The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is This A TEST

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 78159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




to 58539672.... You posted that,"The US is not that vulnerable ..."
The United States has never been more vulnerable. than it is today under Obama and his leftist democrat party minions having decided to unilaterally cut our military defenses while Russia and China and other communist countries are enlarging their military capabilities. , "President Obama has reined in development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses. The president cut all advanced missile defense programs designed to keep the United States ahead of the ballistic missile threat in the future. The president also delayed and underfunded existing programs, most notably the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system...."
"....Russia immediately exploited that weakness in negotiations over the New START. The final agreement allowed Russia to build up its nuclear arsenal, while requiring a significant reduction in U.S. nuclear warheads and delivery systems Moreover, the treaty included extremely weak verification provisions and ambiguous definitions, making it virtually impossible to charge Russia with a violation."
Hillary Clinton was shown with Russian Vladimir Putin, smiling with her (RESET BUTTON) in her hand, Vladimir Putin then realized just who it was that he was dealing with and sized her up correctly as an example of America's naivet". "IS THIS A TEST," You bet it is..


I accept your challenge.

So now your worrying about missiles. Alright, lets move away from the bombers that you were so worried about earlier and onto another weapon.

One, the US and Russian arsenals of nuclear warheads are so massive that both can destroy the world by themselves if they want to. The current size of both nations nuclear arsenal is America with roughly 7300 total (1597 are deployed, 2800 are on standby, and the rest are mothballed and awaiting dismantlement) and Russia with roughly 8000 (1582 deployed, 2000 on standby, and the rest are mothballed and awaiting dismantlement). Adding any more to either wouldn't make a noticeable difference. [1]

Two, Many of the defense systems that you claim the Obama administration dismantled (even though the reduction of our missile systems began as early as 1976) were both painfully obsolete (some still used floppy discs or something even older) and not worth the money to maintain them (some of these systems, like the GMD, which costs $40 BILLION). If the Russians decided to launch a nuclear strike, no missile defense system in the world could stop the amount of ICBMs and other ballistic missiles that I listed above. The Russians also know this which is why all their defense systems are focused around Moscow and nothing else. It is a waste of money to try and defend against something that can't be stopped.

Three, The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system (GMD) as I stated above, is an incredibly expensive system. And get this, The US Government Accountability Office found that the GMD program was also continuing production of known faulty interceptor designs and was thus determined to not be the most "cost effective" system. The system was incredibly expensive, had several design problems that needed fixing, and was not the best defense system out their. [2]

Four, Even with the US defense spending cuts (which have more to do with are withdraw from Iraq than anything else), the US military budget still eclipses both the Russian and Chinese budgets combined. By a LARGE margin. [3]

Five, You claim that the New START program will allow the Russians to expand their nuclear arsenal. Well then, why is Russia reducing their arsenal by 3700 warheads, more than even what the US is reducing. Russia wants to get rid of their aging Soviet era nukes. They are costly to maintain and Russia does not have as deep of pockets as the US.

Six, Nuclear weapons don't really matter anymore. Both the US and Russia have an arsenal big enough that neither will ever risk direct war (Mutually Assured Destruction and what not). If either Russia or China wants to even get close to the power that the US currently has, they have more important programs to invest their money in than in nukes. Like advancing their Navies for instance.

Debate Round No. 1


REPLY BY Lookingattheissues on Response to
You replied,"So now your worrying about missiles. Alright, lets move away from the bombers that you were so worried about earlier and onto another weapon."
I 'm not for a minute forgetting about the threat of Russian bombers and fighter planes that have been reconnoitering the United States coast lines Why would I, or any American believe that the Russians are flying bombers and fighter planes off our coasts with our best interest in mind and not doing it for their own future objectives.
The Russians flying their military bombers and fighter planes close to our shores isn't a friendly action but a hostile act.
" You posted, "So now your worrying about missiles...'
You brought up my concern about Russian missiles..
Certainly I'm concerned about all communist and Muslim dominated countries possessing Nuclear weapons. Russian and Chinese as well as North Korean Nuclear Missiles as well as Iran's stealth work in developing their Nuclear missiles. These countries are America's enemies and their having or developing Nuclear Bombs/ missiles are a threat to America, they could serve no other purpose but to threaten, and overwhelm America's defemses . America and Israel are the targets of all of these communist and Muslim dominated countries, America cannot allow themselves to be deceived into bel;ieving somehow that this isn't true and is, in fact an established fact.
If and when such communist countries and other enemies of America who possess mass armies and nuclear weapons attack America their mass numbers and Weaponery will overwhelm America's defenses, These enemies of America won't attack by themselves but will unite their efforts to accomplish the destruction of this country. America has Nuclear weapons and missiles but America will be outnumbered in troops nuclear bombs and missiles and the outcome ,as to whom will win that conflict isn't in doubt, or shouldn't be by anyone. This president seems intent on weakening America's defenses, for example, "SEOUL, South Korea - At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him "space."
NOTE.....The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
"What has happened with America's ability to defend itself, and since Obama became President,"Here are the raw numbers: The United States has radically reduced its arsenal since the height of the Cold War, when we possessed a stockpile of about 32,000 nuclear weapons. As the terms of the New START agreement President Obama just negotiated with Moscow go into effect, the United States will soon have a force level of 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons on bombers, subs and land-based missiles, that nuclear Triad of weapons based on air, sea and land platforms."
"[Read The Dangers of Obama's Nuclear Disarmament Promise.]"
"Many experts believe that this the absolute rock bottom level that is safe. After all, this shrinking arsenal must not only deter an attack on the American homeland from a Russian force of roughly equal size and a Chinese force of unknown size (and perhaps the two together). It must also protect U.S. forces stationed abroad."
When the world is so divided and America and Israel are viewed as the enemy and the cause of all the worlds problems ,the need for a stronger, not a weaker ability to defend against these nations who have declared their hatred for America and wishes to destroy the country who ,but those who share the enemies sentiments toward America would even think about weakening the countries defenses at this critical time.


First, To those reading this debate, let me give you a bit of context that was excluded from the beginning of the debate. This argument began when my opponent posted an opinion poll about Russian bombers preforming military test off the US coastline. My opponent claimed that Russia is preparing to attack and that (thanks to the Obama administration) America is vulnerable. I responded to this by posting...

"The US is not that vulnerable You are a little misinformed about a few things. First and foremost, every single military exercise that has been conducted by the Russian military near the US has been intercepted between 30 and 50 miles off shore (which is well within international waters). The US doesn't treat anything like a test. Every approaching aircraft that enters even our fishing regions, which stretch several hundred miles off shore, are treated as a potential treat, especially post 9/11. We give them warnings to back off at around 100 to 70 miles. Intercept them and drive them away at around 50 to 30. And Shoot them down the second they enter US waters (12 miles off shore). If an aircraft does enter US territorial waters, we have ample opportunity to deal with it." [1]

Second, The Russian Federation is not Communist. They are Capitalist like every other world power. Even China is not Communist, despite the Communist party leading them. They have a capitalist economy with socialist tendencies mixed in. Their is no actual communist country in the world right now. And as for Muslim nations, Im assuming that you are referring to Iran (which doesn't have nuclear weapons yet) or Pakistan (which does have nuclear weapons but is a close trading partner and ally of the US). A nations religion has no say in how they will react to having nukes. North Korea is atheist and they are pretty crazy about their warheads. Pakistan and India both have nukes and neither has tried to use them.

Third, as I stated earlier but you clearly glossed over, nukes don't matter. The US has enough nuclear warheads that no other nuclear armed nation will risk a war. Reducing or increasing are nuclear stockpile will not effect that in any way. We do not need 32,000 nukes to defend this country, and neither does ever other nuclear armed nation. And they all know this. Russia and the US has been dismantling their stockpiles for years now. Their is simply no point in having tens of thousands of warheads. Why have 32,000 when you can achieve the same goal with 1500 (oh, and we already have a deployed nuclear force of 1550 warheads. Well 1597 to be exact. But you would already know that if you read my earlier rundown of both the US' and Russia's nuclear stockpile. Deployed simply means how many we can use immediately, not how many we have). It is a waste of money.

