The Instigator
Wolfman19
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The U.S. and allies would most likely win a war against Russia/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...
Wolfman19
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,260 times Debate No: 59755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Wolfman19

Pro

The U.S. and allies have more than enough military power to overwhelm China and Russia in a war.
TheRussian

Con

Please begin your argument and tell me why you believe that NATO has the strength to overwhelm Russia and China.
Debate Round No. 1
Wolfman19

Pro

Thanks you for accepting my debate.

-Military spending-

The United States has spent about 40% of the total annual spending on defense, by all countries, for the past decade. In 2012, the U.S. spent $600 billion on its military according to the OMB. Compared to Russia and China, they only spend about only spent $200 billion, China spending one-third of America. This is proof that the U.S. has focused more on its military capabilities than any other nation on earth. Take a look at these graphs :
US spending has increased the most in dollars, while China’s has increased the most in percentage terms
The proof is right here, the U.S. is prepared to take on any threat.

- Military Capabilities-
The U.S. maintains a number of bases around the world, some of which sit very close to China and Russia. For example, bases in Bulgaria, Germany, Kosovo, Japan, and South Korea would make it very easy for the U.S. to strike Russia and Chinese targets swiftly and efficiently. This would give the U.S. a major strategic advantage in a war scenario. Compared to the U.S., Russia and China lack similar bases which would give them an easy acess to the American homt turf. The U.S. would have Russia and China surrounded with its bases in the Pacific and bases in Western Europe. Russia and China would have to deal with attacks coming from two sides.

In terms of aaerial assets, the U.S. 13,169. Russia has about 3,880 and China only has 1,900. In addition to NATO'S aaerial assets, the advantage goes up 6-1 in favor of the U.S./NATO in a war scenario.

Now we must look Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and Phillipines where the U.S. has strong alliances, military bases, and some aaerial assets will come from. Japan has the 10th strongest military, and S. Korea has the 9th strongest military in the world. In fact, even without the U.S., Tawain, Japan and S. Korea together pose a military threat to China. Their combined air force would far exceed China's. To further prove my point of American and allie's air dominance, in 2012, Anthony Cordesman and Nicholas Yorash of the Center of Strategic and International studies compared the military strength of Taiwain and China and found that Taiwan has tipped the scale of air power in their favor between 2005 and 2012.

In terms of sea dominance, the U.S. has ten modern, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, while Russia and China combined only have a total of two. China's only aircraft carrier is just a retrofitted, older Russian model;they will not roll out their own until 2017. By this time, the U.S. would have a brand new carrier and a state of the art second model nearly finished. In addition to this, the Navy has 10 mini-carriers that can launch attack helicopters. .Russia and China would find it difficult to launch any offensive on the United State's soil due to their lack of air and sea superiority. However, with its air and sea advantage, the U.S. could launch airstrikes and missile strikes against Russia and Chinese targets 24/7 from the Atlantic, Pacific, 6th, or 7th fleets. Though Russia has modern air defenses, it would be constantly attacked by U.S. and its allies fighter jets and missiles.


-Experience-


The U.S. has enganged in every type of ground warefare in the last 20 years. From jungle to mountains, and desert to urban, the U.S is used to every type of warfare environment. Can you tell me the last time Russia and China fought a full scale war?

Thank you for allowing to present my arguments, and I await yours.
TheRussian

Con

My opponent first presents the fact that the US spends a ton of money on its military. It spends more than the rest of the world combined. Does that mean that the US could take on the world? Of course not! That simply means that the USA's military is expensive to maintain. All the military bases, for example. The US spends $650 billion on military, and out of those $650 billion, over $170 billion go just to maintain the military bases around the world. Just paying the countries for allowing to keep military personnel there. The military defense budget is not a valid way to compare the military of different countries. For example, Russia spends $87 billion on military. Wow! That must mean Russia doesn't stand a chance! Well, Russia alone has more tanks in its arsenal than all of NATO combined. Yet only spends $87 billion on military. Like I said, money is not a valid way to compare the military strength of nations.
http://www.laprogressive.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

"The U.S. maintains a number of bases around the world, some of which sit very close to China and Russia. For example, bases in Bulgaria, Germany, Kosovo, Japan, and South Korea would make it very easy for the U.S. to strike Russia and Chinese targets swiftly and efficiently."
The same could be said back. Russia and China could easily overrun these bases.

"Compared to the U.S., Russia and China lack similar bases which would give them an easy acess to the American homt turf."
Russia and China would not necessarily need access to the American turf. They could simply defend and win a war of attrition.

