The Instigator
pagechr
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grovenshar
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The US could defeat China and North Korea single handedly

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Grovenshar
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 350 times Debate No: 88791
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

pagechr

Pro

America's military is simply much stronger, bigger, more advanced, and downright better than any other nation's.

Consider: The U.S. spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. $711 billion. Per year. The next closest is China at $143 billion.

The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams.

We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined. And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters.

There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.

The United States has engaged in every type of ground warfare in the last 20 years. From mountains to jungles, and from desert to urban, we have the some of the most experienced warriors in the world. No other country comes close to the amount of combat veterans that we have.

We own all the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology. The latest sensors? U.S. The latest information systems? U.S. An Abrams tank can see a target, the tank commander can instantly send that target to every tank in his company.

Now you have 14 tanks looking for you. Oh, and it also uploads to every Apache helicopter in the area. Every indirect and direct fire system in the area knows what you are and where you are. Your survivability just dropped to 0. Instantly.

Fighting a conventional war against the U.S. would be like a 3-year-old child playing chess against Gary Kasparov. They wouldn't even know what they were supposed to be looking at.

*Edit: The purpose of the answer is not borne out of some nationalistic sense of pride, although I am a U.S. veteran and consider myself patriotic, but rather to call attention to how much larger the U.S. military industrial complex is than the entire rest of the world.

I truly believe that the rest of the world really has no clue just how powerful the U.S. military is. We must begin to question the disparity of lethality between the U.S. and the rest of the world. But we must also question, if not the U.S., who? Who do we want to have the largest military? China? North Korea? Or an ally like the UK?

Do we need to have 1,000 times the lethality of the closest military in strength? Or would 100 times suffice? I don't have the answer to those questions, nor am I purporting to. But I think it's important to begin a dialogue.

Well, the next strongest power is Russia.

I seriously doubt that 1000 times better is the case.

The US serviceman, right now, is way ahead of his counter parts, and for a simple reason; he has been in combat. When, I arrived in Vietnam, I thought I was the best trained that I ever would be. However, when I left I realized I had become a much better soldier than training could have made me.

If history teaches us anything, it is this"just because you look good on paper, don't bet on it translating into a victory. Vietnam taught us that, and then turned around and taught China the same lesson. SinoVietnamese War Seriously, China couldn't squash Vietnam like a bug? Even if you chalk this one up as a draw, Vietnam comes out way ahead of China.

Could any country mount an attack on the US? Probably not.

Could we defeat any country in the world? I seriously doubt it.

We couldn't even occupy enough territory in Russia or China to have a victory. We are stronger than anyone else; but I wouldn't expect us to fight a land war in Russia or China or India without taking significant casualties.

My guess would be, the US would be twice as strong as Russia, if we were engaged in Russia, and maybe five times stronger than Europe, if we were engaged in Europe. If the fight took place in North America, I think the chances of the US being able to overpower an adversary would increase dramatically. They might get an airborne unit into Alaska, but not much more than that.
Grovenshar

Con

You are right. The U.S.A. has the largest, most powerful military in the world. There is, however, one obstacle they can't get over. Congress. The collective might of the military falls to putty in the hands of the most indecisive group of people on the planet. As long as China or North Korea played their cards right, they could come out on top. This of course would require meticulous planning and a surprise attack, but, given that the win condition is the destruction of either powers government, than China and North Korea could definitely succeed if they put together a pinpoint strike. The military, being largely unprepared for this kind of strike so close to home, would not be able to repel the attack, and would therefore lose a large portion of the U.S. government and possibly the Pentagon (which would be devastating). When it comes down to it, it really depends on the circumstances.
Debate Round No. 1
pagechr

Pro

First. In a war, congress can be skipped and can go directly to POTUS in an emergency. Second. China and North Korea could not surprise attack us without us knowing. Our intelligence community and our allies is simply too good and big for them to genuinely surprise us. And just to further prove my point, check out this site.

http://www.globalfirepower.com...

The only thing wrong in their summary is that the US Navy has 10 carriers with two under construction. And this doesn't count the secret naval ships and helicopters.
Grovenshar

Con

See, here's the problem. As a United States citizen, I don't know how large our intelligence network is. I know that it exists, but I can't confirm or deny that it could know about such an operation. What I do know is that China and N.K. could concentrate their forces together. Given the dispersed nature of our military, the principles of Force Concentration would be in large effect. Supplying troops wouldn't be difficult in the U.S. We have food everywhere. Logistically speaking, if a large enough force could get past us unguarded, then we would be in trouble. Depending on our response, then a different outcome might occur, but that requires a fast response.

Another possible strategy that China and N.K. could adopt is that of a proxy war. China has a lot of money and could pay or mercenaries to start the assault. The other way this could go is that of a fake terrorist attack.

Force Concentration:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
pagechr

Pro

pagechr forfeited this round.
Grovenshar

Con

I guess I win the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
pagechr

Pro

pagechr forfeited this round.
Grovenshar

Con

Still not conceding.
Debate Round No. 4
pagechr

Pro

pagechr forfeited this round.
Grovenshar

Con

I think that's it.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Gangsta_Bob 11 months ago
Gangsta_Bob
Define defeat..
Posted by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
Your post is largely plagiarized.

https://www.quora.com...

https://www.quora.com...

Any person who accepts would likely autowin just by pointing that out.
Posted by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
Does this count nukes
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 8 months ago
lord_megatron
pagechrGrovenshar
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more rounds than con. Pro argued US has the largest army, Con argued that a surprise attack at the Congress would immobilize US troops. Pro argued US' intelligence network would get to know about it. Con argues we don't know the extent of its intelligence network and that the US military has a dispersed nature. Con argues that there are many supplies in the US to support a large, incognito enemy force. Pro doesn't rebut. It was very close, but pro forfeited and con's arguments was more convincing.