The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Cruxispal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Militarily, the United States is currently stronger than China

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 2 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,639 times Debate No: 24093
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (2)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

I am arguing that currently in terms of each country's military, the United States had a stronger military than the People's Republic of China. What is argued is:

The size and quality of their military (current forces + reserves).
Number and quality of their air force.
Land-based weapons
Naval forces
Military budget

No semantics!
Cruxispal

Con

I agree to debate/troll this argument under full knowledge that my opponet has made this considerbaly one-sided =P

But I'm a china loving, commie whore, so I'll accept it, good luck to other size.

May I add to the argued subjects?
Spread of forces. This is argubaly extremely important. An army that is spread out through many areas is considerbally weakened. Even large forces, would often not fight 2 smaller forces at the same time. One fighting a smaller force, is in a disadvantage, if a large neighboring force provides a threat. I will not just talk about militray, but strategy wise as well.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now let's begin.

First off, my opponent wishes to add another subject about the spreading of forces. I have decided that, no, this will not be added to the list of subjects.

Military

Now the first subject we will debate is the size of each country's army. Remember that this only includes the current active military personnel and the current active military reserves. As of now the United States has 1,477,896 active military personnel and 1,458,500 active reserves. The Chinese have 2,285,000 active military personnel and 800,000 reserves. Let's add up the numbers:

2,936,396 (US) vs. 3,085,000 (China)

Yes the Chinese outnumber the Americans, but this actually rather even. The Chinese just have some 148,604 extra troops than we do (http://www.globalfirepower.com..., http://www.globalfirepower.com...)

Now let's look at their assault rifles. The United States has actually two assault rifles at the moment. The M16 Rifle has been the long-time standard rifle and starting in 2010, it is slowly being replaced in only the US Army by the M4 (so the Marines will still have the M16). Each is a gas-operated, rotating bolt rifle. The M16 can averagely fire 700-900 rounds per minute. Its muzzle velocity is 3,110 feet per second and its effective range is 550 meters on a point target and 800 meters area target (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Now for the M4, its rate of fire is 700-950 rounds per minute cyclic Its muzzle velocity is 2,900 feet per second. Its effective range is 500 meters for a point target and 600 meters for an area target (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Chinese have one assault rifle. It is the QBZ-95. Its rate of fire is 650 rounds per minute. In terms of muzzle velocity, it has 3,050 feet per second. Its effective range is 400 meters for a point target and 600 meters for an area target. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Generally, the M16 and M4 rifles are better than the QBZ-95. Each as a faster rate of fire. Both weapons have a better point target. The M4 has the same area target as the QBZ-95, but the M16 has a better area target.

Air Force

Now lets move to the air force. While air power does not single-handedly win wars, it certainly helps to enlist a little "help from above". This listing showcases all air-based aircraft per country including both fixed-wing and rotary-wing systems as well as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Transports and trainers are also included as part of the totals. So the grand total for both country's air forces is:

United States: 18,234
China: 5,176

The US has far more aircraft than the Chinese (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). Also, the US has more advanced aircraft as they have now fifth-generation jet fighters, the Chinese still mainly use fourth-generation get fighters. The US thus has more advanced aircraft than the Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Land-Based Weapons

Wars are still won on the ground, regardless of what technology may have you think. Covering all land-based weapon types including tanks, armored vehicles, anti-tank platforms, mobile rocket throwers, self-propelled guns, crew-served mortar weapons and towed artillery pieces. Here is the grand total:

United States: 56,269
China: 47,575

The USA clearly outnumbers the Chinese (http://www.globalfirepower.com...).

Naval Forces

Sea-going power is still one of the major factors when considering a nation's overall military strength. Includes navy ship vessels of all forms including surface and submarines as well as smaller patrol boats and logistical types. In the final GFP ranking, landlocked nations are NOT penalized for lack of a standing naval force. Here is the grand total:

United States: 2,384
China: 972

We have far more naval ships than the Chinese (http://www.globalfirepower.com...).

