World War III Part 2
Debate Rounds (5)
2nd,3rd, 4th, and 5th round: DEBATE
I enjoyed the part 1! lets get down to part 2! WORLD WAR III HEre i come!
You claim that since your Chinese you know for sure that China would immediately aid North Korea, but you fail to offer any factual support of such an idea and you rest this whole idea on the fact that "Im Chinese, I know what China would do" I had to go look into the facts you provided without any sources and here is what i found.
Chinese troops on the North Korean Border = 150,000, but the reason China has so many troops along the border is not to immediately come rushing to their aid, its to keep out illegal immigrants. North Korea to China is a lot like Mexico to the US.
So China is using its massive military to keep North Koreans OUT, and consider this. You use America not wanting to harm trade with China as an excuse for not going all out in war against them, but you offer no excuse for why China would cut trade with the US just for North Korea..... Why would China protect ties to a country that supplies them with nearly all their military resources over the US which through trade brings in $1.4 trillion dollars for them.
Relations with North Korea = $4,200,000,000 = 4.2 billion
Relations with the US = $1,400,000,000,000 = 1,400 billion
So If common sense prevails, China would not immediately cut all trade to the US just to protect North Korea. As for China's entire military, Recent negotiations with them have revealed that China spends 10x less on their military what America spends, and the money they do spend is to try to modernize their military
So China would not immediately come to North Korea's Aid, their military is not nearly as advanced as the US. And with the state of North Korea's military being on even worse shape, combined Japanese, South Korea, ad already deployed US troops could easily eliminate North Korea, and force a stalemate with China.
As for Russian relations with North Korea, you base it entirely on a claim that South Korea would threaten the Russians and threaten to destroy the S-400,
An S-400 is a missile defense system that is currently being replaced with an S-500
So 1) Why would South Korea threaten Russia?
2) Why would Russia provide all out support for North Korea when they have had no relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991?
3) How would Russia get their entire aging military across Siberian Russia JUST to help a country they have been cutting ties with?
As I said before If Russia were to enter WWIII it would be just to expand into Europe while the US was preoccupied in the Korean Theater. Russia would try to invade a series of countries along their border which includes Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Poland, etc. Each country would have a aging military and would not be able to put up a fight on their own, but if all these countries were to start fighting just Russia than Russia would drain any resources they have before they start fighting any actual powerful country.
" America would not use THAT MUCH MONEY again because the Americans remember from Bush's administration"
I dont even know what your trying to argue here but if WWIII were to break out I think there would be quite a lot of support for doing whatever it takes to make sure America is safe.
" USA, as I said wouldn't come over from America but maybe Japan and Guam! Don't argue with that point"
Well to quote Jack Sparrow, "I IS arguing the point"
f North Korea were to start to invade South Korea, one of the US's biggest trading partners, the US would surely come to their aid to both defend South Korea and eliminate North Korea in the process. The US would definitely cross the Pacific (like they've done in the past before South Korea was even a valuable trading ally) to protect their interests in South Korea....
"Russia has a huge army and has a great ability because it has one of the largest economies in the world and a huge GDP!"
Sources showing that Russia's army is not very advanced, very poorly equipped, and that their GDP is 14x smaller than that of the US
Russia spends 46 billion on an already weak military
US spends 685 billion on the most advanced military in the world....
"Therefore UK would start to send troops in a matter of months while Germany would not also come in around the time of UK coming in!"
Your idea that the UK would come to the immediate aid of North Korea over the US is also completely unfounded. If Britain and Germany were to enter WWIII it would be for reasons other than what is going on in North Korea....
For whatever reasons they enter the war, the UK vs Germany would be a very, very close fight.
British spending on the military = 47 Billion
German spending on military = 42 Billion
British military numbers = 100,000
German military numbers = 163,000
British military ranking = 3rd
German military ranking = 5th
So It can be assumed that Any direct conflict between Germany and Britain would be very very close, but I doubt Britain would win by a wide enough margin to donate any military they have left to aid North Korea.....
But here is one more thing to consider....
US troops in Britain = could not be found, estimated to be a few thousand
US troops in Germany = Over 50,000
(also US troops stationed in Japan and South Korea = 85,000)
So If Britain were to fight Germany, and the US was on the side of Germany, then US troops would already be there and ready to fight Britain which could tip the conflict in favor of Germany if they had US support and Britain did not
So to summarize
1) North Korea is already under-supplied and weak.
2) Japan, South Korean, and US troops in the region are already vast.
3) China probably would not come to the immediate aid of North Korea
4) Russia who is even weaker would also not come to the immediate aid of North Korea
5) If Russia were to come they would have to move their entire military through Siberia and that could take years
6) Russia would probably invade small countries in East Europe and then lose any offensive capability before they went head to head against any actual power
7) Britain would lock into a war with Germany and would be very removed from the Asian theater, So it would be almost 1 on 1
8) US troops in Germany would tip the British-German conflict into the favor of the Germans.
That is why I think they will win....
*I am so sorry that I don't have enough space to tell you about North Korea's Navy, China's stats, and a detailed rebuttal about everything else but I will in the next round.
Pro: China, North Korea, Russia, UK
Con: US, South Korea, Japan, Germany
Now allow me to condense the Pro's 8000 word argument into a few points here,
1) North Korea would probably start WWIII by invading South Korea and then enduring an allied response from Japanese + US + South Korean forces
2) North Korea has a larger army and air force than South Korea even though the North has many inferior weapons compared to the South
3) Russia and China would quickly come to aid North Korea because they did it before in the Korean War
4) Nuclear weapons would only be used as a last resort
That basically summarizes the whole thing, here is my response to each point
1) We both agreed in the last debate that North Korea would start WWIII when Kim Jung Il's son took power and launched a campaign against South Korea, nothing to really debate over.
