Is the US NAVY still useful
Debate Rounds (3)
The true purpose of the Navy is to provide forward-deployed operations from the sea in support of peace and stability around the world, but they haven't been following this. Instead, they focus on maritime security, power projection, deterrence, sea control, humanitarian aid, and forward presence. Only one of those actually apply to the Navy, the rest are usually applied to the Coast Guard and Army. So they're practically stealing other branche's jobs.
Maritime Security: One of 3 basic roles of the Coast Guard, developed in response to a series of catastrophic events that began in 1917.
Power Projection: a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to apply all or some of its elements of national power.
Deterrence: a strategy intended to disuade an adversary from taking an action that has not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something another state desires.
Sea Control: the employment of naval forces, supported by land and air forces as appropriate, in order to achieve objectives in vital sea areas.
Humanitarian Aid: action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain/protect human dignity during the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters.
For those who know what each branch does, that last one (humanitarian aid) is one of the primary roles of both the National Guard and the Coast Guard.
Naval warfare is obsolete. In the modern day, there are numerous new weapons coming out. Every single one of them can easily tear apart a ship, or shut them down. One of the biggest threats to the Navy would be an EMP. Just about everything in the Navy runs on electricity, so an EMP blast would wipe them out pretty effectively. This just goes to show that the Navy just can't keep up with the modern warfare. And with aerial battles (dog fights) occurring more and more, sea battles will probably be a thing of the past.
Hypothetically, if America, or any other National power, would be invaded, the Navy wouldn't play a part at all. To support this claim, I'm turning to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and real life event of Pearl Harbor. In MW2, Russia invades the US, not from the sea, but from the Air. American radars pick up the aircraft, but its too late when they do. The Russian troops drop in and begin the invasion. Where's the Navy? Not involved. Through out the entire Modern Warfare series, the Navy plays a very little role, only having a part in MW3 which lasted only a few minutes. Even in Medal of Honor, a game which has always realistically portrayed the military, but in the newer ones the Navy isn't even present, let alone mentioned. Back to the subject on the invasion of the US. We already know that people could easily sneak in using Air Craft. We saw this during Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked. What's to stop other countries from doing trying that? If they did, and if we do have something to stop them, it won't be the Navy that uses it.
one of the many ships that are used by the navy would be the Aircraft Carrier.
now we must take into consideration that the earth surfaces consists of more than 70% water, and this where the Aircraft Carrier comes into play. the purpose and perks of an aircraft carrier can be read about in the link below.
to use an example with the ceasefire between north and south Korea and the fact that north Korea has the capability of producing nuclear bomb ,for example the north Koreans beginning trial runs with h-bombs
now in the chance of the Korean war getting started up again the US would have no choice but to provide aid to south Korea which is due to the fact that south Korea is a democratic nation and that north Korea is communist and if north Korea were to invade south Korea then considering the strong relations between south Korea and the US the US would undoubtedly intervene in the matter.
now let's say that the ceasefire is ended by the north Koreans and were to invade south Korea. I would like to mention that north Korea also has a navy of its own. Thus the navy would have an opponent
with the Korean war now in full swing the US would be able to legally use any form of a nuclear device.
First off, I'd like to remind my opponent that we're debating the Navy, not Air Force. Granted the Navy does have a small air force of their own, its not being taken into consideration as people generally think about ships when on mentions the Navy.
The air craft carrier is the most built ship the Navy has and its weakest by far. Why do I say that? You may ask. Because its the most vulnerable. Though they carry up to 500 planes, they have no defences against missiles, such as the KH-22, or submarines. But even with all those planes, there's no way they can get enough up in the air in enough time to defend the ship should it be attacked by another vessel. Hence, we used to have ships protecting them, but since sea battles are now only a thing in video games, we've dropped those habits and aircraft carriers have taken to travelling alone. And with Russia exporting the KH-22E, our carriers are at threat to anyone and everyone who buys them.
I'd like to point out to my opponent that North Korea and their nuclear bombs/experiments have nothing to do with the topic of the debate. Though, I could use it to prove my point, seeing as the Navy can't stop a nuke, but its still off the main topic.
Again, my opponent is getting off track a bit here. But I will rebut his arguments anyway. To start, I'd like to point out that North Korea is not a Communist country but actually a democracy that follows the traditions of Juche "self-reliance". Also, if we were to go to war with North Korea again, it would be strategically wise to keep the Navy out of it seeing as they have a much stronger Navy than we do. And, even if we go to war with Korea, we still won't be allowed to use nuclear weapons because that would be breaking the Geneva Convention laws. If were to break any of these treaties, the rest of the world would turn on us especially seeing as the UN usually looks to us to enforce these treaties in the first place. But there are debates going on about whether or not they should be abolished. But even if they nuked us, we would ultimately win, especially since China abandoned them shortly after they threatened us.
I would like to point out that the navy also has special operation groups these groups are:
Special warfare combatant-craft-crewmen
Eod whom specialize in both ground and under water demolition defusion
Aviation rescue swimmer
I would also like to point out that they navy also possess ballistic missile submarines whom can easily stalk the ocean without being seen by anything above water
I would also like to bring up the topic of the territorial disputes in the south China sea.https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
From what the article is saying it may seem that later in the future that we may have to send the navy to stop the Chinese from incroaching on the smaller islands.
The navy is the only us military branch that uses tomahawk missiles which can be launched via submarine or ship
First off, I'd like to point out that all but two of the branches have special forces units, the two that don't being the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard.
Second off, though my opponent did mention some jobs in the Navy that some would consider to be "elite", my opponent failed to explain how or why they are useful. Yes he provided a link for the Navy website, but for all anyone could know, the source could tell us just about as much as my opponent is.
For my opponent, things one brings up in a debate, such as that, need to be explained. This provides a good standing point and occasionally a defense to one's argument.
Submarines aren't really a problem. There are a lot of anti-submarine weapons, such as torpedoes and the well known mines that ships have a tendency to drop in the water. The submarine is as dangerous and as much of a worry as any battleship the Navy can use against anybody.
I'd like to point out that my opponent is using an unreliable source, so they could just as well be providing a fake article that some random person thought they'd make up. I'd also like to point out that if we did move our ships over there, it would start a war with China, and we would lose. For two reasons. 1, they have more people than we do. Based on Chinese culture, they'd fight down to the last child, while for us, once the military has fallen, we're very likely to go with it. 2, China has a noticeably more advanced and stronger Navy than we do. They could easily destroy an aircraft carrier at will. It wouldn't even be a naval battle, it'd be a series of carefully planned and played out attacks that would destroy our Navy. It probably won't even put any of their seamen or other soldiers in any kind of danger. And the war would be inevitable, especially seeing that China has already warned our Navy to stay away.
Just because one branch has a weapon that the other's don't, doesn't mean its a useful branch. They all have their fair share of weapons that no other branch has. One could take each branches unique weapon, and they wouldn't change. They'd be the same as they were with it.
I'd like to thank my opponent for giving me this opportunity to debate this topic, and I look forward to debating other topics with them in the future.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 months ago
|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|
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give the arguments points to Con here in this debate and here's why. Pro actually drops all of Con's arguments and whenever Pro makes an argument he ends up dropping it after Con's refutation in the next round. I find it interesting as Pro's 2nd and 3rd contentions could have actually have been used against him by simply subsituting the Air Force in place of the Navy. With these dropped arguments I have to give the debate to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.