Military Budget

Because waging war still costs money - lots of it. Regardless of conflict, waging war still comes at a hefty price tag as showcased by current engagements in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. Defense budgets are used to sustain existing elements and procure all-new ones and supply the grease to keep the war machine turning. Here is the grand total:

United States: $692,000,000,000
China: $100,000,000,000
Cruxispal

Con

China calls in your $1.16 trillion dollars worth of debt. Unable to pay it off, you fall into deperssion similar to Germany post-WWI. We skyrocket past you in development, while you try to stablize your economy, and government. LOL I WIN XD

Okay Serious stuff now:
Numbers:
Actually the number according ot wikipedia(yes its credible, stop bashing on wiki haterz) is more like 4,585,000 deployed forces. Also during war time, conscription comes into play. America can conscrpit up to 72 million men. China can conscript around 380 million people. Okay, no debating Chinese has more people, lol.

Assult Rifles:
While the QBZ-95 is often seen as the much less superior weapon, I will attempt to show facts that put it in better lights.

While it is true that the fire rate of the QBZ-95 is 650 rounds per minute. The average fire rate of the M16A1 is around 650-750 rounds per minutes. The M16A2 which is less used does fire around 700-900 rounds, but that is an less issued upgarded version. The Chinese then can present to you the QBZ-97A, which has an added 3-round burst feature and bolt open-hold device.(Why do I sound like a salesman?)

Also worse weapons are generally cheaper, thus more easily produced. You have to realize, while yes we do sacrifice some quality of a weapon, we can use that saved money to make more, to arm our larger forces, and in the end the QBZ is still considered a modern assult rifle, and can still compete with the M16 series.

Tanks:
The standard 3rd gen US main battle tank is the well known M1 Abrams. The Chinese main battle tank is the Type 99. Just how do these two tanks compare?

The Type 99 runs at 50miles/hr, while the Abrams run at 42 miles/hr. This makes the Abrams much more reliant on support, while the Type 99 can operate with other forces, and be more independant in larger tank battles, retreats, and chases. The Type 99 can fire at 280 miles, while the range of the Abrams is 265 miles. The main gun of the Abrams is 1X105mm, while the Type 99 is a 1X125mm gun.

The Type 99 is also fitted with an autoloader. This reduces the crew amount to 3 members instead of 4, plus it loads at a higher speed.

While the Abrams does boast a series of anti-air launchers, fire extingushers, smoke grenades, this does make the Abrams costly, while the Chinese have a cheaper counter, lasers. These lasers can mess with enemy equipment, as well as dealing the obvious damage to one's eyes. Blinding the machine gunner makes the Abrams much more vulnerable to infantry attack. Also the ability to disable enemy equipment, would put their much invested weapons to waste.

Artillery Pieces:
The US primarily uses the M109 Howiter, while the Chinese have now made the PLZ-45 their standard self-propelled artillery piece. The chinese artillery piece once again uses one less crew member, which is such a big deal because that means one more troop for the 380,000,000 availabe to China. Sarcasm aside. The Plz-45 fires a sustained 2 round per minute, while the M109 fires at 3 round per minute. Although 1 round more, one can argue its adds up.

But lets look at the range, which is the most important thing when one is looking at artillery pieces. The Max range of the M109 is 19 miles, decent right? However the Plz-45 boasts a range of 31 miles.

They both use 155m main guns. Secondary armnaments on both includes machine guns, both being able to weild anti-air, and grenade launchers, so in that aspect they are equal.

Navy:
Its true that the US outnumbers the Chinese navy. But China will soon suprass the US in numbers of submarines. Chinese now also have anti-air carrier missles. It is more than capable of defending itself from US invasion.

Cyber warfare:
China is considered the greatest threat in the case of Cyberwarfare. China has at the very least the capability to get information, hack America's computers, and generally defend themself through counter-cyber warfare. Information is often key to success in a battle. With China having an all-knowing eye in the US, how can the US compete?

Budget:
I go back to my claim that China can call in the debt, shut America into depression, and thus the spending on the US army would lower dramatically won't it? MUHAHAHAHA, cough cough. But in all seriousness, the debt to China can very well be used against the US. If the US refuses to pay back, they won't be able to borrow a single penny on the international market ever again.

