The Instigator
Ashcan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Who would win in a war Russia or America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,386 times Debate No: 49341
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Ashcan

Pro

I think america would win. I think this becouse america has the most advanced military in the world. We could use drones or other unmaned machines to just fly into Russia and obliterate them without even using troops. Meanwhile in Russia they could be preparing for war with an invasion fleet of warships with hundreds of real live people. And we would just use powerful drones to totally destroy their fleet. But if we got involved in a nuclear war.....thats something different...lets just say there would be no winner if a nuclear war happened.
TheRussian

Con

First of all, I would like to agree with your last statement. If there was a nuclear war, both countries would be effectively destroyed. Let's just focus on non-nuclear war, shall we?

"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.
http://voiceofrussia.com...

"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.
Debate Round No. 1
Ashcan

Pro

Let me just say that America would win but not by drones. By marine black ops either assassinating president Putin or just doing undercover missions in Russia. Strike by Strike small win from small win will soon turn to big victory to huge victory. Then we would do a total full scale invasion of our 430 active ships off the coast of eastern Russia, not to mention the 206 ready reserve ships that America has. The American army would then push toward Moscow. That's what I would do if I was president anyway.(Obama is a bad president in my opinion but that's another debate in another time).And if Russia would not surrender we would destroy every single one of their cities. And yes, I exaggerated about the drone stuff. (but hey, I gotta scare the sh*t out of someone).
TheRussian

Con

From what I see, you're suggesting starting the invasion in Eastern Russia and push from there to Moscow. To accomplish this, you would have to go through ALL of Russia. This would take the US a very large amount of time and resources, too many. Don't forget the un-hospitable climate of the Siberian tundra. Russian reserves outnumber the US reserves by almost 20. (20,035,000 . 1,458,000) The American forces simply would not make it. They would cause damage, yes, but the US army would be reduced to nothing before they got to Moscow.
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.
http://www.wired.com...
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.
Debate Round No. 2
Ashcan

Pro

Ashcan forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

Climate plays a big role as well. The American Army (just like so many before it) would hit the Russian winter. (If the Americans are coming from the East, they'll be stuck in Siberia for the winter which is even worse). Average winter temperatures for Siberia are -25 C (-13 F). This is be difficult to be acclimatize to for the average person living in the US. Not only that, but there are NO food resources there, meaning the Americans would have to transport supplies and food halfway through Russia (which can not only take a long time, but the vehicles could be destroyed/intercepted on the way). On the other hand, it would be very easy for the Russians to move food, weapons and troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Ashcan

Pro

What your saying is that the american forces would freeze but the russian army wouldn't? That would be like saying the russians can't touch america becouse they don't want to freeze themselves unless america has been building underground warm supplied with food,and resourceful supplies and weapons.(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
TheRussian

Con

I am not saying that the Russians wouldn't cold. I'm saying that 1) Americans may not be as acclimatized to subzero temperatures as Russians. 2) American forces would have to transport food and equipment through extremely cold temperatures much farther than the Russians, which could detrimentally affect the condition of the items being transported.
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.
Debate Round No. 4
Ashcan

Pro

"almost every time" Yes exactly, not every time has Russia succeeded in blocking out an invasion take wayyyyyyy way way back to the Phoenician time the Russians, or Russlands called back then failed in blocking out the Grecians from Greece who wanted to take the world.And when you said we would come from the east your wrong. We would come from the west. We have multiple troops stationed in Germany. It would be easier to invade Russia there. 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.
TheRussian

Con

""almost every time" Yes exactly, not every time has Russia succeeded in blocking out an invasion take wayyyyyyy way way back to the Phoenician time the Russians, or Russlands called back then failed in blocking out the Grecians from Greece who wanted to take the world"
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(missile)
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.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by sabrin100 2 years ago
sabrin100
Looks like Russia really has weapons of mass destruction, so I would not be attacking them. I think USA knew Iraq had nothing , that is why they attacked Iraq . Still , they have not done that well
Posted by Ashcan 2 years ago
Ashcan
That's exactly what I asked krazzy
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Someone always wins. In this case it would be the US. And Krazzy what advanced technologies does Russia have that outmatches ours?
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
No one would win, lol. There'd be no survivors.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
yeah U.S would be burnt down to ashes.
Posted by Ashcan 2 years ago
Ashcan
so your saying america would lose?
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Like... Nothing. Cute joke though.
Posted by Ashcan 2 years ago
Ashcan
Like what
Posted by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Russian's have technology which America can't even dream off. They have techs far more advanced than drones.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
AshcanTheRussianTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
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.