The Instigator
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

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...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,236 times Debate No: 52955
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

TheRussian

Pro

I will be arguing that Russia would defeat the USA in a war. These will be the conditions for our debate.
1. No nuclear weaponry. Just "traditional" warfare.
2. No allies, just 1 v 1, Russia vs. USA.
3. US is the aggressor (realistic considering America's aggressive war history.)
4. My opponent has the choice of arguing how/from where the US would strike. This also means that my opponent is basically the general of the US army, so in a way, we are not only competing with brute military force, but also military strategy.
5. Total war. No outside help, just the two countries brawling it out.
6. We will not consider future military projects, only what resources/weaponry the countries have today.
If you have any questions or want me to specify something, ask in the comment section.
Please begin your argument.
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate and as per rules I state that the US invades across the Bering Strait from Alaska.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Pro

Thank you for accepting and I will be looking forward to a fun debate.

Now, my opponent states that the invasion will begin from Alaska, across the Bering Strait. This means that many troops and vehicles would have to be flown over to Alaska. This would give Russia time to prepare. Russia's naval mine warfare force consists of 34 ships. (Second only to China). Russia would use this to mine the Sea of Okhotsk and the area around the Kamchatka peninsula, preventing the US from using their navy in these areas. It is, of course, still possible but the US would take heavy casualties and it would take much time to carefully navigate through this minefield.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Next, I will note that the US forces will have to cover a little over 3, 900 miles to get from the Bering Strait to Moscow. Not only is that by itself an enormous distance, but most of it is through the harsh climate of Siberia.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Economy

We have all seen wars where the economy is a major fact. Let's take a look at how a US invasion of Russia will lead to the collapse of the Russian economy. First off Russia has the US dollar as their back-up currency. When the invasion occurs Russia will dump the US dollar. ( http://www.thedailybeast.com...) However this will not hurt the US, but actually collapse Russia. You see the Russian financial market is very fragile. If we look at the Russian economy during the Ukraine crisis it will explain a ton. During the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy dropped 12 points on the market. (http://money.cnn.com...) Shares have fallen to 7% and their bankers are fleeing for London. It's also charging gas prices in Russia at $97,347 per gallon! (http://www.cityam.com...) Now this is just Russia in Ukraine. US invasion of Russia will have larger implications.

Contention 2: US Military

Pro brings up in his argument that US will get destroyed via mine fields, but this is incorrect. The US has thousands of anti-mine vehicles that could easily take out the mine field. (http://www.npr.org...) The US has a ballistic missile system that can hit Russia and Moscow could be bombed on a daily basis. (http://www.armscontrol.org...) Russia also has a falling population which will hurt it's military force as thousands of people are disappearing from the Russian Demographics. (http://www.theamericanconservative.com...) US also has many anti mine ships and many of which is already near Russia and are stationed in Japan prepared for an invasion. (http://www.navy.mil...)

Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Pro

"We have all seen wars where the economy is a major fact."
I absolutely agree. Although the US has a strong economy, the US owes 25-30 times more than Russia. While Russia's external debt is about 630 billion dollars, America's external debt is about 17 trillion dollars. 129 billion of those 17 trillion is actually owed to Russia. Russia owns another $200 billion in bonds and if they were to be "recalled", it would damage the US economy. If a country like China demands that the US return the debt, the US would simply go bankrupt.
http://countryeconomy.com...
http://people.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

"First off Russia has the US dollar as their back-up currency. When the invasion occurs Russia will dump the US dollar. However this will not hurt the US"
It would, in fact, destroy the US economy. There would be hyperinflation and destabilization. The US economy (along with most of the world's economy) would crumble.
http://usawatchdog.com...

"It's also charging gas prices in Russia at $97,347 per gallon!"
I do not see where you found this information in the article. I'm having a hard time believing that Russia is buying gas for almost $100, 000 per gallon.

"The US has thousands of anti-mine vehicles that could easily take out the mine field."
The article that you provided speaks of land vehicles that are prepared against IEDs.
1. That is an exaggeration. There are not "thousands" ready.
2. An IED is an Improvised Explosive Device used in guerrilla warfare. This not the kind of professional mine that would be used by Russians. An IED is basically a home-made explosive.
3. The article is about LAND vehicles. I wrote that "Russia's naval mine warfare force consists of 34 ships." I am talking about sea mines. The article my opponent provided is irrelevant.

"The US has a ballistic missile system that can hit Russia and Moscow could be bombed on a daily basis."
The same exact thing can be said about Russian missiles hitting important US cities. In fact, using your source, it is evident that Russia's arsenal of missiles is much greater. While the US only has 5 operational missile types, Russia has 16 operational types of all ranges, from 70 km to 11, 000 km.
http://www.armscontrol.org...
Sending a missile into Russia will be the worst mistake the US can make. This means that the US will receive dozens of missiles in return. Also, because the population density of the US is much higher than that of Russia, the Russian missile strikes will be more effective.
Any missiles incoming into Russia would quickly be located and eliminated by the Russian A-135 missile defense system which has radars all over the country.
http://www.ausairpower.net...

"US also has many anti mine ships and many of which is already near Russia and are stationed in Japan prepared for an invasion."
Using the source that my opponent provided, I learned that the US only has 4 anti-mine ships anywhere near Russia (they're in Japan). This will not be a sufficient force to remove a minefield created by up to 34 ships. Not only that, but the chances of these 4 ships being destroyed is high as well. Russia has the world's largest force of Corvettes (74 ships) which are fast and will be able to hunt down the 4 anti-mine ships.
http://www.navy.mil...

With barriers of mines, patrolled by submarines, corvettes and patrol boats, (backed up by more serious Russian vessels like destroyers) the US navy would effectively be locked out of the Russian hemisphere. Russia would then use its 730 transport aircraft to move soldiers, tanks, SPGs, MLRSs and basic artillery pieces to the battlefield. Creating a heavy defensive line In the area right below Wrangel Island, west of the Bering Strait. If every transport aircraft made two runs a day (assuming that each can carry at least 3 vehicles, 1 towed artillery pieces and 10 men), in less than a week, there could be a formidable army by the Bering Strait consisting of:
10, 000 of Russia's 15, 500 tanks (most in the world)
2, 000 of Russia's 4, 600 towed artillery pieces
10, 000 of Russia's 27, 000 AFVs (most in the world)
5, 000 of Russia's 6, 000 SPGs (most in the world)
1, 000 of Russia's 3, 700 MLRSs (most in the world)
87, 000 soldiers
This force would create a defensive barrier that the US would not be able to break through. Most of the un-used weaponry mentioned above would be used to create a second line of defense behind the first, serving to:
1. Support the 1st line of defense.
2. Keep the US from dropping in behind the 1st line.
Even if the US did break through the 1st line, it would be done only through extremely heavy losses and the US would then face another line of defense. The US lines would be under very heavy bombardment day and night from the combined artillery force of the SPGs, MLRSs and regular towed artillery. This would not only have a very obvious physical effect by destroying US men and equipment, but also a psychological effect. After being surrounded by explosions from an unseen target for hours straight, a soldier is suddenly not so keen to jump into battle. If the US attempted to attack and push through the 1st line of defense, they would sustain heavy losses from artillery fire as well as tanks. Russia's enormous tank force would crush any incoming threat. The entire time that the US is trying to break through the already-present line of defense, the Russian air force would continue to work day and night to bring in more troops and anti-air systems such as the Tor-M2 and the S-400 SAM.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

I would like to note that so far, other than that the invasion would originate from the Bering Strait, my opponent has still provided no real plan of invasion. I look forward to seeing how my opponent plans to break through the Russian defense lines.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: The economy

Pro brings up that the US debt is large and I will admit that. However the US and Chinese economies are so interlinked it would be impossible for China to call for the bill and bankrupt America as it would bankrupt China as well and damage the entire global economy. (http://business.time.com...)

I would like to extend my gas argument, because I provided a valid source and my opponent did not. My opponent also drops the fact that the Russian dumping of the US currency will hurt Russia and cause hyperinflation. He also drops how the Russian economy is incredibly fragile in war when looking at the Ukraine crisis. Imagain a larger war.

US knows that this will hurt the economy, but as I brought up in my last round it will hurt the Russians more. (http://money.cnn.com...)

Contention 2: Military


The invasion of Russia will be simple. While the US lands in Russia the US will rain scuds down upon the Russian forces blowing them into oblivion. While the Russian economy fails and crushes the Russians will be forced to surrender and they will fall into depression. The Invasion in the East (Bering Strait) will be by the US Army while I purpose a second invasion where the US will invade Russia through the Baltic Sea between Finland and Estonia and this will be administered by the Marine Corps and the US Navy.

My opponent states that the Russians can out shoot the Americans, but this is again false, because if you look at the link I provided it shows that the farthest the US can shoot is 13,000 km (Minuteman 3) while the farthest the Russians can shoot is 11,000 km (SS-27) (http://www.armscontrol.org...) (http://news.usni.org...) My opponent also forgets that the US currently has troops stationed all over the world so it will be easy to invade Russia from all different directions.
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Pro

"I would like to extend my gas argument, because I provided a valid source and my opponent did not."
I read the article my opponent provided. No where does it say that Russia is buying gas for such a price. It says: "Gazprom will put the price it charges Ukraine for gas back up from $268.50 per thousand cubic metres to $368.50". It says nothing about Russia buying gas for $100, 000.