"In terms of aaerial assets, the U.S. 13,169. Russia has about 3,880 and China only has 1,900. In addition to NATO'S aaerial assets, the advantage goes up 6-1 in favor of the U.S./NATO in a war scenario."
5,000 of those 13,000 US planes are transport aircraft. Transport is good, but they are not capable of waging battle and are easy targets. That brings the US number down to 8,000. Out of those 8,000, another 2,700 are trainer aircraft. Also good, but not capable of waging battle. That leaves the US with only 5,700 battle-ready aircraft. Not nearly as much as our original 13,000. Now, with that in mind, let's compare the battle-ready air force of Russia/China vs. NATO. That leaves Russia/China with 3,600 battle-ready aircraft, and NATO with about 7,250 battle-ready aircraft. Suddenly, it's not 6-1, but barely 2-1 in favor of NATO.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.nato.int...

"Tawain, Japan and S. Korea together pose a military threat to China."
1. Taiwan is not in NATO.
2. Taiwan has a very weak air-force.
3. Japan is not in NATO.
4. S. Korea would not pose an aerial threat to China.
5. S. Korea is not in NATO
None of the countries you mentioned were even in NATO.

"In terms of sea dominance, the U.S. has ten modern, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, while Russia and China combined only have a total of two."
Chinese have invented a missile called the DF-21 that can take out an entire aircraft carrier by itself. This will turn the tables and will not allow for the active use of air-craft carriers.
http://www.usni.org...

"Though Russia has modern air defenses, it would be constantly attacked by U.S. and its allies fighter jets and missiles."
Indeed Russia does, and air raids will not pose a very big problem because of systems such as the S-400. A single S-400 missile system is capable of simultaneously locking onto 36 targets, and guiding 72 missiles. It also has a range of 600 km, meaning it can see the targets coming in from very far away.
http://www.ausairpower.net...

"with its air and sea advantage, the U.S. could launch airstrikes and missile strikes against Russia and Chinese targets 24/7 from the Atlantic, Pacific, 6th, or 7th fleets."
1. I don't see how the Atlantic Fleet would be a problem for Russia and China.
2. Russia could utilize choke points such as the Bosphorus Strait and the Gulf of Finland to keep NATO's Navy at bay.
3. As for the Pacific Fleets, China could keep the US fleets away from Russian and Chinese shores, considering that China's Navy could challenge the US fleets located in the Pacific. Of course, Russia would help as well.

"The U.S. has enganged in every type of ground warefare in the last 20 years. From jungle to mountains, and desert to urban, the U.S is used to every type of warfare environment."
The US has not fought a single developed country since WW2. All of the countries where the US Forces have been since WW2 are underdeveloped and did not stand a chance. Fighting against a professional army will be a shock for the US Forces.

I would like to note that my opponent has not provided any sources for his arguments.

My opponent has mainly focused of air and sea superiority, but has conveniently left out land. l Let's examine the ground forces, shall we?
Russia/China without a doubt have more manpower. That is out of the question.
____________________ Russia/China_______ NATO
Towed Artillery:______10,800___________5,200
SPGs:_________________ 7,700___________ 2,900
MLRSs: _______________5,500 ___________3,000
Tanks: _______________24,650__________ 15,300
Let's also not forget that not only do Russia/China have an enormous numerical advantage, but the Russian T-90 (most modern Russian tank) is superior to the US M1A2 Abrams (most modern American tank).
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

It is obvious from the above that Russia/China have virtually undisputed dominance on land. It so happens that the most important fighting happens on land. You cannot win a war only through air or by sea.
My opponent tries to assert NATO's dominance on sea, but even that is not completely true. Although defeating NATO's Navy is a daunting task, it can be done.
1. Aircraft carriers, the symbol of US Navy, can now be eliminated with a single missile.
2. China has a mining warfare force of 119 ships (largest in the world), and Russia has a mining warfare force of 34 ships (2nd largest in the world). This means that Russia/China would be able to mine their coasts and gulfs, making them unapproachable for NATO's Navy.
3. Russia/China have a total of 132 submarines, which will take a heavy toll on NATO.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

Although NATO has an advantage in air-force, the NATO planes will take heavy damage from surface-to-air missile systems such as the S-400 (mentioned above).

Now let's take a look at resources and logistics. It will be very easy for Russia and China to transport troops and machinery because they will be transported over their own territory. NATO, on the other hand, will have to ship their forces long distances which will be difficult and more expensive.

