The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Blasianic
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

In a total war excluding WMD's, the USA can defeat any other country.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,459 times Debate No: 6403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (6)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

[Definition - Total War]
1. Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, a total war is when a country/nation/etc. devotes the entiriety of it's resources at hand (ranging from military to economic) to destroy it's opponent.

[Definition - WMD]
1. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

While the definition is vague, a simple search can distinguish some weapons. Biological weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and even radiological weapons. According to the resolution of this topic, WMD's are NOT involved in this debate.

=====Arguments=====

My position and argument is simple and brief. In a total war, excluding WMD's, the United States of America can defeat any other country existing today. My argument is that the United State's combined military power surpasses any other country today.

Remember - it's USA vs. 1 (any) country. NO WMD's are allowed. It's a total war. Saying that a country can have allies help would violate the rule that it's USA vs. 1 (any) country. With these rules and definitions set in place, I await my future opponent.
Blasianic

Con

Its very simple in the 21 century any country that isn't a third world country and posses a fairly good military could technically take on America IF they were defending for instance if America had total war with China and America was attacking they would lose no ifs ands or buts ,granted it would be a bloody war but China would win, biggest army in world they have quality and quantity ,plus they know their country fairly well and America's military isn't exactly equipped for that type of environment,however would say this if any country was dumb enough to invade America it wouldn't work thanks to the 2nd amendment and if I have too the "National guard". So essentially you really need to specify on where this total war is taking place.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this fun debate. Due to personal circumstances, I had to forfeit my last debate and interestingly enough my previous opponent used the same nation (China).

*NOTE* Since character limits are always a pain in the back of mine, I want to tell the voters who do look at the sources that I do not cite specific vehicles, planes, ships, etc. I trust that a simple Google search on M1A1 Abrams can turn up a fast affirmation of my details. Thanks!

"Its very simple in the 21 century any country that isn't a third world country and posses a fairly good military could technically take on America IF they were defending"
---- > So it should be clear to my voters that my opponent argues China could "take on" America is they are defending. As stated, a total war is basically when a war is being fought by an ENTIRE NATION. In military terms however, this means the ENTIRIETY OF SOCIETY CAN BE A TARGET. Nothing is off-limits. Buildings, civilians, and even freaking trees are feasible targets. Total war means total kick-arse. It is now my opponent's burden to show that China can handle all this damage without either being annihilated or surrendering.

=====Counterarguments=====

I find it fairly common now to see people saying China will kick butt because its army is big. However, this is a gross misunderstanding of military strength. China's military, while large in terms of personnel, has only limited power projection. [1] Power projection is the ability for a nation to project its military power in other places outside of its home country [2]. America has no doubt the greatest military projection, of course including greatest military strength.

>>>China has the biggest army in the world<<<

This is no doubt true. In all, with standing and reserved (remember it's a total war), China has around 3 million members [3]. HOWEVER, to say this is the only reason why China will succeed is purely imaginative. I will show why in an ABC format:

A. America's standing forces
While the USA army has only 1,085,000 soldiers if you include the National Guard and Army Reserve [4], do not forget that that is only ONE branch of the military. We still have the Marine Corps, who have around 240,000 troops [4]. Though America's standing force is only half of China's, their quality is MUCH more superb. We have better training (faculties, techniques, etc.) that are only challenged by Britain's. Our equipment is also much better. The M16 family is superior to the QBZ-95.

And don't EVEN FORGET about the US Special Forces. Ranging from Navy Seals, Rangers, to even the mythical Delta Force, the US has one of if not THE best Special Forces in the world. With prime targets such as generals and even Presidents, Special Forces will be incredibly great for such yummy targets.

B. Armor
America has the second highest amount of armor (tanks, APC's, etc.), with around 29,920 vehicles while China only has 13,200[5]. So not only does America have TWICE the amount, their armor is also much stronger. Compare the main battle tanks for example, the M1A1 Abrams (USA) and the Type 96 (China). The M1A1 Abrams has a powerful gas turbine engine, high-grade composite armor, and an amazingly accurate M256 smoothbore gun. Meanwhile, the Type 96 FINALLY got their explosive reactive armor, something vitally needed in today's battlefield. While the Type 99 is slated to replace the Type 96, the cost of it is too high to manufacture in numbers. Oh, and did I mention that while China has only around 2000 of their main battle tanks, America has around 9000[5] [6]?

