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

If former USSR and modern socialist countries united to battle USA and NATO, USA will probably lose

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 8/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 976 times Debate No: 18036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I would like to say the Soviet side unites for Socialist reasons here are the rounds
Round: 1 would be for USA and Russian military strengths
Round: 2 would be for Vital US Allies and Russian Allies
Round: 3 Would be other factors such as terrain, political advantages.

I will begin my argument with the Russian's superiority to USA... Russia is much more superior to USA in land... Russian's count of vehicles (tanks, armored vehicles, mobile rocket throwers) 91,715 is superior to USA's 56,269 which will prove vital to assist the poor comparison of Russia's military reserve. I would like to also say that Russia has 50 nuclear submarines. Currently most countries have plenty of Anti-Air defense but not many anti-sea. Especially anti-submarines. I would also like to point out most major USA cities are close to sea so the submarines could easily reach more than 50 sea shore cities and wipe them out. While US's nuclear submarine count is merely a 14 where added up they have 24 nuclear warheads may i also point out that Moscow is not close enough to sea shore for reach.


I accept this debate. I hope to quickly debase any and all arguments you could possibly hope to put up.

Land vehicle

I would first like to state that a single RPG missile can pierce the armor of a T-62 tank (1). Warfare has evolved; No longer do two armies send everything they have to the front lines and see who wins, it's farm more tactical and, if I might say, ninja-like than anyone alive in prior times could imagine. The fact that my above statement regarding the RPG missile is true, bulky, hard to navigate tanks are really just practice targets; if you want to survive in a battle you need to move quick enough to dodge your enemies bullets.

Thus, land vehicles are obsolete in this point of time, and can be disregarded as an advantage.

Nuclear Submarines & Coastal Cities

The claim my opponent made about Russia possessing 50 nuclear submarine is not backed up in either source he provided. If he was referring to the 48 submarines Russian currently possesses (though I must point out that nowhere these are specified as nuclear), then I am just to assume that all of the US submarines are also nuclear, and they add up to 75. He also failed to specify exactly what advantage this would provide. If my opponent can only offer the argument of time consumption, here is a quote for you:

'according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."' (2)

Thus, the advantage (if there was one) of nuclear submarines is obsolete, and can be disregarded as an advantage, along with the advantage of coastal cities, because time in between missile detonation is insignificant.

So what does the U.S. have over the former U.S.S.R.? *
  • Almost 4x the Manpower
  • 12x the budget
  • 7x the Air Force
  • 10x the Navy
  • 2x the Labor Force
So, in conclusion, Russia at this point in time has no real advantages over the U.S.

*Everything from the last section can be found at my opponents first link.
**On a side note, I would like to point out my opponents second link is just a link to the main wikipedia page, and not relevant to the debate at hand in any way.


Debate Round No. 1


Akbar137 forfeited this round.


shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Akbar137 forfeited this round.


shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: shift generally you should post once more after a FF. Both sides forfeited rounds 2 and 3. Starting a debate and then dropping out to a real response is bad so conduct goes to con. I think global firepower is the better source.