The united states of america would win in a non-nuclear world war.
Debate Rounds (4)
The con must argue for the following countries: Peoples Republic of China, Russia, North Korea, and Pakistan
This is a military debate, and my first debate!
Con must sacrifice their first round, or round 4.
Thanks for looking, hope we have fun.
Once upon a time, there was a sparrow flying during winter. The bird was getting so cold, that its wings began to freeze over. Eventually, the birds wings were so frozen, that the bird came crashing to the ground and landed in a field. Then, a cow that was crazing in the field ambled over, and proceeded to defecate onto the frozen bird. The horrified bird, was convinced that life couldn't get worse. Then, the bird realized that the cow pie was warm. So warm in fact, that it began to thaw out the sparrows wings. the sparrow, now pleasantly warm, began to sing because of its joy. The farms local cat heard the singing, pulled the bird out of the crap, and ate the bird. There are three morals to this story. 1: people that crap on you are not always your enemy. 2: whatever pulls you out of deep crap isn't always your friend. 3: when your in deep crap, keep your mouth shut.
Although the Peoples Republic of China has helped america economically, or "pulled us out of crap" it is evident that they are not our friends. I Firmly support the above resolution for 3 main reasons.
1. military hardware. The Allied powers, have a substantially large amount of military hardware between them. For example, the Allies have 10 super carriers between them, with 2 more being built (by the U.K). The Axis have 2. The allies have f 35 lightnings and f 22 raptors (both of which are 5th generation fighters) The Axis have at best, 4.5th generation flankers. not to mention the allies outnumber the axis aircraft 5 to 1. have you ever compared, the cold war tanks and Migs of old soviet union, with modern Abrams tanks and Bradley assault vehicles? it doesn't bode well for the axis.
2. quality of training. The united states have 4 branches of the armed forces, all of which have a separate special forces group. Ranging from the navy seals, to marine delta force snipers. the training for these programs have ridiculous qualifications, including going 5 days on only 4 hours of sleep, while running 200 miles. The standard training for even regular soldiers are much higher than any soldier that may be in service with the Russian, or Chinese military.
3. defensive location. think of the geography of the included countries. The U.S.A. and the U.K. are islands, no where near the axis. Israel has been a defense nation since their conception. South Korea shares a supply border with the ocean, and the most heavily armed border in the world with North Korea. they are 3 times as defensive as Russia and Chinas massive borders, which could easily be invaded.
China has pulled as out of crap before. Lets not make the mistake of thinking they are our friend.
A very important issue which I believe has not been touched is how long can the USA and UK go on for. As well all know in terms of being against the government the people of the US and UK pretty much oppose them at every turn and eventually in such a war, it will inevitably transverse into vietnam due to liberty. On the other hand, China and North Korea have a different approach to handle such issues and if this does come down to a battle of who can last the longest it would most certainly be the latter of the two groups of countries who would win.
The fact that the geography of these countries is isolated is only beneficial to an extent, for example China, Russia and North Korea would easily be able to influence pretty much most of eastern europe and asia. Furthermore, there is also the fact that Cuba is right next to America which possesses threat to the American people at a local distance (Exactly like the Cold War). Although technology is very sophisticated it is also useful to have countries close together making it much easier to communicate which is very difficult especially with South Korea pretty much surrounded by Russia, China and North Korea making it even easier to isolate them.
Quality of training is no match for guerrilla warfare as has been seen in afghanistan and vietnam on previous occasions. On top of this the vast population of China and Russia (accounting for at least 1/5 of the population) provides an almost impossible obstacle to overcome.
What we have here is a subject which goes out beyond the confines of the countries you have listed and i'm not sure if you felt I should of approached the argument mentioning only these few countries but war is war and the more friends the better.
Your argument about how it could turn into another Vietnam is an excellent and interesting point. I don't that would happen however, for the same reason the population of America did not show Vietnam-like unrest during the major extent of the cold war and earlier wars. Vietnam was an anomaly in wars, for the main reason that the citizens did not have any idea why we were in Vietnam. (my apologies for not being clear as to the start of the war) Assuming this war is like all other wars besides Vietnam and there is a decent reason, I believe that they would not tire for a long while, especially if the allied countries were invaded (which they would almost certainly have to to effectively win the war).
Although south Korea is almost completely isolated from the other allies, the "axis" has few advantages besides the obvious advantage of population. As for your point on guerrilla warfare: In today's warfare guerrilla warfare has proved less effective, and considering the citizens are almost completely reliant on their government for support in more communistic countries, all you would have to do is eliminate the government officers and supplies, and the majority of the citizens would loose will to fight.
Your point on communist countries being dependent on leaders is true, however the same can be said about pretty much every country, take the capital and you take the country, a simple but effective technique Hitler employed when taking over france which is not a communist country. Furthermore, this is far easier said than done, purely because it would require so much precision and luck to eliminate enough influential government officers to destroy all hope, these countries are prepared for such scenarios as is american and pretty much every country.
I think one of the main reasons for the countries I am in support for winning such a war, is pretty much because of the very difficult weather conditions to adjust to, from the blistering cold of Russia to the swelteringly hot temperatures of pakistan it would require some serious effort to overcome these different conditions putting your countries at a disadvantage.
karco forfeited this round.
derogatory forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: what an interesting analogy from Pro. However it gave a clear disadvantage to the Allied powers because it indicated that their ability to fight would be compromised by their political inconsistencies. Also the reliance on government for empowerment gives the people of the axis powers more of a reason to protect their country over the anarchist laden populations of democratic countries.
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.