C. Aircraft
Once you step in the realm of air force and navy, the USA simply DOMINATES. The USA has 18, 169 aircraft (jets, bombers, helicopters, etc.) while China only has 2,700 [7]! America's air force is just unsurpassed. The A-10 Thunderbolt II can terrorize ground targets. The B-52 Stratofortress is one of the most revered bombers. It can lay an unmatchable amount of bombs upon its targets. It's service length is only a small testimony of its power. The B-2 Spirit cannot be detected BY ANY TECHNOLOGY TO THIS DAY. Essentially, no target can escape from the B-2 Spirit (how's destroying the Presidential complex in the first day sound?). The F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are the best fighters in the world. China simply can't compete.

D. Navy
The difference here is even greater. USA has 1,866 ships (carriers, cruisers, etc.) while China only has 232[8]. USA's ships are unsurpassed PAR NONE. We have the greatest aircraft carriers, the Nimitz class. These nuclear-powered behemoths are one of the testimonies of USA's status as a hypower status (only superpower). Aircraft carriers are one of the most important aspects of a nation's military power, and the USA has tons of these. Don't forget the Ohio class submarines, which are superb for ballistic missiles while the Virginia class is incredible attack submarines. I mean heck, we even have the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, one of the most powerful destroyers today, with STEALTH TECHNOLOGY (a first). And of course the Ticonderoga class, which are also heft cruisers with big nasty missiles.

=====Conclusion=====

Now I can't say much more since the character limits are impeding me, but this simple list just shows you a glimpse of America's might. We spend HALF, that's right HALF, of the ENTIRE WORLD'S SPENDING ON MILITARY EXPENDITURES [9]. We spend more money than the next top 9 COMBINED. Where does this money all go to? Our incredible technology and combined task-force operational ability is where.

Even presupposing that the total war takes place now in 2009 (the future technology America is developing is incredible in both ingenuity and speed), America can still take on China. By simply destroying everything with an incredible combination of missiles and bomb, the USA can land it's troops and take out the Chinese easily. Any air resistance will be brought down by our superior fighters, letting the bombers have their fun. China's ships will be sunk without nuclear submarines, which allows MORE aircraft (from carriers) and of course missile-carrying cruisers.

With all these facts, there is NO QUESTION that America can defeat China in a total war scenario.

---References---
1.http://www.atimes.com...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil...
5.http://en.wikipedia.org...
6.http://en.wikipedia.org...
7.http://www.globalfirepower.com...
8.http://www.globalfirepower.com...
9.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Blasianic

Con

You do make a lot of good points on this topic so good in fact i almost thought i had lost :P ,however let me finish with this. [Definition - Total War]
"1. Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org... thats the true definition of total war then let me say this.
=============Counter==============
1.)The war in Iraq has given us a bill of over 585.6 billion dollars since war was declared on Iraq.
2.)We spend over 200 million dollars a day for this war.
3.)And those don't even count the war in Afghanistan which would be a total of 872.6 billion dollars.
Now then with that said America is already and growing larger in debt by the second with a whopping 53 trillion dollars in debt because of one of several reason which would start a whole new debate.Now the reason why i brought those numbers up is because in Iraq we are facing a very different opponent this opponent uses i.e.d's and ak-47s or ak-74's and straps C-4 to a car and ram it into allied vehicles.There are over 4,000 u.s. deaths since 2003 and over 30000 wounded thats not even including soliders that get Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 1 in 8 soilders get PTSD and theres roughly around 160 to 200 k soldiers fighting Iraq i can imagine how bad it would be fighting China remember what happened in Vietnam? I used China for a good reason and that reason is because China and America are so dependent of each other if they were to go to war they would in fact destroy each other so militarily yes America could possibly destroy China. Industrial, agricultural no.I mean come on can you name me something popular that isn't made in China?And besides that i'm not even factoring in the sheer size of China which by the way is 3,704,4272 sq mi. compared to Iraq's 169,234 sq mi and the dense forests ect ect..
http://www.nationalpriorities.org...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org...
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com...
http://mwhodges.home.att.net...
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.antiwar.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.blurtit.com...

=============Conclusion================
I've focused much on China because I firmly believe that they are the only country that could take on America in a total war. We have each other by the balls and if either one of us moves we would be seriously injured.....
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

The reason why China wouldn't win is because while their army is sizeable, their airforce and navy are extremely lacking. Their navy don't even have blue-water capability yet. As you can see, my opponent resorts to one argument; that the situation of Iraq shows how an inferior country can take out a superior country. He concedes that the USA military has superior technology.