Sources:
standard Wikipedia pages
http://world.guns.ru...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.militaryfactory.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Note: This is not about a war, this is simply comparing the two countries militarily. The debt and the scenario Con made up at the start of his argument is irrelevant as I said we would never debate it. Thus, Con has violated the code of conduct so I wish for all voters to give that point to me.

Numbers:

"Actually the number according ot wikipedia(yes its credible, stop bashing on wiki haterz) is more like 4,585,000 deployed forces."

As of now, I believe that Wikipedia is an OK source, but that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. I believe my argument that China has 2,285,000 active troops in their military still stands. Why? Because in addition to my source (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). These sources also agree that China has around 2 million to 2.8 million men:

http://wiki.answers.com...
http://www.quora.com...
http://articles.cnn.com...
http://www.comw.org...
http://www.godlikeproductions.com...

Some of these sources may not be strong and some of them are, but they all widely agree that China has around 2 million to 2.8 million men.

"Also during war time, conscription comes into play."

Yeah, but were not debating that. I said that in terms of the size of their military, we are debating their active personnel and the reserves, not their populations that they can conscript. I did not want to add this because these people are largely untrained for war and would have to be go through training. Its better to debate the people that are already ready for war. My opponent has once again violated the code of conduct.

"...in the end the QBZ is still considered a modern assult rifle, and can still compete with the M16 series."

It can compete, but it is simply not better in quality which we are debating. Also my opponent did not debate against the M4. We are not debating about how expensive they are and how much can be produced, just their quality. So while my opponent talked about that unnecessary stuff, he has once again violated the code of conduct.

Air Force

My opponent did not even debate air force so I win this one.

Land-based Weapons

First off, my opponent brought his argument into two parts. First is tanks, second is artillery pieces.

Let's talk about tanks. While my opponent discussed the differences of these two tanks, he failed to put in numbers. Currently, the United States has 9,573 tanks while China has 7,500 tanks. If the Battle of Kursk showed us anything, the number of tanks you have (Soviet Union) is more important than your quality (Germany). With more tanks, we would be able to overrun the Chinese tanks (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). Also, what about anti-tank weapons? These are land-based weapons and the US had 8,000 while China has 1,250 (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). The US has far more anti-tank guns than the Chinese to defeat tanks, so that adds more power to the US.

The second was artillery. The US Army has the M109A6 "Paladin" Howitzer. The Chinese have the PLZ-45. The "Paladin" has an ammunition load of 39 rounds. The PLZ-45 has an ammunition load of 30 rounds. This is critical, the "Paladin" has more rounds than the PLZ-45 and that makes a difference in a battle. In terms machine gun rounds, the "Paladin" has 500 rounds and the PLZ-45 has 480 rounds. Even in terms of range, the number of rounds as very important (http://www.military-today.com..., http://www.military-today.com...).

In addition, both sides have armored personnel carriers which is part of land-based weapons. Both Armored Personnel Carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles - either tracked or wheeled in nature - are included in the counts. The United States has far more of these than the Chinese. The United States has 26,653 of these while the Chinese have 7,700. Quality of these aside, the US has way more than the Chinese that this not even a debate. The US has a clear advantage. Thus, the Chinese cannot transport as much troops as the US in armored carriers (http://www.globalfirepower.com...).

Once again, China falls short in terms of another land-based weapon; mortars. Mortars somewhat help to bridge the gap between small arms and dedicated artillery pieces. Totals cover all calibers of crew-served mortar weapons systems currently in service with a given army. The United States had 7,500 mortars while the Chinese have 1,050. Again quality does not need to be debated, the numbers overwhelmingly go to the US and thus the US has a clear advantage.

Moving armies has never been easy - logistical vehicles do just that. Logistical vehicles are what help an army move supplies. Once again, the US has a far larger amount of logistical vehicles. They have 267,247 and China has 55,850. Easy victory for the US here.

Navy

"Its true that the US outnumbers the Chinese navy. But China will soon suprass the US in numbers of submarines."

We are not debating about the future, we are debating the present. Once again, my opponent has violated the code of conduct by looking to the future.

