The Instigator
TyJack11x
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

U.S vs The World

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
TyJack11x
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 69568
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

TyJack11x

Pro

Note: This is my first debate so if you have any tips or want to yell at me for making a stupid mistake feel free :)

RULE: NO nukes.
Enemy countries are invading the U.S homeland
Pro= United States
Con= The World

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the
ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia
and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own
excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander,
could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the
Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years..." Abe Lincoln.

I believe that the entire world's army would be swallowed up by America's large landscape. That the U.S military is the largest and best in history, I also believe that any military unit would be destroyed swiftly by U.S defenders. The air force would dominate the sky's, and the navy would make invasion by sea almost impossible. The Abrams tank would dominate the battlefield also, not because of it's superiority in armor but because of it's tracking system the tank commander could immediatly send your location to all the other tanks, you now have 14 tanks looking for you and all the Apaches in the vicinity are also after you, your survivability just dropped to 0.

The U.S Army's third Corps is garrisoned in Texas being able to secure at least some of the region before reinforcements arrive.

I would also like to add some facts about the size of our military. ( If we were being invaded by the world I am sure that most of these numbers would double.)

Budget(2014): 526.6 Billion

Population: 324,123,073

Total Air-power(Fixed-wing and Rotary): 13,683

Tanks: 8,325

Oil Production: 8,500,000 gallons per day

Personal: 2,266,883

Sources: http://comptroller.defense.gov...

http://www.worldometers.info...

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

http://www.npr.org...
imsmarterthanyou98

Con


Hello everyone , this is a relatively simple debate, it is the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Allow me to post some facts below.

The collective active military manpower of only the ten largest armies in the world is...
9,471,864

The us military is...1,429,995...

(TOTAL SIZE OF ONLY THE TEN LARGEST ARMIES IN THE WORLD)9,471,864 minus
(THE CURRENT SIZE OF THE USA ARMY)1,429,995
...............................................................=8,041,869... Of army personnel left...This means a force of
1,429,995 would have to take on a force of 8,041,869...
By any resonable standards and common sense this is rediciously improbable, the most likely scenario is the largest force would easily win, given the sheer numbers.

NOTE, This isn't even taking into account ALL OF THE ARMIES IN THE WORLD... Merely this is the TEN LARGEST ARMIES of which the USA is one of.








http://www.curiosityaroused.com...




233,500

Debate Round No. 1
TyJack11x

Pro

NOTE: THE LAST ROUND IS FOR CONCLUSION ONLY. I'm sorry but I forgot to add that in my first post.

You raised a very good point, but it's my turn now.

9 million men is a massive amount and that's only 9 countries, but is there enough transports to get them across the ocean? No, the worlds navies would be inadequate to transport any sizable force across the Atlantic or Pacific. The U.S. navy would be able to break up any amphibious invasion. See the U.S. Navy has 19 carriers, that is 9 helicopter carriers and 10 aircraft carriers. The invaders would have to rely on civilian craft, which would be easy targets for submarines and aircraft. The rest of the world has a total of 12 carriers. During WW2 the carrier became the center for any fleet and immediately showed it's dominance. Since a sea invasion is off the table, well the only way to invade is over land, through Canada and Mexico. Let me tell you something about Texans... their crazy and an entire Army Corp is garrisoned in Texas. Invaders through Texas would meet fierce resistance no doubt. Thus in the north invaders would have Logistical trouble; their best bet would be to invade through the north-west, but it's filled with national parks. The national parks are vast exspances of land thus creating difficulty for supply lines to keep up with advancing armies. Hitler's invasion of Russia is a prime example of this.

Here is the big weakness in my opponents argument... he forgot to include american patriotism, during WW2 the U.S military grew to over 12 million strong, I would not doubt that in the event of a crisis, such as one at hand, the U.S. military would be at least 4 million strong. But the big numbers come from the civilian populace, that is the 270 million guns in the United States, say 5% of civilians fought the invaders well that is 16.2 million militia men, no small force. Green Berets would be deployed to help train the civilians into something fierce as it fights to protect it's homeland.

The United states spends only 3.8% of it's GDP on the military, if we spent 10% of our GDP this invasion force would be fighting a grand opponent.

Sources:

http://data.worldbank.org...

http://www.military1.com...

http://www.vice.com...

http://www.pewresearch.org...
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TyJack11x

Pro

As I have stated before the U.S is to large for most countries logistics to function properly. I also forgot to mention that the U.S. satellites could keep track of enemy movements, warning all troops of attacks. I would also like to add that tons of countries have "weak" troops, meaning there soldiers are not well-funded or well-supplied. I will refrain from posting any more due to the fact that my opponent forfeited his last round, only to make it fair :)
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

What if the entire rest of the world attacked the US all at the same time??

Surely they quite simply would not stand a chance.

The entire world attacking by LAND, AIR and SEA ....ALL AT ONCE?...devastating...


Further ..."
  1. Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada andLatin America. And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf.Apr 12, 2012"


WITH NO OIL YOU CANNOT FUEL A WAR>>> PLAIN AND SIMPLE>>>


IF THE US WAS DEPRIVED OF MOST OF ITS OIL < WHICH IT WOULD BE SINCE IT IMPORTS THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE OIL TO FUEL THEIR TANKS < PLANES> AND ANY OTHER WAR MACHINE


THUS RENDERING US TROOPS INCAPABLE OF MOBILIZING OR FIGHTING>>>

THIS WAR WOULD NOT LAST LONG FOR THE US<< IT WOULD LOSE>

Debate Round No. 3
TyJack11x

Pro

This is my conclusion so before I summarize my debate I would like to thank imsmarterthanyou98 for accepting this challenge.
I am obviously the pro for this debate, I believe the United States of America could never be truly conquered even if the entire world ganged up (excluding nuclear stockpiles as the U.S. and many other countries would be obliterated if they were used), the reason I believe this is due to the following,

- One of the biggest factors is the land it's self the U.S is 3,537,441 square miles. The logistics of many countries would simply not function, hundred of thousands of enemy troops would be under supplied and demoralized leading to easy victories for the Americans. Many countries would not be able to transport troops in mass across the oceans without relying on susceptible civilian craft.

- The U.S. also has a large population, some 324 million strong. Large groups of guerrilla forces would pop up, the military would have thousands of volunteers, and militias would grow also. The industrial system would also be brought to bear supplying the defense.

-My final point is that the United States could achieve almost complete resource dependency. The giant Utah copper mine, U.S. oil dependency is decreases no matter how you look at the numbers, we have millions of acres of farmland, and the list continues.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.westernwatersheds.org...

http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
Vote by MasterDbater18xray, 4 points to Pro, 1 point to con removed

RFD:

"Pro wasn't obnoxious with the way he provided his information. Big bold letters doesn't make a person right. Con didn't label many sources and they forfeited two rounds. therefore pro receives my vote."

Reason for removal: The accounts share an IP which invalidates any vote placed by either account for the other. The members are encouraged to contact me as soon as possible.

-Debate.org Moderator
Posted by TyJack11x 2 years ago
TyJack11x
Russia_The_almighty , exactly! It would result in destruction for most the world!
Posted by Russia_The_almighty 2 years ago
Russia_The_almighty
With nukes Well god save us all!
Posted by MasterDbater18xray 2 years ago
MasterDbater18xray
The United States military has some of the best trained soldiers in the world. Actually THE best trained soldiers in the world. We also have the largest military budget in the world by more than four times any other nation. The U.S. also has a gun behind Every Single blade of grass. That's a lot of lead being spit downrange. Iamsmarterthanarock is more accurate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TyJack11ximsmarterthanyou98Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture