The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

U.S. Military is Better than Russian Military

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kazierno has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 492 times Debate No: 96220
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




So, I think this is a good topic to debate about so we can prove for a fact around here that who among the the two superpowers is the better one.
There will be 3 rounds, with a maximum writing of 10,000 characters including spaces.
1. Rules (me)/ Argument (opponent)
2. Arguments (me)/ Rebuttals (opponent)
3. Rebuttals (me)/ Defense (opponent)
4. Defense (me)/ Rebuttals for defense and conclusion (opponent)
5. Rebuttals for defense and conclusion (me)/ Waive (opponent

No forfeits because of the FF glitch, no trolling, no semantics, and K's. Sources can be in an external link, but arguments need to be in the argument text.

I believe that Russia, when it was actually called a SuperPower, is still very good in their original form, and from my point of view is probably better than the U.S. Military. U.S.A. is usually all about show-off, and most of its new technology, especially in Military Regions, is not for real use, but kept for show. But, Russia is better than that.

I WISH you the best of luck, and I hope that there is nothing other to do here than Debate.


I Object!

While various setbacks in the war on terror underscore the limits of American power, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture: we live in the age of American supremacy. Part of the explanation for U.S. dominance surely lies in America"s economic strength. But Europe and Japan are similarly wealthy, yet their global sway lags far behind. What they lack is America"s superior military capabilities. Although the dominance of U.S. forces can still be challenged when they come into close contact with the enemy on his home turf, they are undisputed masters of the "commons" (sea, air, and space), which allows them to project power anywhere in the world at short notice.

Information technology is central to American military dominance. Not all of the changes wrought by the information age are obvious at first glance, because the basic military systems of the early twenty-first century look roughly similar to their predecessors of the second industrial age " tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, missiles. The average speed of a U.S. Navy destroyer has not increased in the past 100 years. The U.S. Air Force continues to rely on B-52H bombers last built in 1962. And the Marine Corps still uses helicopters that flew in the Vietnam War. But since the mid-1970s, the communications, targeting, surveillance, and ordnance technologies that make such "legacy" systems considerably more potent have been changing with great rapidity " and to America"s great advantage.

Yet in this period of American hegemony, Americans continue to feel vulnerable. As we learned on September 11, and continue learning on the battlefields of Iraq, the most advanced weapons systems and most sophisticated information technology are hardly a perfect shield against other kinds of destructive power. The paradox of our age is that modern technology is both the great separator and the great equalizer in military affairs: Technological supremacy separates America from the rest of the world, and yet modern technology leaves America vulnerable to vicious groups and gangs armed with AK47s, car bombs, or portable WMDs. To understand the future of warfare, we need to understand both sides of this paradox: specifically, how information technology has increased America"s conventional military supremacy (in land, sea, air, and space), and how this military edge may be subverted by determined radicals armed with new technologies of death.
Debate Round No. 1


After WWII ended, the U.S. created NATO (OTAN) or the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation whose basic members were U.S.A. and U.K. and France and Germany. What the American authorities told at that time was "This organisation was created for the welfare of Germany for the coming 10 years AND to stop Russia or, at that time, U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) from taking over the former German Lands. But after 39 years, i.e., September 3, 1984, some social officials revealed that they interviewed some WWII Generals and Admirals, and got the answer that it was secretly named "Operation Blue Water" and it was basically made to PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM ANY INTRUSION FROM RUSSIA< as the United States had recently bought Alaska from the former.

Also, you may think that we are living in the time of American supremacy, but it is Russia, who is secretly doing the development. Also, because of the U.S. claims of Russian attacks on Germany which were FALSE, Russia's USSR fell and it had to pay a huge amount, which faltered the former's economy. Otherwise, the biggest gainer from WWII was Russia. Also, if in a war, Russia would rather not attack, because at home Russia has an advantage of temperature, and it is for a fact that American guns will freeze in a few hours time.

Plus, you cannot be one to deny, that Russia has WAY MORE Nuclear Warheads than the United States. And for a fact, the total number of warheads U.S. has is the actual number of ACTIVE Russian Nuclear Warheads. Russia has nearly double the amount of Warheads that U.S. has.

ALso, we all are supposed to know that the U.S. military has the largest navy, but why? It is because countries like Russia and U.K. and France and Germany and India and China, dumped nearly all their Navy after the 1960s thinking that they wanted more new tech. But, Half of U.S.'s navy is currently from WWII, and from the 19 carriers they have, 3 were stolen from Japan, 1 was taken from China and 2 more from U.K.. Now, if the other countries had done the same thing, they would've had a larger navy than U.S.. Also, we know that Russia's air force is larger than America's. Also, perceiving the size of Russia, it would be nearly impossible to gather intel as fast as attacking.

Also, U.S. may have more number of troops, but Russia's reserve is larger, and also Russia's overall Defense budget is also larger. Overall, US international debt is more than Russia, and Russia is a larger arms exporter to overall countries than the US. Plus, Russia has more next-gen fighters compared to as the United States of America, which they actually put to use. Also, Russia is more experienced in Battle situations.

I will be expecting a good rebuttal to this, according to the rules. Thank you.


If Russia were to attack the United States, they would surely be driven back. You say Russia's DEFENSE budget stands higher than the United States, correct? False. A recent poll shows that the defence budget of the United States stands at a rather large $637 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts, the United States spends more money on defence than Russia and China combined, and while Russia dominates the U.S with a larger amount of troops, the Russian military would be quickly dispersed by the advancement in American technology, overpowering them with a large number of aerial, navy and ground units. Russia having more warheads is primarily because after the Cold War, the U.S. did not build any more nuclear weapons. Instead, they concentrated on the only thing in the world that can stop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) dead in its tracks: the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser (ABL). This megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser can shoot down nuclear missiles while in boost phase, the only effective way of stopping them. The task of shooting down ICBMs is highly complex and difficult, since they would limit the ability of the ABL to reach them, due to the distance and speed.

America's biggest conventional military advantage is its fleet of 19 aircraft carriers, compared to 12 carriers operated by the rest of the world combined. These massive carriers allow the U.S. to set up forward operating bases anywhere and project power throughout the world.

So Russia may have more man-power, but when it comes to it, the U.S excels in all other aspects.
Debate Round No. 2


The U.S. may even have 19 aircraft carriers you say, but you might not know that 13 of them or pre-Cold War. Also, you might think polls conducted may make a difference, but they don't. We debate on facts, not may's or maybe's or Polls. Plus, you might think the Boeing YAL-1 is the only Anti-ICBM. But, NO. Russia has also developed them, AND done it earlier than the united states. IT is Beriev A-60. It is a complex Anti-ICBM laser, which has been upgraded 23 times since 1981. Also, Russian Navy is stronger if battleships and destroyers are combined. Plus, Russia dumped all its tech after WWII, and focused on new tech.

But, America still ends up using 1 carrier from WWII. Also, Russia is building 4 more aircraft carriers by Sept. 2017, which you might not know, and so is U.K., my country of origin. Also, you might think that America is politically stable, but it is not even close to it. America's current political condition, has faltered its ability to make better allies. Also, Russia, if it went to war, it will have allies like China and North Korea and Israel, Germany and Pakistan for sure, all of them being Nuclear-Capable war, while U.s. will have U.K., France, Canada, Australia, Japan and a few chances with India.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.