"My opponent also drops the fact that the Russian dumping of the US currency will hurt Russia and cause hyperinflation."
If my opponent would have read my argument more carefully, he would notice that I addressed this in my argument.

"US will rain scuds down upon the Russian forces blowing them into oblivion."
1. Missiles are expensive.
2. Russia has anti-missile systems.
3. Russia has missiles as well.
4. This is an exaggeration, a war cannot be won by missiles alone.
That is like me saying that: "Well, Russia has more machine-guns so all the US soldiers will just get mowed down."

"While the Russian economy fails and crushes the Russians will be forced to surrender and they will fall into depression."
The Russian economy would not crash. In fact, many businesses (war based) would prosper because of the sudden extreme need for guns, ammo and explosives. Also, the Russians would not surrender. As seen in WW2, Russians have a tendency to fight until every resource has been exhausted. They are fighting for their motherland's survival. If they lose, they lose all, so they MUST win. US soldiers, on the other hand, may not be so pumped because they are invading a far away land. The overall morale of the Russian soldiers would be higher because they are fighting ON their own land and FOR their own land.

"The Invasion in the East (Bering Strait) will be by the US Army"
As mentioned above, there will be very heavy forces located there. The US Army will take heavy losses and most likely will not make serious progress.

"I purpose a second invasion where the US will invade Russia through the Baltic Sea between Finland and Estonia and this will be administered by the Marine Corps and the US Navy."
The area in which my opponent proposes an attack in a choke point. It is a narrow pass in which the US Navy will not have much space to maneuver and use its numerical advantage over the Russians. The Baltic Fleet has 56 warships and 2 submarines. While the submarines are not a very significant force, they will simply support the 56 warships which will be able to hold off the US Navy. Throughout history, it is seen that armies with a numerical disadvantage can use geography (specifically choke points) to hold off their enemy. This can be seen in the story of the Spartan army of 300, it can be seen in the way the Byzantine empire defended Constantinople from Islamic invaders, the way the Germans used this same choke point against the Russian fleet in WW2, and it will prove true once again. The Russian Navy will mine this area and have all of its warships on full battle readiness. The US Navy will not be able to progress. Even upon the complete destruction of the Russian Baltic Fleet, the US Navy would have taken large losses and by then, the land around St. Petersburg and adjacent areas would be battle ready and the US would not be able to set foot on Russian soil.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"the farthest the US can shoot is 13,000 km (Minuteman 3) while the farthest the Russians can shoot is 11,000 km (SS-27)"
The distance from Moscow to Washington DC is about 7, 800 km. This means that realistically, having a missile with a range much higher than about 8, 000 km is pointless because that only allows you to overshoot your target. That's like if a man is standing 30 feet in front me and I have a pistol while my opponent has a sniper rifle. Yes, he can out-range me but that is not necessary because he doesn't NEED all that range. Therefore, the range advantage of the US Minuteman 3 is pointless.

"My opponent also forgets that the US currently has troops stationed all over the world so it will be easy to invade Russia from all different directions."
The US has troops stationed all over the place, yes, but:
1. They are in relatively small numbers and would not be able to accomplish much.
2. Most are far away from Russia and would only be able to do anything, realistically, if they all coalesced into a large group. (Unlikely to happen because of how difficult it would be to do.)

While the US consumes 19 billion barrels of oil per day and only produces 8.5 billion, Russia consumes only 2.2 billion barrels a day while producing 11 billion. This simply means that the US would run out of resources at least 4 times faster than Russia. Without significant oil supplies, the US army would crumble.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

I would like to note that the arguments my opponent provided are very general. I would like to request more specific. For example, give amounts, numbers of tanks/soldiers/ships etc. (Realistic numbers, of course).
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Economy

This is where my opponent is mistaken. Russia has annexed Crimean and is charging the people their that price. Also when you do the math to convert thousand cubic meters to gallons of gas you get the price that I have given you. So please extend this across the board.

Russia would not fight for National suicide as the US has proved that they would take out Japan as they to were fighting for national suicide in World War 2. The only reason that they were fighting so hard in World War 2 was, because in Russia if you were an officer and you failed your mission you would be shot in the head and killed as they give your job to the next guy in line. So please extend my points across the board as we can still see that the Russians are as strong as the USSR.

US will not run out of resources as we have other allies and places were we get our oil and this will actually push the need for the XL Keystone Pipeline to be built between the US and Canada and it will help will the oil sickness the US has. (http://keystone-xl.com...)