While Russia produces enough oil to supply itself and China, the US only 8,500,000 bbl while consuming 19,000,000. This means that the US (along with NATO) will have to dedicate much more money just to keep its machines running. Russia/China would easily win a war of attrition. Another problem for NATO is that most of NATO countries get their natural gas and oil from Russia. Once the war starts, many European NATO members will be left without oil or natural gas.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Wolfman19

Pro

The amount of money invested on defense and production does have a significant affect on a country's military effectiveness and strength. Why is it that America has the strongest conventional military in the world? The answer is that it spends a signficant amount of money on its military. The only reason why Russia is the second strongest nation in the world is because it spends a lot of money on its military. If the U.S. and Russia didn't spend such large amounts of money on their military, their militaries would not be on the scale and strength of what they are today. Money determines the strength of an nation's military, Russia and the U.S. are two examples here. I don't think you realize how big $650 billion let alone $87 billion is. Though $87 billion is not $650 billion, it's still a lot of money being spent on military.
Tanks would be proven ineffective in such a war scenario with the U.S. and allies. A land based war between both parties is highly unlikely(unless air superiority is secured), only further proving the importance of sea and air domincance in such a confrontation.

I think you misunderstood the title of the debate, TheRussian. The title is "The U.S. and allies would most likely win a war against Russia/China." I didn't specifically say NATO, but rather all of the United State's allies. At times I did only mention NATO, but American allies in the Pacific are included as "allies". In a full scale war, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan would come to the U.S. aid (Japan already is having bad relations with China).

Now you said that Taiwan has a very weak airforce, which is not true. The Taiwanese air force has some of the best U.S. aircrafts such as F-16's, which are expected to be upgraded to specifically counter new Chinese aircrafts. You can safely say that all of Taiwan's military is focused around defending itself from China. Taiwan has numerous air defense systems to protects its from Chinese missiles and aircraft. Any major offensive on Taiwanese airfields or airbases would most likely not be a surprise due to the massive intelligence channels Taiwan uses. Read this "Taiwan's Security and Air Power: Taiwan's Defense Against the Air Threat from Mainlaind China"


The 6th and 7th fleets can launch rapid strikes against Chinese targets and Russian targets in a short period of time due to their location on the map. How can Russia and China repel the attacks coming from so many different locations? You most likely will have US aircraft being sent in from Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, Germany, etc. to strike communication lines and key areas. Again, how can Russia and China repel such a massive offensive which would most likely take them by surprise? U.S. carriers don't need to be close to a target to strike, they can stay at a distance. The Chinese navy presence in the Pacific is not capable of stopping a full U.S. naval offensive. Top U.S. officials are not concerned about the building of a second Chinese carrier, which only suggests China's navy doesn't pose much of a threat. And we must not forget that the U.S. will not just send in a bunch of fighter jets to be shot down, they're going to take care of Russia's and China's air defenses. Before striking, the U.S would disrupt radar and communication in both China and Russia. This would temporarily paralize Russia's and China's air defenses, leaving them vulnerable to U.S. fighter jets. By the time Russia and China are able to restore order, damage would already be done.

US and NATO carriers and ships can easily penetrate through the Black sea, bypassing Russia's naval presence there. Russia's Black Sea fleet is just outdated and not on par with NATO'S naval force. It's actually relatively weak, with two frigates, a destroyer, an aging guided-missile cruiser, submarine, landing crafts, and an anti-submarine cruiser. In fact, it's so weak, the Italian navy can destroy it. After getting in the Black Sea, NATO and U.S. ships could launch further airstrikes on Russia's west.

T
hough Russia and China combined have more land based weapons, they cannot used it to attack The United's states home turf. Russia and China simply lack the sea power to move large numbers of troops and equipment to the American coast. In a war scenario, those tanks and artillery would most likely not be deployed. And if they were, with U.S. air superiority, what do you think will happen to those tanks once they are spotted? Boots on the ground is only possible with both sea and air dominance, and if that happens, Russian and Chinese armory and factories on the ground would be easy picking for F-18s, F-22s, etc.

America has numerous air defenses outfitted on its aircraft carriers, and numerous air defenses in the Pacific. And like I stated earlier, the first action of the U.S. and allies would be to jam radar and communication lines, crippling Russia's and China's missile systems. U.S fighters would strike these missile launch sites, bypassing one of Russia and China's defenses. With destroyed missile launch sites, Russia and China cannot defend itself by U.S. airstrikes.