=====Counterarguments=====

>>>Cost of the War on Iraq<<<

The only reason why the war on Iraq is costly (though not even in comparison to other wars) is because this IS NOT a total war for the following reasons:

- We are trying to create a political system there, not raze the entire country
- We are having a conscious effort not to kill citizens, not to kill every human being in sight
- Our Marines are being put in a position they aren't used to, guerilla warefare (discerning terrorists from civilians), this is a job for Special Forces. In a total war, there is no care for this.

>>>Deaths<<<

"There are over 4,000 u.s. deaths since 2003 and over 30000 wounded "
----> First of all, this isn't a lot of deaths in comparison to other wars. However, the only reason we have these numbers of death is because we are trying to recover th country, not annihilate it. If it was a total war scenario, then the USA can easily destroy Iraq (look at the initial invasion and how quick that took). We would just bomb and bomb and bomb it to rubbles. Then send in our Marines and let them do what they do best, shoot everyone in sight.

>>>Vietnam<<<

The Americans, militarily speaking, were doing fine pushing back the North Vietnamese. However, when the NV's decided to go urban warefar and take vital places (such as Saigon), then politically speaking people in America wanted out. America lost the the Vietnam war for political reasons, not military.

>>>Interrelationship<<<

"so militarily yes America could possibly destroy China"
----> This seems like a forfeit to me.

It doesn't matter whether or not the destruction of China will be economically bad on America. This is a TOTAL WAR SCENARIO. A total war isn't a war where people go "hey, they make our toy guns!". A total war is "we are going to annihilate you like Sherman did in the Civil War".

"China which by the way is 3,704,4272 sq mi"
----> With the advent of 21st technology, this isn't so much a problem anymore.

=====Conclusion=====

My opponent makes the faulty comparison of the Iraq war to this hypothetical total war scenario with China. IRAQ AND VIETNAM ARE POLITICAL WARS. If we were in a total war with Iraq, the destruction will be so fast it will take a few weeks probably. My opponent concedes every point I have made, of America's military superiority. Thus, in this debate of a TOTAL WAR SCENARIO, vote for PRO.
Blasianic

Con

Well firstly before you think you won the war no pun intended,you asked the question could America "USA" win against any country in a total war, and guess what i brought up the country China you want too know why?becasue thats a country that could take on and stop America in its tracks in a total war.With that i'll try to make it quick having total war with country is a terrible thougt i think we both can agree on that :) however having total war with China would not be a good thing for either country your claiming that America could take on any country in my arguement im using China so America verus China your saying it would be a breeze to take on China with out any agrucultural and or industrial without it destroying us? If so you really need to learn a thing or two about economics.
=========Conclusion===========
The pont im trying to say is it would be a tie America cant live without China China cant live without America you are really beeing foolish to say America would completely destroy China,but then agian everyone is entitled to their own opinion my opninion is America wouldnt win against any nation in a total war there's not one country that could do that in the 21 century.I've enjoyed debating you considering htis was my first debate on this site so i thank you for allowing me to learn more about random things,so please people if you understand where im getting at then vote for me :)
Im trying to say it would be a tie America cant live without China China cant live without America you are really beeing foolish to say America would completely destroy China,but then agian everyone is entitled ti their onw opinion my opninion is America wouldnt win against every nation in a totaw theres not one country that could do that.

Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both.

~Abraham Flexner
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Guderian 7 years ago
Guderian
It in a total war situation, you cannot say either country would win for definite.

The instigator's arguments seems to rely alot on U.S. military equipment, and in fact, several of your statements are false.

For example, the B-2 bomber CAN be detected. Stealth aircraft CAN be detected. It depends on a mutiude of different factors, not just RADAR technology or stealth technology.

On too tanks, the M1 Abrams is indeed superior to any Chinese tank in existence, however, tanks can not only be destroyed by other tanks, but also by infantry-held ATGM's, which China has and they can take out the Abrams, especially since the Abrams has neither APS nor ERA.

China's training of its active duty soldiers is actually equal to that of the U.S. While it true that the paramilitary and reserve forces are NOT to our standard, the active duty, which is more than 1 million in ground troops alone is.

The M-16 is not superior to the QBZ, it is a matter of opinion. On paper they are actually pretty similar and have their advantages and disadvantages.

Aside from these mistakes, the USA would, likely win as long as air power is kept balanced on the American side. American Naval Power would start to be mean less the further inland American troops got assuming this is in an invasion of China. China has an very extensive air defense systems with some of the most modern SAM's in existence. In a war, the USA would have to neutralize these and the Chinese aircraft capabilities, which is growing by the year. Their newest fighter, the J-10, is roughly equal to the F-16 and is starting to be produced in even larger numbers. Also, China in such a war would be supported by Russia and given the go-ahead to manufacture more advanced SAM's and fighter aircraft.

