The Instigator
WarDebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

If India and Pakistan went into another all-out war, Pakistan would be victorious.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,842 times Debate No: 70482
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)

 

WarDebator

Pro

I'm sure most people have heard of a place called Kashmir, where Pakistan and India have been fighting for about 60 years in. Lets say, Pakistan and India do go in ANOTHER all-out war like they have before. Pakistan would be victorious for the following reasons.

1. Pakistan is proven to have more weapons of mass destruction.

2. China and Pakistan are friendly with each other. If India declares war on Pakistan, China is coming their way.

3. Before anyone says, "Well if Pakistan-China go to war with India, the USA will get involved!" Most likely, no. The USA wishes to stay friendly with China for one reason: debt.

Message me to accept.
donald.keller

Con

I accept. Pro may put forth his argument.
Debate Round No. 1
WarDebator

Pro

Thanks for accepting, Con!


KASHMIR CONFLICT

Lets take a look at the Kashmir region, where India and Pakistan have had conflicts in for the past 60 years.




Now, why would they be fighting over this land? Mainly because India claims it, but over 60% of the population is Muslim [1]. So if they had a vote to join Pakistan or not, they would vote yes. This is the sole purpose of why Pakistan and Bangladesh split from India in the first place, Muslims and Hindis argued. Also, the region has a lot of natural resources such as oil that we know everyone needs.

CHINA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS

Now you may be asking, "why would China get involved? They wouldn't care!" Well, China wants some of that Kashmir land too, they've already took some of it, and in fact, Pakistan has already ceded China territory because of their close diplomatic relations, as you can see on the map.

But, China would not join the fight as a separate party. They would most likely join Pakistan's side. Why? Because China and Pakistan have had close diplomatic relations for over 60 years. [2] They have traded with each other, and they have negotiated with each other to the point where they have become great friends like the USA and the United Kingdom. They even have an open highway to trade with each other. No border fences like with USA-Mexico. They are friendly with each other.



INDIA-CHINA RELATIONS

Another reason why China would support Pakistan is because of their border disputes and conflicts. The India-China border dispute has been going on for a long time, where areas have been disputed by both countries.


The two countries have had serious problems with each other, including border standoffs, and the border actually being guarded now and then by armed troops.

Another thing that really angers China is that India secretly supports the Tibet movement, which the Tibet region is behind, called "Free Tibet." [3] China as a result has tightened border security, and blamed India for fanning seperatism. The article states: "India continues to secretly support separatist activities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region."

IF CHINA DOES GET INVOLVED

If China gets involved, they would win by themselves, let alone along Pakistani forces. [4]

Manpower available:

China: 749 million +
India: 615 million +

Aircraft:

China: 2,800
India: 1,900

Tanks/AFVs:

China: 14,000
India: 13,000

Not to mention China's economy is stronger than India's by a mile.

Cites:

[1]- http://www.defencejournal.com...

[2]- http://thediplomat.com...

[3]- http://www.hindustantimes.com...

[4]- http://www.globalfirepower.com...

donald.keller

Con

To start:

Argument I: Pakistan v India Economy.

Pakistan is in no position to challenge India. Pakistan has among one of the world's smallest Economies per capita, at $884.2 bn, or $4515 per capita (1). This is under India's $7.2 trillion and $5,777 per capita (2). The difference in per capita doesn't seem large, but it's a 22% gap. Per capitas are important, but so is absolute value. India can draw in more tax revenue per capita, as well as (assuming they draw the small percent of the economy for war) 8x the total amount for war. India is the world's third largest economy. Economically, Pakistan is doomed.

Historically, Pakistan has a track record of massive loss. In the four wars prior, they lost the first, and suffered far higher losses afterwards. Each war was worse than the prior for Pakistan. The downward cycle implies future loss. The downwards cycle continued in the Kargil War, will Pakistan claims less loses, but other sources claimed losses as high as 7x that of Indian loses. Had it been one war, it'd be reasonable to claim Pakistan might win, but after 4 losses, each worse than the last, the resolution is highly improbable. Especially since India's economy is growing at a rate of 2.1% higher than Pakistan (150% faster than Pakistan)(3, 4). And India's inflation rate is half of Pakistan. The rate of which Pakistan's inflation increases nearly blocks out economic growth. India's rate of economic growth grew 13% since 2014, while Pakistan's economic growth grew by only 3%. Pakistan stands no chance alone.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.adb.org...
[4] http://www.adb.org...
[]

Argument II: Pakistan v India Military.