I do agree with you here, being on the defense is always easier than being on the offensive. The U.S. and allies would need to spend more money than China and Russia to transport such massive numbers of equipment and aircraft. Regarding NATO members being left without natural gas, recently, NATO members have been starting to stop being overly dependent on Russia's natural oil due to rising tentions.
TheRussian

Con

"The amount of money invested on defense and production does have a significant affect on a country's military effectiveness and strength."
Indeed it does have an effect, but as I said, just because the US spends more than the rest of the world combined, doesn't mean the US can take on the world.

"Tanks would be proven ineffective in such a war scenario with the U.S. and allies. A land based war between both parties is highly unlikely(unless air superiority is secured), only further proving the importance of sea and air domincance in such a confrontation. "
Even if sea/air dominance was secured by USA/NATO, then US would have to continue the attack on land. That is where the USA and its allies would be crushed.

"I think you misunderstood the title of the debate, TheRussian. The title is "The U.S. and allies would most likely win a war against Russia/China." I didn't specifically say NATO, but rather all of the United State's allies. At times I did only mention NATO, but American allies in the Pacific are included as "allies". In a full scale war, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan would come to the U.S. aid"
I understand the title, but there is not a single logical reason why Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan would come to the USA's aid.
1. They are not in NATO and therefore have nothing obligating them to help the US.
2. Why would they join and have their country ravaged by war?
That's like saying (for example) that since you actively get oil from Saudi Arabia, then they are your allies and would come to your aid in times of war.
Those countries would not gain anything from joining the war effort, and wouldn't join. Even if they did, they are so close to China and Russia that they would be overrun in the first days of war.

"Now you said that Taiwan has a very weak airforce, which is not true. The Taiwanese air force has some of the best U.S. aircrafts such as F-16's, which are expected to be upgraded to specifically counter new Chinese aircrafts."
That may be true, but Taiwan only has 286 fighter jets in total, even less are F-16s. That is not a significant force.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

"How can Russia and China repel the attacks coming from so many different locations?"
China, alone, would be able to repel most attacks coming in from the East, while Russia would be able to cover the Black Sea and Eastern Europe.

"You most likely will have US aircraft being sent in from Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, Germany, etc. to strike communication lines and key areas. Again, how can Russia and China repel such a massive offensive which would most likely take them by surprise?"
Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan are so close to China that it will be no problem to overrun most of the NATO forces there even if they decided to join the war effort. Germany would also be unlikely to join the war effort because current relations between NATO and Germany are strained. In fact, Germany is currently considering to join BRICS, an alliance that includes Russia. Even if Germany does decide to actively support NATO, if aircraft are sent from Germany, they will be going in the direction of Moscow, where most of the best Russian forces are concentrated. That would be no easy fight to win.
The attack would not be much of a surprise because:
1. These countries are already in bad relations, meaning that they are battle-ready.
2. We are in the 21st century, and you cannot move significant forces across oceans and continents without being noticed.
http://www.nytimes.com...

"U.S. carriers don't need to be close to a target to strike, they can stay at a distance."
Yes, but if there is a missile that can single-handedly destroy an aircraft carrier at a range of 1,100 miles, then even "staying at a distance" won't be enough to keep aircraft carriers safe.

"The Chinese navy presence in the Pacific is not capable of stopping a full U.S. naval offensive. Top U.S. officials are not concerned about the building of a second Chinese carrier, which only suggests China's navy doesn't pose much of a threat"
The 7th fleet is (using my opponent's map) the USA's main naval force in the Pacific. Let's compare the 7th fleet to China's Navy, which is all located in the Pacific. 7th Fleet has 50-60 ships, while the Chinese Navy has 69 Frigates and Destroyers (which already outnumbers the 7th Fleet), along with 69 Submarines, 353 Coastal Defense craft and 119 Mining ships, which will make it very difficult for the 7th Fleet to maneuver because of extensive minefields. I think it is quite obvious that the Chinese Navy poses a very serious threat to the 7th Fleet.
http://navysite.de...
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

"And we must not forget that the U.S. will not just send in a bunch of fighter jets to be shot down, they're going to take care of Russia's and China's air defenses."
It is difficult to just fly in and destroy anti-air systems with no losses. Even as the NATO forces try to do this, they will take losses because of systems such as the S-400 and S-300.

My opponent's next paragraph about penetrating through Russian defenses in the Black Sea is...misleading. I do not know where my opponent got this information (as he provided no source), but the Russian Black Sea Fleet is much more than what my opponent says.
The Black Sea fleet consists of:
5 Anti-submarine ships
7 Amphibious ships
3 Submarines
16 Coastal Defense Warships
4 Minesweepers
9 Missile Boats
http://flot.sevastopol.info...

