First of all, thank you for accepting this debate and I wish you the best of luck. When I refer to total wars I am referring to total wars in the present day. For example, Iraq or Afghanistan. Even the incident in North Korea can be used in this debate since it can so easily draw the U.S into WWIII. In the past it has been necessary to fight total wars since the entire human race was at stake (i.e WWII) or the livelihood of the United States (i.e the Revolutionary war or the Civil war). The last total war was WWII. The reason for this is because of the development of nuclear weapons. Now, if we were to fight total wars we would use those nuclear weapons at the first sight of conflict. So what is stopping us from doing so? M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. The United States is no longer the only country with powerful weapons such as nuclear bombs. If we were to bomb another country with a nuclear weapon they, or an ally, will be forced to bomb us with a nuclear weapon as well. It is as if we are fighting with one arm tied behind our back. It should stay this way so our earth does not turn into a nuclear wasteland like the one described in many science fiction novels. A small relative example of this wasteland would be that of the Chernobyl disaster.
I believe the United States of America fights "total" wars for a significant reason. This reason is for pure safety. Not just safety for us, the citizens, as well as the citizens in other countries. If you have noticed these past couple wars we have fought has been to get rid of a power crazed leader in their countries. This is the reason i believe we should be involved in foreign wars. Thank you and i wish the best of luck to you.
That was a very good argument but not relevant to this specific debate. If we were arguing about foreign wars then the motion would have read: The U.S should NOT fight FOREIGN wars. If the debate was about that then you would have been right and I would have agreed with you fully. A TOTAL war is an all out war in which the opposing countries would use every weapon in their arsenal. In the case of the U.S it would mean using nuclear weapons along with every other weapon we would have. So your argument should sound something like "The U.S should fight total wars because it would end the war faster." Or something along the lines of that.
It may have been wise to research what a TOTAL war is before posting an argument.
Technically my argument is still valid because to fight a total war would have to be for the safety. Total wars could protect thousands of people because the United States is the most heavily armed military in the world. Anything any country would launch at us would be a mistake on their part because we can easily top anything they happen to have. Therefore I believe the United States should fights total wars.
Thank you for this debate.
Reasons for voting decision: A total war does not involve the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; or more commonly referred to as unconventional weapons. A total war is the use of all military resources and personnel while abiding by international law, total war will never occurr again because of the transition to cheaper more effective forms of military intervention. Such as, guerrilla warfare and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I cannot abide by false and incomplete information.
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.