According to the Global Firepower website, India's the world's fourth strongest Military. Pakistan isn't even in the top 10. Global Firepower ranks Pakistan at 17th place (5). Pakistan's Reserve and Active forces in smaller than India's Active forces alone (6, 7). When Reserve Forces are included, India has three times the army size. This, with the fact that India spends almost $11,000 per soldier, compared to Pakistan's $6,180 (8). India also maintains first world tanks, compared to lower quality Pakistani tanks. India has 2x the number of tanks.

India far surpasses Pakistan in every way. Especially since Pakistan has a major terrorist infection, primarily the Taliban (9). The domestic issue would cripple any Pakistani war efforts with a power like India.

[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[]

Rebuttal I: China.

Pro believes that China will enter the war. This is entirely false. Pro himself stated that Chinese-Pakistani relations were strong for over sixty years. This puts the start of their close relationship around 1950. However, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan (one as recent as 1999,) and China has never gotten involved. This despite every argument Pro made. All of his arguments stood back then too, and yet China stayed out.

China has no allies. They maintain a neutrality policy. They have no intentions of going to war, especially against India. India is right behind them militarily, and has a massive draft-able population and financial powers. Pro stated this earlier, showing them compared to each other. What Pro forgets is modern politics... War between the two would catastrophic. They are too close in power for China to declare war. It's not as simple as showing China's military being stronger...

Assume, though, that China gets involved. China is only the third strongest power. Russia surpasses China in power (5, 10). China maintains a no-alliance policy, despite their close ties with Pakistan. However, Russia and India are entirely allied. They provide strong economic and militaristic aid, and their alliance is only getting stronger (11). China would be against the second and fourth strongest armies in the world. That being said, it's not beyond Russia to aid India in the event that India is losing, but it is unlikely that China would aid Pakistan against a force like India.

To counter this right away: Debt is not a reason for the US to stay out. Federal Debt runs off a Bond system. China owns US bonds, which can not be called upon until they have matured. Even if they could call on them earlier, it'd be economic stupidity. Federal debt is a loan... It's a purchase. China could own 100% of the US Debt, and yet not be able to call on it. Although the US actually pays it off via interest each year, and that's what the bond is worth... That interest collected. So if they did call on the debt, we'd already have the money for them. Even than, China only owns 8% of the Debt (12). In reality, buying US bonds is good for China, so they would want to maintain safe relations with the US (13). If anything, while China can not call on it's debts, the US can cancel all debts to China if they declare war, called Sovereign Default.

Pro stated in comments that the US companies would crash if they lost the ability to trade with China. This isn't true. They would simply find resources elsewhere, like India. If anything, China would want to keep relations with US business more so than vice versa. Without US Business, China would collapse under the losses.

China would avoid entering the war with the US because relations with the US are stronger than relations with Pakistan, if only because China needs the US. The relationship with the US is far stronger because of dependency on US industry, consumerism, and aid. If Pakistan invaded India, the US would side with the Defender and be at odds with China. As shown, debt and such wouldn't stop the US. Meanwhile, China and Pakistan would be at potential war with the Strongest, Second Strongest, and Fourth Stronger military powers in the world. They would stand no chance.

If the US and China ended up at war, this would be the stats between them.

China:
Spending per soldier: $31,000
Tanks: 13,900 (low-grade tanks)
Aircraft: 2,800
Navy: 673 (1 carrier / mostly low class war vessals)

US: (14)
Spending per soldier: $230,800
Tanks: 99,000 (high-grade tanks)
Aircraft: 13,800
Navy: 473 (20 carriers / all high-grade war vessals)

BUT: That is a severe outcome, and would prevent China or the US from in engaging in war. No matter what combination of super powers you have, the potential outcome would prevent war from moving beyond India and Pakistan. Leading to the real outcome:

[10] http://tinyurl.com...
[11] http://tinyurl.com...
[12] http://tinyurl.com...
[13] http://tinyurl.com...
[14] http://tinyurl.com...

Argument III: UN Intervention.

Of the four wars fought between India and Pakistan, three have ended in a UN enforced ceasefire. Only the first one ended with a nation winning. In reality, the war would be stopped by the UN. That, or if Pakistan used WMD's, as Pro brought up them having WMD's as an advantage, the UN would sanction Pakistan until Pakistan stopped existing, or admitted defeat.

Although if the UN didn't step in, and China and the US didn't force them to cooperate better, Pakistan would have no odds of winning. The amount of border space to be gained stopped being worth the potential cost of war against a super power long ago. China would never engage India. Especially if the number Pro were listing (hundreds of millions of potential soldiers) a possibility.