It's almost impossible to say who would win- other than millions of lives would be lost in such a war.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
maddoxparadox:

Can I see your source? And secondly, there's 600 million fit for service? So how fast would they have to freaking train when their nation becomes under attack? A week? Maybe two?
Posted by NeoConCommunist 7 years ago
NeoConCommunist
@Blasianic:

If you really want me to rebut your argument in a 'non-aggressive' manner, two things:

(1) Read what I say carefully and don't put words in my mouth. I most definitely did NOT say another country could win on American soil. What I said was, for the third time, that ordinary citizens with small handguns would not be much help to the American military in defending American soil.

(2) Actually argue rather than (like you did in both your replies) idly dismissing what I had to say with arrogant phrases like "o well in one ear out the other".
Posted by Blasianic 7 years ago
Blasianic
@Neo pls dont get aggressive and first off how can you be more retarded then you already sound pfft o well in one ear out the other.
Posted by maddoxparadox 7 years ago
maddoxparadox
TheSkeptic:

1. China has 7 million active soldiers, soldiers in reserve, and paramilitary soldiers, not the 3 million you mentioned. About 600 million people in China are fit for military service. About 20 million people reach military age each year. In a total war, China could have a chance in numbers.
2. China has 7,000 tanks and 2, 000 light tanks, not the 2000 you mentioned.
Posted by NeoConCommunist 7 years ago
NeoConCommunist
Please take the time to read my post before replying so that you don't sound like any more retarded than you already do. In case it didn't penetrate the first time, let me clarify: I didn't say that the US could be successfully invaded, I said that the 2nd amendment does nothing about it. The US military is the reason it wouldn't work, not a bunch of fat middle-agers armed with primitive handguns. HANDGUNS WILL NOT REPEL TANKS AND HELICOPTERS. That falls with the army, which actually has that kind of equipment. Also, when you said INDUSTRIAL and AGRICULTURAL ------> this refers to all the energy of a country going towards the war. However, (1) the US is very powerful in both of these and (2) no factory is worth anything after it's been bombed to rubble. Given the military tech of the 21st century, the US easily has the kind of reach needed to quickly and effectively destroy other countries' factories.
Posted by Blasianic 7 years ago
Blasianic
lmao my bad that was suppose to go to my argument lul...
Posted by Blasianic 7 years ago
Blasianic
zomg you said TOTAL WAR not just a ordinary war therefore in TOTAL WAR China would have a chance against America "Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance."YOur telling me America the country that depends on other countries to survive would win agianst CHina in total war if you say no your going against the meaing of a total war. thx and to reply to NeoConCommunist your telling me that its possible for a nation to attack America on American soil and win? christ
Posted by NeoConCommunist 7 years ago
NeoConCommunist
Thanks for your response. I'm happy to finally have another intelligent debate on my hands.

You do raise a good point about the other countries, so I will make one small amendment. I know you made the debate a 1 v 1 thing, but in order for my scenario to work, Russia needs at least some cooperation from Iran, because they need a base from which to launch said sneak attack and in which to mass troops for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will therefore debate with you if you give Russia the militarily insignificant benefit of a friendly Iran, in addition to the benefit of starting the war with a massive sneak attack on the 5th fleet (and sub attacks on supertankers in deep waters). So the debate will be: Russia + Iran vs America. Other MidEast countries can come to America's aid if you like.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
@NeoConCommunist:

I am happy to see that there is someone who is much more knowledgeable in topics such as this :). In reply to your argument, you COULD use this (I'll try to start a new one later), you have to keep in mind one thing: the concept of 1 country vs. 1 country.

Now I know in reality, when you have to giants (Russia and USA), you hardly not have other countries involved. And if it's a TOTAL WAR scenario, the likelihood of only having 2 countries together is even less probable. So yes, you could try to argue that Russia could attacck America's oil reserves. But ask yourselfe this - by doing that won't you possible anger other countries i.e. war being declared on Russia by other countries?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by younstownsoldier 7 years ago
younstownsoldier
TheSkepticBlasianicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TheSkepticBlasianicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yoni 7 years ago
Yoni
TheSkepticBlasianicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 7 years ago
Jamesothy
TheSkepticBlasianicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticBlasianicTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
theitalianstallion
TheSkepticBlasianicTied
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