Four, If you are now moving on to conventional forces, then the US is even further from vulnerable than we were with nukes. The United States was gifted with two very impressive natural barriers that defend it from foreign aggression. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The US Navy's dominance at sea (and I mean dominance. The rest of the worlds navies put together can't beat the US Navy) all but guarantees that any conflict between any of our "adversaries" will not even get close to US soil. The largest armies in the world can not help them if they can't get a single one across the ocean. In addition the US has the top 2 strongest air forces (1st is the US Air Force, 2nd is the US Navy), of which we have repeatedly proven how control of the skies can counter even superior numbers in combat. [2][3]

Five, none of the nations you have listed as our enemies gains anything by going to war with the US. Chinas economy is so heavily dependent on the American consumer that even cutting off trade temporally, let alone a war, will collapse their economy. North Korea similarly, is completely reliant on China for survival, so the same law can be applied to them. China has repeatedly told NK to behave themselves. Russia is largely dependent on the Oil trade to sustain their economy, which drives them to preserve as many of their markets as possible. Russia sells a large portion of their oil to the rest of Europe, which are staunch US allies. Iran, which is reliant on both China and Russia for survival, would never try to attack the US. They will all puff up their chests and try to look big and tough in front of the goliath that is America, but none of them will EVER make a move against us. Globalization and trade have seen to that. [4] [5]

Six, The US is no closer to WW3 than we were at the hight of the cold war. Our enemies have adopted western ideals, they are heavily reliant on our economic prosperity, are defense budgets and military hardware are larger and more sophisticated than during the cold war, and the number of total conflicts in the world are at the lowest they've been in the modern era. We are actually living in one of the most peaceful times in recent history. So stop fear mongering. The world is just fine.

Debate Round No. 2


Lookingattheissues Rebuttal to CON
on under Opinion, under Politics ...July 28Th. 2015 ...8:22 PM Tuesday
Con posted in his reply that,"This argument began when my opponent posted an opinion poll about Russian bombers preforming military test off the US coastline..."
The fact that the Russians are flying Bombers and fighter Planes really definds the Russians purpose for flying off America's shores. First of all the Russians are saying and demonstrating that they can reach our coast lines with bombers and fighter planes any time that they wish to., and they are saying in effect, that we have the capability to bomb America when that time is right and advantageous that all the conditions are in their favor to do so.
Vladimir Putin Biography
Prime Minister, President (non-U.S.) (1952")
....."In 1999, Russian president Boris Yeltsin dismissed his prime minister and promoted former KGB officer Vladimir Putin in his place. In December 1999, Yeltsin resigned, appointing Putin president, and he was re-elected in 2004. ..... Putin could not run for the presidency again in 2008, but was appointed prime minister by his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Putin was re-elected to the presidency in March 2012. In 2014, ..."
"Russians had gone to the polls in a similarly superfluous electoral exercise that restored Putin to the Kremlin throne. That outcome had been pre-determined much earlier when Putin, inconvenienced by term limits, loaned the presidency to a figurehead " mentee Dmitry Medvedev " with the understanding it would be returned to him at the earliest legal opportunity."

".... Putin was appointed head of the Federal Security, an arm of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin's Security Council. In August 1999, Yeltsin dismissed his then-prime minister Sergey Stapashin, along with his cabinet, and promoted Putin in his place....."

Russia might call its nation by any designated name it choses and still remain under the same form of government as before with slight modifications to mask who they are as a country to deceive the native into thinking that they have changed from the communist controlled country that they were. About the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (U.S.S.R.)..... "
Lafcadio Hearn once Wrote of Japan,,"Japan Wears Successively, ......., a series of Western Masks; but these are discarded in turn, for beneath the masks the old Japanese character lives."
To paraphrase Lafcadio Hearn , This is also true of Russia,,......., "Russia wears successively a series of Western Masks; but these are discarded in turn, for beneath the masks the old....Russian..... character lives..."
"There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism." Author unknown
Communist Russia still exists, for example".... former KGB officer Vladimir Putin...... was appointed head of the Federal Security, an arm of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin's Security Council.


Given that this debate is about whether the US is vulnerable to Russia forces, you have provided no new relevant information in your 3rd round argument.

One half is saying that the continued Russian flight tests near our borders are example of Russian showing off their military might. On the surface I can agree with this statement, but this has been a Russian strategy for nearly a century. This still has nothing to do with Americas vulnerability to a potential attack. As I clarified in round 2, we are well prepared for such an instance.

The other half consists of several quotes and instances which are trying to paint the picture that Russia hasn't changed and is still secretly the same USSR. Once again this has no relevance on whether the US is vulnerable or not, even if it was entirely true. The Russian Federation is not Communist. Period. They don't practice any of the ideological beliefs of Marxism. They have free enterprise, private industry, a return of religion, and a fairly right leaning party ruling the country. Even if you make the argument that Putin is a dictator and Russia isn't a democracy, they are still capitalist.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.