The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Who wins in a china - u.s war?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 574 times Debate No: 63190
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




In my opinion china would lose the war war with the u.s for several reasons. One of those reasons would be that we are in debt to china 1.3 trillion dollars and if they went to war with us then they would obviously not get that money thus putting them into an economic collapse. Also, our country has many allies and if china even dared to attack us we would embargo them along with several of are allies who are major European countries (thus putting china into an even worse economic decline). Finally, if China were to attack the U.S we have a much stronger military then them (more technologically advance army, that is) that would easily be able to defeat the Chinese army in a matter of months. Finally, I'm sure my opponent will bring up the risk of nuclear war but to put that idea at ease both nations realize that a nuclear war is a very serious threat and they both realize that a nuke war would come down to the total obliteration of both parties, therefore not firing on there opponent.


Why China Doesn't Lose in a US-Chinese Pacific War
The US military cannot occupy China

As it stands, the Chinese have the single largest ground army in the world today (some 1.6 milliion AD members compared to 550,000 US Army), and also posses the second largest navy and sencond largest air force; both in ships and in planes. Give the idea that even if the whole US military can make the 1,000 mi trip across the ocean and somehow overcome an outnumbered 3:1 ratio on the ground, -and that’s only if the Pentagon deploys every single tank, plane, ship, soldier, and hand-grenade it has- it would still have to overcome the logistical nightmare and mathematical impossibility of covering a country which sizes 3,705,000 square miles in total land area and is inhabited by more than 1/6 of the world’s total population - for the spectacular ratio of 2,400 Chinese inhabitants for every 1 US army soldier. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


As I have previously stated the U.S army is more technologically advanced and, although china has a more superior number of soldiers, they do not have the naval power, air force power, or the technological advancements to defend it self against a U.S attack. This war would come down to less fighting on land and more fighting in the air and in the water (because as you stated we are so far away from them the fight would surely come down to this). China's navy does not have nearly the amount of ships that the U.S has and does not have the weapon capability that the U.S ships have (China has 1 battle carrier which they use for tourism and to try and prove that they have a strong maritime power while the U.S has around 10 of them which have already seen combat). Next, the U.S is used to war and they have developed many battle strategies for the seas and the air while china has only been in small skirmishes with there navy. Next, after the U.S defeated them with there far superior navy they could just block off all trade going into china from the ocean. Then, with there supplies cut off (and in this situation them not bombing us) The U.S navy would begin bombing the Chinese border and setting up strong military bases on the east side of china then slowly just converge in on them. If china did decide to fight back and send in there soldiers they would be no match for the U.S navy that would just bomb them. Finally, you stated that the Chinese have so many more people then the U.S army but just because there is more PEOPLE does not mean there are more in there MILITARY. There are approximately 1.7 million soldiers in the Chinese army while the U.S has about 1.3 million soldiers on active duty and about 850,000 people who are in the reserve. As you can see, the Chinese do not have that many more soldiers then the U.S! And, like previously stated, our military is much more modernized then china's (at the moment) and we could easily defeat them.


Another point...

The US military cannot conventionally defeat the PLA

Using only conventional means -meaning no WMD- it is very unlikely the US can defeat the PLA Navy or the PLA Air Force on its home turf, given the very limited number of deployable US forces in the region and the very limited number of viable US bases that would be logistically sustainable in a hypothetical war against China's more numerous forces (currently only Guam, Japan, and the Philippines are suitable). But taking only Guam for instance, that base, while home to 20% of USPACOM total air assets, is immediately susceptible to hundreds -if not thousands- of ballistic missiles launched from mainland China (mobile DF-31 and new DF-26s have ranges of 4,000 miles+) and an assortment of other submarine and air launched cruise missiles that are absolutely going to decimate the two American runways, spy and communication satellites overlooking the battlefield, and US air fleet still on the ground. In what’s probably going to go down as Pearl Harbor Part II, there will also be a similar “assassin’s mace” scenario occurring over the skies of Japan/South Korea and any US carrier deployed in the region for that matter, in the first 24 hours of opening conflict; leaving the US Air Force and Navy no virtual supply base to operate from. Frome there, China has a numerical advantage that cannot be overcomed. But don’t take my word for it.

Think Tank (RAND): China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War:

Debate Round No. 2


You are basing this whole argument off of the fact that the U.S would attack china. I will concede and say that the U.S would be defeated on Chinese territory but just because they win the battle does not mean that they win the war! After a vicious battle (which would result in heavy casualties for the Chinese) on Chinese territory (in the context of the situation) China would have to send there already hurt, and low morale troops over to the U.S to fight and take over. In U.S territory however, the Chinese would not have such a great chance. The U.S could send all of there forces and defend against a weak Chinese military force which would ultimately be destroyed leaving the U.S to (even though they are weak now to) invade China once more (with getting the help of our major European allies) invade China once more and defeat a small militia group that would form while China is struggling, trying to get an army to fight. Either way, the U.S wins whether they send there allies out to do the dirty work or they go and do it themselves. Case Closed, U.S wins


You are basing this whole argument off of the fact that the U.S would attack china.

I've tried to be as realistic as possible in my arguements, and the most plausible geographical setting for an actual war betwen US and China for me is going to be in the Asia and Pacific Theatre and not North America; I would give this scenario more credit than a Chinese attack on North America based on analysis figures of current US & Chinese military capability, positioning, and also strong political considerations as to where US-Sino conflict is most likely to occur (Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Pakistan).

I will concede and say that the U.S would be defeated on Chinese territory but just because they win the battle does not mean that they win the war!

If you cannot occupy Chinese terrirtory, then I don't see how the Chinese government falls or how they are forced to capituate. True, this logic might also apply to the Chinese inability to invade the US homeland, but given the close proxmity of US allied countries to China (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea), and there realtive military weakness, vulnerability to invasion, and thier utter dependence on the US for military aid and protection (Taiwan alone has 2,000 PLA missiles pointed at it), I'd argue here that it is more likely that US interests and allied countries actually have more to lose in a Chinese-US War. And given the military picture and naval logistics which I described in R1 & R2 and supported by a DoD credited think-tank, it is also likely that the Chinese military -with its huge quanitative advatage in forces- could very well come out on top in a Pacific engagement. And though I've pretty much ignored non-military consequences throughout, I think its safe to say the US debt owed to China that you mention prior in R1, works both ways when it crashes, except China has some of the strongest currency resereves in the world and only half of it is in US dollars.

So If I had to summarize everything:

1) The US military cannot occupy China
2) The US military cannot conventionally defeat the PLA
3) and the US has more to lose in a war agaisnt China.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
Right? XD You forget that there's...i don't know...the rest of the world? XD
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Dheu thanks for being America centric
Posted by Dheu 2 years ago
We nuke China, China nukes us. The world loses.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
What is this purple circle anyway??
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
I'd take this debate only if Con was a serious debater. Purple Circle members are notorious for FFing. I'd win by his FF. Thus acceptance would be a waste of time & a discrediting to my debating skills, since this is an easy win.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
The world looses.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made many baseless claims such as "like previously stated, our military is much more modernized then china's (at the moment) and we could easily defeat them." Not a single source to support this. Pro does a good job of showing that in such a conflict, China would come out on top.