Who would win in a war Russia or America
Debate Rounds (5)
"We could use drones or other unmaned machines to just fly into Russia and obliterate them without even using troops."
That is an extreme exaggeration. The US would not be able to win, or in fact do very much at all, without using troops. In previous wars with less developed countries, the US has used drones yet has also suffered large human losses. Let us not forget that drones are very expensive and to wage an entire war with only their help would be impossible. Also, recently developed technology such as the Tor-M2 can take down drones (along with other air support) without much difficulty.
"And we would just use powerful drones to totally destroy their fleet."
Destroying the Russian fleet as a whole is near impossible. Not only are there a total of about 300 submarines and navy ships, but they are located from the Baltic Sea, to the Black Sea, to the Eastern Coast of Russia. Let's not forget that these aren't just sitting ducks, they are armed, war-ready machines, and to destroy so many, stretched across such a vast area would be very difficult. Also, consider that not all war is waged on sea. You would also have to deal with troops and air support.
Now, let's take a look at history. History has shown that: US would most likely be the aggressor (considering that the US has such a large amount of offensive operations). Also, Russia is prepared to do all, sacrifice everything in order to defend its land. In this case, sacrificing everything would not be necessary because Russia has a 20 to 1 advantage in numbers, AND Russia is defending (which by default requires a smaller number of troops). If US land forces are destroyed, naval and aerial operations alone would not be able to accomplish much. As a result of a very large advantage in numbers and advanced technology (that is not surpassed by US military), I believe that the US would lose.
Here, for example, is aerial technology.
The newer Russian Sukhoi T-50 fighter plane is considered superior to the US F-22 Raptor.
Another factor that you have to consider is that once war begins, trade between Russia and US will cease, and Russia undeniably has a larger reserve of natural resources and food, while the US imports the bigger part of its resources.
Ashcan forfeited this round.
Finally, Russian weapons and vehicles are more "cold-ready" than that of Americans because they have to endure the cold EVERY winter. In the winter of 1943, Germans were reporting that as a result of very low temperatures, their tanks simply would not function because the fuel and oil in the machine would no longer be liquid, but a sludge. Russian tanks on the other hand were doing fine.
The American army has never fought a real war in conditions like the Siberian plains present. Russians, on the other hand, have endured centuries of invasion, and prevailed almost every time.
Also, considering that Russia is so immense, the American forces would end up being spread very thin and would be easier to eliminate. Examples of that would be when Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia.
Yes, thousands of years ago Russia lost an invasion, but let us not forget that Russia is still twice as big as the US.
"We have multiple troops stationed in Germany. It would be easier to invade Russia there."
Okay, let's imagine that the US begins sending large amounts of troops into Germany.
1) Russia would notice and begin moving large numbers of troops, vehicles and technology towards the western side.
2) Russia does not border Germany, so how would the troops actually make it to Russia? They would have to be dropped in by air, which is difficult to do. (As seen in operation Overlord, D-Day).
3) Russian defenses on the western side are much stronger by default considering that if Russia is going to be attacked, it's probably from the West since there are really no enemies in the East.
"And also, we have this thing called NORAD if you have not heard of it. It is a missile firing and defense system for america. It could fire missiles into Russia without troops lifting a finger. And no, it cant be stopped because once the missiles are deployed they reach speed of mach 1 which is as fast as a nuclear warhead can go. And once it is that fast no Russian anti-missile cannons can take it down, unless they have invented force fields.( which you haven't.) And by the way if your an american that's just pitiful."
Yes, I am fully aware of what NORAD is. Yes, it could fire missiles "without lifting a finger", but Russia has missiles as well. Sending in missiles would be the worst mistake for the US, because then Russia would set off its missiles.
Here, for example is the "Satan Missile" as called by Americans. It is the Soviet R-36 missile and was viewed as a first strike advantage by US analysts. This monster of a missile splits into 10 separate warheads (which can be loaded with any kind of explosive) and 40 penetration aids.
Just recently, the Russians updated this missile, modernized it, and made it even more destructive.
If the US launched even a single missile, that would mean destruction because Russia would answer. It would be detrimental to Russia as well, but let's not forget that Russia simply has more territory, and if part of it was destroyed, people can move. If the same area of land was demolished by missile strikes in the US, there would be no where to go.
Finally, no, I am not an American. I am Russian (if it isn't obvious enough by my name.)
In conclusion, I believe my opponent has provided nearly no real argument and had no sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and sources to go con. Con arguing on pro terms showed how every pro argument was void, and was able to show how as U.S. invasion of Russia would be nearly impossible. Pro did not use sources, while con did so sourcing goes to con.
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.