This force could hold-off NATO long enough at the choke-point that is the Bosphorous Strait for Russian forces to prepare on the shores of the Black Sea. My opponent mentions easily penetrating into the Black Sea and the attacking Russia from the West. While the NATO forces would get into the Black Sea, Russia's far superior ground forces would prove critical in not allowing NATO forces to land on Russian beaches.

My opponent's next paragraph addresses the fact that Russia and China wouldn't be able to deploy their ground forces. Of course they would! Even when/if NATO managed to break through the naval defenses and get "boots on the ground", they would be met by an overwhelming force which NATO would not be able to handle. They would not be able to attack the US directly (at least not in the beginning of the conflict), but NATO forces would simply die out. NATO faces:
1. Having a hard time getting more and more expensive oil.
2. Transporting soldiers and equipment thousands of miles.
3. Being on the offensive.
4. Having less manpower.
My opponent then speaks of F-18s/F-22s picking off enemy forces on the ground. While this is a possibility, there are not that many F-22s to talk about them as a ground-breaking force. There are less than 200 F-22s, and they would be easy targets for S-400s. I mean, 3-4 S-400s are capable of destroying USA's entire force of F-22s. F-18s are inferior to the F-22s and while US has a lot of F-18, they are Cold-war era technology. Russian and Chinese planes would be able to challenge the F-18 in the sky.

Each surface-to-air missile system has its own radar and jamming them all would be impossible. NATO planes would still pop up on the radar and be a target.

Russia alone has over a dozen ballistic missile silos all over the country and NATO would not be able to eliminate them all and make Russia as defenseless as my opponent portrays.
http://russianforces.org...

I would like to note that my opponent, once again, has not provided any sources.

Although Europe has tried to move away from Russia's oil and gas, they have not managed to do so completely and to this day, over a third of European oil and gas is imported from Russia. Once this supply stops, it will be an enormous impact on Europe, where most NATO countries are located.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justindmack 3 years ago
justindmack
"As of September 2013, the Russian Army has five S-400 regiments: two in Moscow, one in the Pacific fleet, one in the Baltic Fleet, and one in the Southern Military District" (Yes Wikipedia I know not the best)

5 Regiments= 10 Battalions
10 Battalions= 160 Launch Points
Each launcher carries 4 missiles (640)

I assume the U.S. military knows about these, and due to the fact that it is a United States attack, let's assume that they target them with surprise attacks with stealth planes. The regiments in the Pacific and Baltic fleets will be taken out easily due to lesser warning time because they are on the edge of Russian territory and father outside the Russian detection net than the ones in Moscow. This smaller warning time combined with the stealth features of B-2s and F-22s and the surprising nature of a first strike should allow these to be destroyed with minimum losses.

This does leave the other three regiments, and after the initial surprise it will be much harder to destroy them. However, as you can see from the numbers, Russia has a limited number of these S-400s (96 launchers after the strike). Additionally, these launchers would only carry 384 missles, and due to the highly trained American pilots with planes carrying ample countermeasures, we cannot assume a 100% hit rate. I'll say 90% hit chance on non-stealthy planes (purely theoretical number, I could find no data on hit chance) meaning about 350 planes would be committed to destroying them.

To conclude, although the s-400 is an effective air defense system, they would be destroyed in the early hours of war. The s-400 would damage USAF, but it would not negate U.S. air supremacy.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
haha, no problem :)
Posted by Wolfman19 3 years ago
Wolfman19
Thanks, TheRussian! :D
Posted by Wolfman19 3 years ago
Wolfman19
Thanks, TheRussian! :D
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
Hey, Wolfman, I understand that you are new, so if you have any questions about Debate.org, feel free to ask me :) I'll answer as best as I can
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
hahaha, not a problem! :) Welcome to DDO btw :)
Posted by Wolfman19 3 years ago
Wolfman19
Sorry, I forgot to thank you for the debate at the end of my argument in round 3. This is my first debate, and I am kinda nervous.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
@CK, if you're not being sarcastic, then yes, i agree :) I love that website,numbers-wise, it has everything you need haha
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
lol, possibly new debater :P he's got some good arguments, and this is a tough subject to argue
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
new debater versus over 3,000 debater...who will win?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Wolfman19TheRussianTied
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: pro proved that US had a bigger army and better strategic locations
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Wolfman19TheRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This whole debate was made with more assumptions than real arguments, but I felt as though Pro met his burden of proof, in round one when discussing how much bigger the military of US and her allies is. I don't believe that the west and the east will ever go to war though, they're too dependent on each other.