"Chinese now also have anti-air carrier missles. It is more than capable of defending itself from US invasion."

Yeah, and I am sure the US have some to. The only difference is that the US has 11 and China has 1, so much if we destroy their one aircraft carrier (http://www.globalfirepower.com...).

Cyber Warfare

In terms of cyb....wait WTF?! Again where in the rules did I say we would debate cyber warfare????? My opponent has violated the code of conduct so many times I really think you should add another point from anything because of how bad he is to stay in conduct.

Budget

Again the you violate the code of conduct since we are not talking about the debt. My argument meant that the US has a larger budget still stands.
Cruxispal

Con

Thanks for the extremely quick reply


Arguing backwards:
Economy decides Military Funding. Debt decides Economy. Ect ect. How is this not relevant.

Huehue, trolling is fun:
If we were going to argue about the present, you might as well give yourself all the points, as its quite obvious to anyone that US has generally a higher quantity, and quality of equaipments.
Cyber Warfare
Last I checked its part of the military.

Rebuttals:
My Opponet brings up the Battle of Kursk, while it is true the Soveits won due to their number of tanks. If the Battle of Kursk truly showed us anything, is that you don't wait for you enemy to construct a massive minefield, and defensive line, than direct your tank forces at that line. Also the German tank casulaties were quite low, they were forced back not due to Soviet tank superiroity alone, but because of the amount of infantry availabe to the Soviet Union.

At the end of the battle Germany has around 2,600 of its orignial 2,900 tanks, while soviet union had 3000 of its original 5000 tanks. They were able to bring a 1100 tank gap to a mere 400 tank gap. Many of their casualties, as I have said before was due to the minefields and considerable amount of Guns and artillery pieces the Soviets had.

No Hypothesizing?
The only way to make this "fair" as you claimed this debate to be in the comments, would to make hypothetical situations. Comparing two armies in a hypothetical clash, would be the best way to determine their military might.

I simply conclude here by saying, that by creating a topic in which my opponet clearly knew the outcome, with no chance of making the debate "fair", this debate has ceased to be a proper and fair debate. Also, I present to you bad conduct as he has blatantly insulted the opponet.

What my Opponet has claimed to be a fair and even argument, he has clearly violated by cutting down all hypothetical situations, and external sources, and even in his arguments presented his answers in the form of "Clearly Winning".

My Opponet, in the section on Assult Rifles, have claimed I violated the code of conduct, by comparing prices. However, my opponet clearly in his last post, talked about the amount of weapons. The price of a weapon decides if it is produced more than another weapon.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

"Arguing backwards:
Economy decides Military Funding. Debt decides Economy. Ect ect. How is this not relevant."

Because this is a military argument, not an economic one. If this were about economics this would be titled, "Economically, the United States is stronger than China"

"If we were going to argue about the present, you might as well give yourself all the points, as its quite obvious to anyone that US has generally a higher quantity, and quality of equaipments. "

I do not think "equaipments" is a word, please give me the grammar and spelling point. If it were quite obvious to you, you would have never accepted the debate.

"Last I checked its part of the military."

Are we debating that part of the military. Last time I checked my rules were:

The size and quality of their military (current forces + reserves).
Number and quality of their air force.
Land-based weapons
Naval forces
Military budget

Never have I said we would talk about cyber warfare.

"My Opponet brings up the Battle of Kursk, while it is true the Soveits won due to their number of tanks. If the Battle of Kursk truly showed us anything, is that you don't wait for you enemy to construct a massive minefield, and defensive line, than direct your tank forces at that line. "

There will always be anti-tank weapons in war and I talked about that in one of the rounds. Its not like there will never be defensive lines in war, there always is. Anti-tank weapons should be included because anti-tank weapons are used in war.

Besides that, my opponent did not counter anything else in my arguments.

"The only way to make this "fair" as you claimed this debate to be in the comments, would to make hypothetical situations. Comparing two armies in a hypothetical clash, would be the best way to determine their military might. "

Never in the rules did I say we would compare them in a hypothetical clash.

"Also, I present to you bad conduct as he has blatantly insulted the opponet."

My opponent has again misspelled, please count this against him. Also, who violated the code of conduct more times by violating the rules?

