation has thus far taken up arms or declared war against your country, where as paramilitary groups are classified officially through Geneva Conventions and International law as non state actors.
The political circumstances of this war are not applicable to this debate; no militant groups may be involved.
Show me again in the original rules where you have ever mentioned this? AFAIK, you have only said no military alliances with other NATIONS.
this is only a military debate, not an international political one.
Clearly then you don't understand how to conduct a war and have never read Clauestwitz
Yes, I have attacked the #2 oil producer of the world. Except that, right now, United States is the third largest oil producer in the world.
A fair point, but the US is also the #2 energy consumer in the world. You'll have to do better than that then to explain the global disruption in oil energy supplies an attack on Saudi Arabia causes as well as sky rocketed gas prices causes by naval closures of the shipping lanes.
There will be Islamic rebellion in the United States, but we will pacify them: this is a war against Saudi Arabia, not Islam.
You have just invaded the home of Muhammad and Islam's most sacred sites and now expect to pacify Muslims?? My guys do suicide bombings right???
You also must find the political means then to sell your point because in this scenario you still have not provided any legal, moral, or political justifications for why you have attacked Saudi Arabia in the first place. You have also dismissed the brewing US anti-war movement at home which is again caused by sending US troops to a middle east country after former disheartening conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the mean time though, wealthy and corrupt Saudi businessmen in America have taken the liberty of secretly (but still legally) buying major US defense companies inside the US after my government secretly transfers them Saudi funds to do so. This is made possible do to the fact that you have just caused a global worldwide meltdown in the stock market from disrupting oil trade and the fact that your debate rules have foolishly outlawed intelligence agencies and your only means of uncovering domestic terrorism.
Please surrender now or my forces will be forced to use F-22s and F-35s that we just now bought. Any further attempts to shift the goal-posts will also result in your complete destruction.
You can't just change the rules on me after I've agreed to follow them to the letter as spelled out in Round 1. If I have truly violated any rules, then you must prove to the voters with quotes as to where. Also, what's to stop you now from saying "This is my debate, and I declare GOD mode!"
What has truly happened here, is that you were simply out-maneuvered due to some pretty limited strategies and objective planning on your part, where "maneuver" is a common principle of war.
Paramilitaries, economies, geography, diplomacy, geo-political objectives, and public opinion have always been apart of armed conflict. If you had wished to create an ultra unrealistic "chess match" using only tanks, airplanes, infantry, and ships, and one army general against another, then you should have limited this scenario strictly to the map of a single battlefield (Battle for Mecca, Battle of the Persian Gulf, US invasion of Yemen coast, etc, etc,) which could then be played out at the tactical level, which we know you didn't do because you clarified in Round 3 that this was "Strategic Warfare," while simultaneously having us list in Round 1 statistic figures for gross national power; like GDP, population, defense budgeting, and energy reserves.
Unfortunately this is not an "Armed Force" war between armies because as you said yourself in your very first line: "This is an armed force war debate, in which any country of your choice fights my nation (the United States) in a war."
Therefore -according to rules- this debate never intended to be a war fought solely between armies; by implying "nation vs nation," and not "armies vs armies" directly, you unintentionally invoked gross national powers into this debate: including economic and diplomatic power.
I have won this debate. Saudi Arabia remains sovereign and the US has ceased armed hostilities. Please vote Con.
And as a kind future reference to Pro: please title future debates as: My Army vs Your Army and NOT My Country vs Your Country.
|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:||0||3|