The Instigator
bcresmer
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points

WWIII: a series of debates

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,280 times Debate No: 19634
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

bcresmer

Pro

I've seen a couple of these and wanted to do one myself. I expect this to become a series of debates. U can pick 5 country's to start. My picks are the USA, UK, Israel, Mexico, and South Korea. I think these are a fair choice seeing as they are all allies. Also, nukes cannot be used right away because in a real life crisis, they would be the last resort.

Good luck and I'm really interested in where this will go!

Bcresmer
ConservativePolitico

Con

Hello, I am interested in taking on this fun challenge but I am not clear on what exactly we are doing? Are we just debating on which side will win? I'm sorry that I'm new to this.

My countries will be: China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea.

Please clarify what the expectations are for this debate and begin your "arguments" (I guess they're arguments) and I am excited to begin a thought provoking discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
bcresmer

Pro

No problem! I think that this debate should just lay down the rules and then we shall begin the real debating!

There are a couple of things that we should cover;
1) How it starts;
2) Who would attack who, and who would protect who;
3) Who would win/ or would it be a tie;
and finally what would happen after the fact.

Also, later on we will pick a few more countries to join with.

If you have anything esle you would like to add, please tell me, and good luck!

And don't worry, I'm new to this too!!!
ConservativePolitico

Con

Sounds good. I'll start then.

How it starts:

After years of beating around the bush, weak policy and unwillingness to confront the problem the United States and her allies allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Nearby Israel is terrified (naturally) and immediately begins to mobilize for a preemptive strike. Russia looks on smiling and applauding their allies efforts and progress while the US rattles sabers like is has been doing for the past decade.

Israel has a choice to makes...and does. They decide for the preemptive strike and on a cold morning just days after the announcement of nuclear capabilities Israeli warplanes fly over Iran and bomb their nuclear facilities. The facilities are damaged and put out of commission but the Iranians were smart enough to hide the bulk of their work and results below ground.

Immediately following the air strike Iran declares war on Israel and begins to mobilize. In response the United States has no choice but to jump on board and they declare war on Iran. In response the Iranians blockade the Straights of Hormuz prompting US allies Britain and Mexico to join in. Now we have a war between Iran and Israel & friends. Seeing an opportunity to assert themselves Russia joins in on the side of their Iranian allies while bringing pro-Islamic Pakistan into the fray as well. Pakistan, being a divided nation, might not fully or officially join in but the Islamic tribes and tribal factions certainly would and many Pakistanis are in favor of joining in the war against the west.

At this point you have Israel and Iran mobilizing, the US Navy moving into the Straights of Hormuz as the Airforce prepares for a major air offensive. Pakistan's tribes have thrown their weight in as Russia plans on how to best help Iran.

This is the start of WWIII.

(I don't know now if you debate my start to the war, discuss it or move on. It's your ball though. And tell me if my responses are too short or too long.)
Debate Round No. 2
bcresmer

Pro

I'll discuss it, make a change or two, then move to the next part of it.

I really like how you got it started, so I'm not going to change it. But, I will change Russia's part in it.

"On 16 February 2009 Russia's deputy defence minister said state defence contracts would not be subject to cuts this year despite the ongoing financial crisis, and that there would be no decrease in 2009. The budget would still be 1,376 billion roubles and in the current exchange rates this would amount to $41.5 billion.
However, later that month, due to the world financial crisis, the Russian Parliament's Defence Committee stated that the Russian defence budget would instead be slashed by 15 percent, from $40 billion to $34 billion, with further cuts to come. On 5 May 2009, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said that the defence budget for 2009 will be 1.3 trillion rubles (US$39.4 billion). 322 billion rubles are allocated to purchase weapons, and the rest of the fund will be spent on construction, fuel storage and food supply."

This states that, because Russia is in a budget crisis, it's had to cut its defensive spending. Now, if they go to war, that spending goes soaring up. They also wouldn't be able to mobilize their huge army anytime soon. And by the time they join the fight, they would be in serious money trouble.

That said, its my turn.
As Israel and Iran go at each others throats, The U.S., and Mexican Navies begins to bring the pain against the Iranian Navy. Also, a joint task force of British S.A.S., Navy SEALs, and Mexican Marines launch attacks on the ports of Iran to stop them from being able to receive trade.

While all this is happening, South Korea starts sneaking in troops to the DMZ for a surprise attack. North Korea has began to arm and get ready to mobilize when S.K. attacks. The attack devastates N.K.'s arms stockpile and their morale.

So at this point, we have Iran and Israel fighting, U.S., Mexico navies fighting Iranian navy, And the Task Force destroying their trade. Also we have N.K. and S.K. beginning their war.

Hope you enjoyed it
BTW I'm going to call my task force Task Force 141.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Good insight. In wake of the 2008 invasion of Georgia I will agree that Russia will use any excuse to strengthen it's military and flex its muscles. You are also probably right in your assertion that Russia's mobilization would be slow and unorganized since history has taught us that Russians are notoriously bad at mobilizing military efforts. Thanks for pointing out my oversight.

Now:

The US and Mexican Navies will be fighting in order to reopen the Straights of Hormuz to the world again. The task forces would be fighting to stop Iranian trade but I believe that the Russian's first goal would be to support Iran and protect their trade which would not be very difficult to do with Russian airpower and missile technology.

But here is an area I disagree with wholeheartedly. I picked North Korea as one of my countries because N.K is an aggressor and an agrivator. South Korea would never attack N.K. They feel a kinship with the North and have continuously supported their northern bretheren with aide and goodwill. The South would never be the first to attack. Therefore I must change it so seeing the West occupied with Israel N.K believes that they can lead a strike against the South and do it with very little opposition from the United States.

N.K then attack S.K under the direction of their dictator leadership using shells and airstrikes but the US garrison in S.K rallies the South for a defense and possible counter-attack but they are reluctant as they usually are when dealing with N.K. Facing starvation and extinction at the hands of malnutrition and exposure the North would then instigate the war much as a cornered animal attacks anyone that approaches.

Iran is being ravaged by Israeli air strikes as their army begins to deploy through US encouraged Iraq.
Debate Round No. 3
bcresmer

Pro

Thanks for pointing out MY oversight. I agree with you that N.K. would be the first to attack, not S.K.

It is at this point I bring in Canada and Australia. This countries have always backed the U.S. so I feel like they would join in too. You have said, " I believe that the Russian's first goal would be to support Iran and protect their trade which would not be very difficult to do with Russian airpower and missile technology.". When the Cold War was going on, we designed defences, and still do, agaisnt Russian missles. And if the Russian airforce attacks, The U.S., U.K., and Mexican airforces will counterattack.
"The Constitution of Canada gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for national defence, and expenditures are thus outlined in the federal budget. For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the amount allocated for defence spending was CAD$18.9 billion. This regular funding was augmented in 2005 with an additional CAD$12.5 billion over five years, as well as a commitment to increasing regular force troop levels by 5,000 persons, and the primary reserve by 3,000 over the same period. In 2006, a further CAD$5.3 billion over five years was provided to allow for 13,000 more regular force members, and 10,000 more primary reserve personnel, as well as CAD$17.1 billion for the purchase of new trucks for the Canadian Army, transport aircraft and helicopters for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and joint support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy."

This is info on Canada's military spending. Canada would be sent to help S.K. beat back and defeat N.K. with the help of Australia. With repeated bombing runs, and after being pushed back alll the way to their border, N.K. finally admits defeat and a treaty is signed. N.K. and S.K. are now one country, Korea, and are out of the war to rebuid and strenthen.

With the Korean front gone, Canada and Australia focus on helping Israel on their front.

I hope you enjoyed reading this and I can't wait to hear your reply.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Yes I know we have anti-Russian defenses in place but not in certain areas. Russia will traverse the what I like to call former Soviet "Stan" countries in order to get to Iran quickly while bypassing the Western defenses. You say we would counter attack with our air force, which is true, but I believe that due to the proximity of Iran to Russia, they would be able to do some damage before we could do anything.

While I agree that Australia would have an interest in the war in Asia I am skeptical in the Canadian's involvement. While they would back up the U.S I don't know if that extends to being deployed on a foreign front. Also you say "with the Korean front gone"... but I want to respectfully remind you that you have forgotten my last country. China. China is not going to sit back and let S.K wreck N.K so they'll intervene, first with their Navy then with their Airforce before invading Korea on the side of the North. The Chinese involvement will turn the tide of battle and push the South all the way back to the border. Just like in the Korean conflict.

Also Chinese aggression will most likely pull Taiwan into the war on the US side due to their past suspicion and dislike.

But I agree that eventually the US would combat Russian intervention and shut off Iranian trade while retaking the Straights of Hormuz.

Israel will be absolutely crushing Iran at this point... until nuclear intervention... if there is any.

You're turn friend.
Debate Round No. 4
bcresmer

Pro

I believe at this point Iran is out. Russia is mobilizing its army though Kazakhstan, and the Straights of Hormuz are open. The U.S. would stay back and help Iran build a new government like they always do.
I have to argue China jumping in. They depend heavily on the U.S. because they export millions of dollars in goods to us. I have a source that outlines all of the details. I will wait till next round to continue the S.K./N.K. battle.

With Iran out, Israel and the Allies turn towards Russia. At this point, Russia is "caught with their pants down." They are in the middle of moving thousands of tanks, APC's, and artillery, plus the millions of solders and personal to Iran and Iraq. The Allies will begin air raids and send in special forces to destroy, sabotage, and demoralize the Russian army.

I have enclosed two sources; 1 is of China and the U.S. imports and exports, and 2 U.S. v.s. Russia.
https://www.uschina.org...
http://www.mint.com...

This is really becoming an enjoyable debate. I thank Con for it, and I wait his response.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Well I acknowledge the fact that the China-US trade is invaluable to the Chinese today I wonder if it will be so important whenever this war takes place. China is buying up many resources around the world in order to attain some semblance of economic independence from the US. [http://www.independent.co.uk...]

Also the Taiwan-Chinese rift runs much deeper than many people realize. China would love to have Taiwan back at all costs and says that one day it will invade Taiwan and take it by force if necessary detailed here in a page about Taiwan-Chinese relations. [http://www.cfr.org...]
WWIII would be a perfect opportunity for China to grab Taiwan. As for the Korean conflict perhaps they wouldn't intervene, but Taiwan yes they would.

So S.K wins over N.K
Iran loses to US/Israel forces.
Russia is broken.
China takes Taiwan.
Pakistan falls with Iran.

And the world sues for peace.

The Middle East is now a mostly free US backed region and China is the dominant power in Asia.

This was certainly an interesting debate and I thank my opponent for starting it.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bcresmer 5 years ago
bcresmer
Thanks
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Good storytelling though. :P
Posted by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
woops, i meant to tie it but accidently pushed it in favor of Con -.- Sorry D:
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Hmm. This seemed more like a story rather then a 'debate' about who would win..
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
bcresmerConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: not a debate
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
bcresmerConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: We need a tie here.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
bcresmerConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: just going with sources
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
bcresmerConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I must vote to make this a tie since no side really deserves a "win" out of this. :)
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
bcresmerConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Capitalism dominates wars.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
bcresmerConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm. I wouldn't exactly call this a debate, but sources was pretty tied. However, PRO used more 'numbers', and numbers don't lie lol. So i gave sources to PRO... But that's really the only thing I can vote on.