"My Opponet, in the section on Assult Rifles, have claimed I violated the code of conduct, by comparing prices. However, my opponet clearly in his last post, talked about the amount of weapons. The price of a weapon decides if it is produced more than another weapon."

He has once again misspelled, count this against him. We are not talking about buying weapons in the future, we are comparing the amount as of now that have already been bought.

I stand by my record that I have always been a fair and balanced debater. In school, I in fact lost one of two debates similar to this one in my debate club. Then we have a rematch later this year and I won. The fact is, this was debatable and my opponent simply was not a good debater.

Conclusion

I have proven that the United States is currently stronger as of now than China.
Cruxispal

Con

I have prove that my opponet has not only violated the rules of a proper debate, but that he has violated the user agreement. Violating a given set of rules not agreed , does not violate the given User Agreement.

Therefore I win by default.

Also in answer to your question on why I accepted, I am (I quote) "I agree to debate/troll this argument under full knowledge that my opponet has made this considerbaly one-sided =P

But I'm a china loving, commie whore, so I'll accept it, good luck to other size."

Last I checked trolling is not forbidden by User Agreement.

Lastly I have proved that in rifles, the QBZ is essentially easier produced, thus giving a point in productivity/numbers.
There is no doubt that in terms of numbers that the Chinese outnumbers the US in manpower. Saying the Gap is small is thrown away in this argument, where everything goes 100 % to either side.

I also get points for quality of the Chinese Tanks, and Artillery.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
no as in i won 1 out of 3, so we're both right
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
2 out of 3 my friend. You lost 2.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
be quiet =P

Thats 1 out of 3 debates XD
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Yeah and you have a 33% winning ratio lol! Mine is 64%!
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
yea well, leave it to the guy with 3 debates (1 other being troll) under his belt to troll the argument =P Funny thing, nobody really gives me feedback, so i decide to troll debates.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 4 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Historygenius, being a fair and balanced debater in quite a different matter to this being a fair resolution. Also, I must state that 'similar' makes quite a bit of difference. If I said 'The United States would defeat China in a proxy war in [X] ' that would most certainly be a similar resolution. However, that resolution allows an application of economic difficulties, cyber warfare, specifies a battlefield and so forth. The point is that while the US clearly has an advantage there are mitigating factors. This debate lacked such mitigating factors.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
I still stand that I am a fair and balanced debater because I lost a similar debate at my debate club at school.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 4 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Pretty poor debate really. Pro creates an extremely one-sided resolution (no specific military scenario or battlefield was set up; logistical capability is key to fighting a proxy war and either side could hold their own in a defensive war) and denies Con the chance to really attack back, although he does to a limited extent. For instance, cyber warfare was just deemed by Pro as completely irrelevant (it's part of military budget...) when it clearly is of significance. Of course, the USA has superior cyber warfare capabilities, but this wasn't stated by Pro, Con wins on cyber warfare.

Pro gets most of the other points ... if only because they're rather difficult to dispute. For instance, by stating 'currently' as opposed to 'who would win a protracted war?' Pro conveniently sidesteps all possible economic advantages for China with regard to US debt. Pro is right though that given the wording of the resolution that Con can't argue about the future, nor current debt obligations because it's 'currently military stronger...' .

Pro wins arguments, yet I'd give Con the point on conduct because of Pro's ridiculous resolution. This debate was disappointingly shallow in general though.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
i totally have this all under control guys.... totally. As this is my what... 3rd debate? I am in a clear position to win. China got something that can screw US military thousand times over ;)
Posted by quarterexchange 4 years ago
quarterexchange
Don't talk about arguments while the debate is in progress. Jesus Christ.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
1HistorygeniusCruxispalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has horrible spelling and grammar, trolled a debate that was meant to be serious, forfeited a round basically, and violated the opening rules, thus pro deserves the win in full.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
1HistorygeniusCruxispalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "If we were going to argue about the present, you might as well give yourself all the points, as its quite obvious to anyone that US has generally a higher quantity, and quality of equaipments." In the end, con was just arguing over economy or future possibilites rather than the actual case.