Pro also mentioned Tibet... China and Tibet have been working out their issues diplomatically... Declaring war would cause Tibet to become a major issue for China. Pro says Tibet is why China would want to get involved. In reality, a troublesome province would pose a throat to Chinese war efforts.

Conclusion: China would NOT get involved. If they did, they'd be outnumbered by Russia, India, and the US. The UN would intervene and stop the war. Outside of that, Pakistan poses no threat to India.
Debate Round No. 2
WarDebator

Pro

Thank you, Con.

REBUTTALS:

Both my opponents claims are only for Pakistan and India ALONE. He is forgetting the key to winning the war: China's support. I will have to prove that China would get involved, and I plan to do so. What my opponent does not understand is that China has been involved with Pakistan's past wars. They have provided SIGNIFICANT aid to Pakistan, even during the wars. [1] They just haven't fought hand to hand, but I believe after all these wars bottling up, China would want to end it. Both my opponents arguments are useless at this point, because he has not proven that China would not want to get involved.

"Pro believes that China will enter the war. This is entirely false. Pro himself stated that Chinese-Pakistani relations were strong for over sixty years. This puts the start of their close relationship around 1950. However, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan (one as recent as 1999,) and China has never gotten involved. This despite every argument Pro made. All of his arguments stood back then too, and yet China stayed out."

China has NOT stayed out. In fact, they have supplied Pakistan. My article: (http://www.cfr.org...) states: "India has long been perturbed by China's military aid to Pakistan." In fact, my article also states: "China's role as a major arms supplier for Pakistan began in the 1960s and included assistance in building a number of arms factories in Pakistan and supplying complete weapons systems." So in fact, my opponent's whole claim about China's "neutrality" and "doesn't want to get involved" is highly invalid. They have supplied many arms and not to mention missiles to Pakistan, which proves my fact that they also favor Pakistan more.

"Assume, though, that China gets involved. China is only the third strongest power. Russia surpasses China in power (5, 10). China maintains a no-alliance policy, despite their close ties with Pakistan. However, Russia and India are entirely allied. They provide strong economic and militaristic aid, and their alliance is only getting stronger (11). China would be against the second and fourth strongest armies in the world. That being said, it's not beyond Russia to aid India in the event that India is losing, but it is unlikely that China would aid Pakistan against a force like India."

I suppose my opponent has never heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which involves Russia and China together as allies... they supply each other with military. [2] So Russia would n
ot attack China at all. It's basically a pact. Here's a map of the countries included.
.

This also means my opponent's Russia arguments are invalid. Also, if Russia did intervene, supporting either country, it would surely lead to WWIII, because we all know the US will get involved.

"China would avoid entering the war with the US because relations with the US are stronger than relations with Pakistan, if only because China needs the US. The relationship with the US is far stronger because of dependency on US industry, consumerism, and aid. If Pakistan invaded India, the US would side with the Defender and be at odds with China. As shown, debt and such wouldn't stop the US. Meanwhile, China and Pakistan would be at potential war with the Strongest, Second Strongest, and Fourth Stronger military powers in the world. They would stand no chance."

This may be true, but China's manpower is about 700 billion. How much is the US? About 150 billion. The USA would be overwhelmed, too many troops would be coming at them.

ARGUMENTS

IF THE US DOES GET INVOLVED, RUSSIA WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF CHINA

Russia and China are friendly, just like India and Russia are friendly. My opponent fails to acknowledge this. In fact, if the US gets involved, Russia would most likely support China! Take a look at this map: http://www.washingtonpost.com...



Russia, as you can see, is red. They would favor China rather than the US. If Russia does go to war with the USA, WWIII would most likely happen, so I would say RUssia would be neutral, but in favor of China.

IF THE US DID GET INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEIR ECONOMY WOULD CRUMBLE

Get a T-Shirt. Look at where it was made from. Most likely, from China. Major corporations like Microsoft and Apple get most of their supplies from... China! Look at this map, which shows where the supplies come from:
Look at China. 394 suppliers supplie Apple in China. That's more than any other country on the map. Major corporations will struggle, the economy as a result, will go down. Economic growth will decrease. I looked at the article of Soverign Default, and I don't understand it. But, I didn't see anything involved with China and the US. But, if the US declares war on China, it would be disastrous. But, from the article I read, it quotes: "So what would happen if China, Russia and other foreign buyers of our debt all of a sudden quit purchasing our debt and instead started dumping the debt that they already own back on to the market?" And, that would crumble our economy. China purchases debt for us, in case you didn't know. They can buy out our debt, if they stop, it will be a DISASTER. Even if China does not claim the debt, (which they most likely will do) they will not buy out our debt. [3]

Cites:

[1]- http://www.cfr.org...

[2]- https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]- http://www.zerohedge.com...
donald.keller

Con

Argument I: Pakistan v India

Pro's case is redherring. My stats were not for Pakistan and India alone. I blatantly gave stats for US v China as well. That being said, purposefully misrepresenting my case is fallacious. And Pro is right, China has aided Pakistan before... With supplies, as friends so often do. This is not the same as Pro's case, which involved China completely entering the war with military force. Pro then claims that I have not proven that China would not get involved. I spent a whole Argument making up half my total round explaining reasons why China would not go to war. Pro's case is a blatant lie, and this should be held against him.

Mostly my case for Argument I and Argument II goes uncontested.

Rebuttal I: China.

Being friendly doesn't imply that China and Russia are indefinitely close. Russia and China are apart of a pact, but that doesn't make them allies, or mean Russia is closer with them than with India. No, Russia's relations with China are only recently friendly, but Russian relations with India is a legitimate alliance that has grown far stronger in recent years (1). Also, pro must understand that being in an alliance does not nessacarily mean you are allies. China does, in fact, maintain an ally-free policy. Joining a political group does not make them and Russia allies. Russia and India, however, are allies.

The irony in Pro's alliance argument is that India is an observing member of the same pact, and Russia has asked them numerous times to join as a full member (2). China has even supported the idea (3). That being said, Pro's alliance case is meaningless. Russia's relations with China are geopolitical at best, but their relationship with India is an actual alliance that transcends the SCO. To further show the meaningless value of Pro's case, India, China, and Russia are also together in BRICS (4) and the G-20 (5). So Alliances are meaningless here. Personal relations will dictate the war.

Pro has negated the resolution with his case. China and Russia are trying to become friends. Russia and India are allied. All this says is that China and Russia would work to neutralize a war peacefully for both nation's sake... Not go to war. Pro's whole case about tensions between China and India are meaningless too. Geopolitics don't work the way they did in the Cold War. Now, tensions are dealt with diplomatically. Leading to the end of Pro's case.

Sino-Indian relations aren't what Pro claims they are. The two have been successfully aiming for diplomatic negotiations.

"However, since the late 1980s, both countries have successfully attempted to reignite diplomatic and economic ties. In 2008, China emerged as India's largest trading partner and the two countries have also attempted to extend their strategic and military relations." (6)

Pro needs a tension between China and India that simply isn't there. A tension so large as to go against Russia, the SCO, and logic itself to start a war against the fourth most Militarily Powerful nation. To declare war would violate their goals and their pacts. Aksai Chin, a plot of land they would go to war over, has virtually no population or resources (7). Ladakh has a poor economy dependent largely on the presence of the Indian military, and has a tiny population (8). The land would never be worth the cost of going to war with a power like India, ruining ties with the US and Russia, and going against several alliances while also destroying the progress they made with India.

China is currently India's larger importer and exporter. Friendly ties with the world's second largest population and third largest economy are far more valuable than one plot of land with a poor government-dependent economy.

Pro brings up that China and Russia getting involved would lead to World War III. Kind of why they wouldn't get involved militarily.

Pro brings up how the US wouldn't stop China because they have a far higher manpower. This is laughable at best. Just because China can bring up 700 million doesn't mean they can or will. Pro also forgets that the budget is important. The US can manage a much larger war-time Army than China. Currently the US runs 5x the budget, and has soldiers with a 20 - 1 to 50 - 1 kill ratio. The number of soldiers isn't that important anymore. Especially when you remember that India and Russia can draw up 685 million men too.

Pro bringing up large numbers only hurts his case, showing even more so why the three powers would avoid going at it.

Pro than explains that Russia would support China in a China-US war. Redherring, Strawman, and Shifting the Goalposts. This isn't a Sino-American war. It's an Indian-Pakistani war. Russia would join the US in defending their ally, India. Pro is bringing up a completely different situation that is only similar in who is fighting. The US is defending Russia's top ally... Why would Russia betray India to stop the US because of China? Again, strawman and redherring. This is India v Pakistan, with China attacking Russia's ally, and the US defending Russia's ally.

[1] http://indianembassy.ru...
[2] http://www.newkerala.com...
[3] http://www.newkerala.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument II: US v China.