Contention 2: Military

The US as well has a large ballistic missile arsenal as they had been updating since the Cold War know as Wizard and Thumper. ( http://www.cfr.org...) The US has known to also use Scud defense as they have effectively destroyed the Iraqi Scuds attacking Israeli forces during the Gulf War. (http://www.pbs.org...)
Debate Round No. 4
TheRussian

Pro

"Also when you do the math to convert thousand cubic meters to gallons of gas you get the price that I have given you. So please extend this across the board."
The article says that Gazprom is charging Ukraine up to $368 dollars per one thousand cubic meters.
1000 cubic meters=264172 US gallons
This means that you divide $368 by 264172 gallons to see the price per gallon. That is no where near $100, 000 per gallon as my opponent claimed.
http://www.cityam.com...
http://www.google.com...

"The only reason that they were fighting so hard in World War 2 was, because in Russia if you were an officer and you failed your mission you would be shot in the head and killed as they give your job to the next guy in line."
Being a Soviet soldier in WW2, you had three options:
1. Surrender to the Germans, be sent to concentration camp to die.
2. Run away and be shot for being a traitor.
3. Stay and fight to the death because your entire country is in danger.
Most soldiers chose the third option. This war would be no different. A much disliked enemy on YOUR land, threatening YOUR country. Most would fight to the death. As mentioned, the overall Russian morale would be higher than that of the US forces.

"US will not run out of resources as we have other allies and places were we get our oil"
I would ask that my opponent scroll up to the original rules of this debate presented in Round 1.
"2. No allies"
"No outside help"
But alright, for the sake of being realistic, I'll let it slide. Even if the US finds a reliable oil supply, not only will the US be wasting much more money trying to obtain oil from abroad but the countries from the US is getting oil can also drastically raise the prices to take advantage of the demand.

"The US has known to also use Scud defense as they have effectively destroyed the Iraqi Scuds attacking Israeli forces during the Gulf War."
According to my opponent's source, this system only had a 40% success rate in Israel.
http://www.pbs.org...

Also, an official investigation concluded that: "After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq."
http://www.pbs.org...

In conclusion, I believe that the US invasion would fail because of far superior Russian land forces. Although the US has superior Navy and Air force, not only did my opponent fail to take advantage of this, but also the fact that Russia is an enormous chunk of land means that the war would mostly rely on ground forces. Also, my opponent still provided no real plan of invasion and gave no numbers.

Thank you for the fun debate.
lannan13

Con

I am unable to finish this debate, so please give my opponent the conduct point. Sorry.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justindmack 2 years ago
justindmack
Why invade through Siberia...
Posted by Baconzd 2 years ago
Baconzd
I am dissapointed in both of you. Really no talk about air superiority. That is only the most important thing when having a war.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
I don't see how having an alliance makes it Russia's fault. Everyone had alliances and joined in.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
The Russian alliance with Serbia was secreat that when Germany promised to back Austria war broke out substaintially.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
How so? In the case of WW1, there were so many inter-tangled alliances that just almost everyone can be equally blamed.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Actually if you really look at it Russia caused WW1.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Ararmer19, you have made some aggressive claims but have provided absolutely no examples or proof to support your case. I don't see how Russia has been the instigator in "many a war". I don't see how me saying that Russia is generally defending is ignorant. Because of Russia's enormous area, Russia is often forced to defend her land.
Whether it's Mongols, Swedish knights, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Hitler in WW2, Russia often has to defend her land.
US on the other hand, has invaded "over 50 countries since WW2"
http://au.ibtimes.com...
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
TheRussian. That last comment of yours is just absurd. Russia has been the instigator and aggressor in many a war over the course of its history and yes the US has done its fair share to and I know your trying to argue Russia is better then the US but "she is generally defending" is done right ignorant.

As for your comment "US was apart always the one to invade. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan for example". Ok so can you not formulate an argument for your cause without downright lying? Cause that's what you just did.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Throughout Russia's history, she is generally defending. Whether it is early Tsar/Knjaz Russia when she is defending against Sweden and Turkey, to WW1 era and she is defending against Japan and Germany, to WW2 and she is defending against Germany. The US, on the other hand, typically sends its soldiers to other areas to invade. I think the conditions are pretty good. Russia is doing what she is good at and does most of the time, and the US is doing what it is good at and does most of the time.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
When compared to Russia, I believe that the US has adopted a more aggressive style of warfare.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
travis18352
TheRussianlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: i felt that con made better arguments.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
TheRussianlannan13Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: round dropped. Arguments/sources. Pro did a very detailed and excellent job at showing how any external invasion could be defeated. He has convinced me that invading Russia is an extremely daunting task. Con gave little reason to believe the opposite by only using vague, oversimplified logic.