Pro's claim is based entirely on stereotypes. Every company in the US has a backup plan for if they lose trade agreements. They wouldn't collapse. If they get supplies from Company A, they make sure Company B and C are backups in case. So pro's case is mute. The US wouldn't collapse, they would just move to buying elsewhere... Selling is a different matter. The 394 supplies in China would face major loss of income and many would go under. Tens of millions would lose their jobs when Apple, Gateway, and hundreds of other American companies leave. The ripple effect would crush China, while the US would simply buy elsewhere.

The US isn't dependent on China. It's a matter of just buying more from Europe, N and S America, and other regions of Asia. Pro based his argument on a stereotype that doesn't hold up to the real world. China would not stop the US from going to war. Also, reguarding numbers and military power, but drops everything I said about it last round. The aircraft and tanks of the US army outwiegh China's entire force. Just because China has 700 million men to use doesn't mean they can use them, or that they would. Or that they can have even a fraction of that up at a time.

Argument III: UN Interverence.

This is my winning argument, that the UN would stop Pakistan... Pro dropped this argument, and therefore loses.
Pro's cases is based on the extreme idea that China, Russia, and the US would get militarily involved, and the idea that China is even closely strong enough to stop the US. In Reality, so many alliances, pacts, and relations would make the issue too complicated. China would not lose billions in trade to gain a tiny bit of land, at the cost of losing what relations they built with Russia and the US.

The cost of war would be enough to prevent such a thing... China, Russia, the US, and the other two members of the UN's lead council would come together and stop the war in India's favor, since France is friendly with India. The fact that it could lead to a third World War, and include the four strongest nations in the world, is enough to set Pro's BOP so high that it is physically impossible to reach. China will not go to war. If they did, Russia and the US would stop them. Pakistan would not win.

Conclusion: The cost of war would not make China's entry in the war improbable. Even if they did, they would lose. It'd be Pakistan v India, and unless the UN stopped the war (negating the resolution), Pakistan would lose.
Debate Round No. 3
WarDebator

Pro

WarDebator forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Yay... I guess.

WarDebator, don't close your account... :(
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Russia_The_almighty 2 years ago
Russia_The_almighty
I agree i wanted to debate with him also.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Hm. He deactivated his account...

That's sad. He had a lot of potential as a debater.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Post your argument instead of comments.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
The UN stopped the 2nt, 3rd, and 4th Indian-Pakistani wars. Why wouldn't they? Besides. You dropped the argument, therefore concedes it. -.-
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
The UN sanctioned the crap out of Russia. Watch the news.

And China isn't going to raise a 600+ million men army... And you can't just hand them a gun. They need training and they want money. You claim to know a lot about war, but a general knows raising a 10+ million men army alone would cause UN intervention, and China would never get involved in such a war. Just because they have 600+ million men doesn't mean they are going to use anymore than what they currently have.
Posted by WarDebator 2 years ago
WarDebator
It's not your winning argument, you didn't win. The UN would not step in just like they haven't with the three other things that I mentioned.
Posted by WarDebator 2 years ago
WarDebator
stepping in*
Posted by WarDebator 2 years ago
WarDebator
Do I see the UN stepped in with Russia and Ukraine? Do I see the UN even stepping into Syria? More importantly, half of the UN's forces aren't even helping against Iraq, so Con, your UN argument is a lie.
Posted by WarDebator 2 years ago
WarDebator
Manpower available:

China: 749,610,775

Fit-For-Service:

China: 618,588,627

China could just give a gun to every fit-for-service and tell them to go to war. That's what the Russian's did in WWII. You never know. -.-
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
You do know that China is never bringing up 700 million men, right?... And that China wouldn't enter aa war that might lead to drawing up even 10 million... And that they can't afford to raise more man than the US... Off current budgets alone, the US can afford 18 million Chinese soldiers worth, while China could only afford 500,000 US soldiers...

Budgets matter. -.-
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WarDebatordonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Pro relied heavily on the "fact" that China would enter the war as an ally of Pakistan. Short of that, Pro's case was defeated once Con presented the statistics and date comparing the two - which reflected India's clear superiority across the board. Instead of rebutting Con's economic points, or a majority of his points for that matter, Pro seemingly tosses aside all of Con's previous arguments regarding China's neutrality which left a majority of Con's arguments unrebutted. Pro then takes it steps further by including other world powers and then ultimately fails to finish the debate. Due to Con having several arguments/rebuttals standing unchallenged, and Pro's failure to maintain his BOP, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both had strong sources and used them properly.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
WarDebatordonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited in the final round but con had the debate locked up well before then, since pro's entire argument was predicated on the condition that China would for some reason come to Pakistan's aid and fight a huge war with India over virtually nothing.