2) North Korea does have a larger army, however as the pro stated, the North Korean army is terribly obsolete compared to South Korea's army, they have fewer resources to supply their army, and a far weaker economy to fund their army compared to South Korea.
Evidence the North Korea is underfed, low resources, and has a very low morale:
^ In that one ex soldiers actually wanted to start a revolution against Kim Jung Il
^ Shows North Korea cuts all power at night just to conserve what electricity they have
Inferiority of Army's technology
South Korea spends 23 billion a year on an advanced military,
North Korea spends 1.5 billion a year on an aging military.
3) During the Korean War China, Russia, and North Korea were all very communist nations where each had far different agendas than they do today. Russia in 1950 was communist, just went nuclear, and was only interested in competing with the west and spreading communism over their own borders. Today Russia is not communist at all, have a much smaller economy than other capitalist countries, and is just trying to keep track of their nuclear arsenal. Russia hasnt had good relations with North Korea since communism in Russia died in the 1990's, to assume Russia will come rushing to help North Korea is a myth.
China in 1950 just turned Communist from Mao Zedong (They were so newly communist they had that new communist smell on them) The Korean War started not even 2 years later and even then China did not give support until North Korea was beaten back to their Chinese border.
Even with unconditional Chinese support against half-hearted US support China failed to completely overrun US forces and instead only fought back to the original border when the war ended.
Today though China is slightly more capitalistic, has a booming economy, and is really just trying to keep growing economically. China has their own agenda now and it is centered more around economics and not spreading any political ideology, so Chine would not come to the immediate aid of North Korea should another war break out. Since this is WWIII though China would in this case help North Korea, but just like the Korean War they would not come in when the war first breaks out, they would only come after North Korea is on the brink of extinction.
4) Nuclear weapons may not even be used at all by any country because if any nation were to use them then they would surely receive a nuclear response and thus have their major cities vaporized.
In the Korean portion of the battlefield there would be a bloodbath of US, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (both North and South) casualties, but after many months the result of the battlefield would tip towards the allies. North Korea could fight a bloody war at first but would only be able to continue to put up a fight with all out Chinese support, and even when they give support North Korea would already be defeated. What happens after that between China and the allied Japanese - South Korean - US forces we can decide later in the debate
Russia, as I have already said in the last debate, would only enter WWIII by occupying former Soviet territory in Eastern Europe, and even though Russia has a very large military it too is like North Korea's where it is underfunded and not very modern compared to other nations. By the time Russia overruns most of Eastern Europe though their military power would have diminished and by the time they went ace to face with any real military power they would have exhausted any offensive attack capabilities. Russia would have fought themselves into submission before they even went face to face with anyone
Also stated in the last debate was the UK-Germany conflict since both nations would be unaffected by the Korean conflict they would enter WWIII for different reasons. As I showed before though UK and Germany are almost military equals, but since the US already has a very large amount of US troops in Germany compared to the UK it was argued that Germany would have the advantage against the UK since they would already have significant US support.
Ill end here for now.
2-I will first say that Kim Sung II is already dead, so it would be what I said earlier. So I will argue with you about Kim Sung II being already dead and dying again. Anyways, the point is China would help North Korea when it was about to be overwhelmed but not destroyed, so China would basically help them and beat them down. Also in the Korean War, the Chinese only fought back to the original border and suddenly left (not beat down). See the Comment's Sources (One of the Non-Wiki Ones). Most likely, China will push them all back because China's military is the largest in the world and can easily bring many troops to North Korea and beat South Korea, Japan, and USA down to South Korea's north parts while USA is deploying more troops. I'm sorry about such short argument because I have been very busy. The point is China would also lend North Korea some of it's more advanced weapons if in a war because of being in a war together as I stated in my 1st argument. China however would still be able to beat USA, Japan, and South Korea back to at least somewhere into the middle of Gangwon. I will say that by that time Japan and USA would have deployed much more troops so I believe that probably they could beat China back to the top of Gangwon which while North Korea will recover and be able to be strong in power in numbers and it will be an even battle because : a country being the main cause of the war with so many numbers with non-advanced weapons though nuclear a country with the most numbers with very advanced weapons and nearby and nuclear = the main defendant with advanced weapons though less than half of the troops compared to the main cause small amount of troops nearby with many more coming and advanced weapons while nuclear many troops nearby with advanced weapons. I think they are even and if you disagree, it is okay but here comes Russia. The trade thing is that maybe you misunderstood me. I meant USA would not deploy troops to go directly against China even though it would weaken their base.
2- Russia would be expanding in Europe so USA would send troops there too right? USA would go against Russia if Russia was in Europe. I am sorry about SB-400 thing because it is hard to be in a resort and think about why Russia would go against South Korea. Anyways, USA troops would spread thin if you were fighting in so many places including Europe so less troops would go to South Korea. USA is all about "freedom" so they would fight for countries in Europe against Russia so even though Russia would not be directly against South Korea they would spreading USA's resources thin (plus because of so many other wars assuming they are not finished) and USA would not have a lot of troops going to South Korea and Russia has the 11th largest GDP in the world so they do have many resources.
3- UK vs. Germany would most likely not be the case. UK would be on Russia's side while Germany would be one of the countries Russia would try to conquer. "That's why it's WWIII!" Most likely Russia would also use many resources with UK and beat down Germany even though Germany is harder than most. Plus did you notice that you have at least 10 different European countries adding to your side. I ask you to tell me all the countries against Russia and UK and we can settle things by maybe adding a few more countries to make it even. Let's say it's even on my scale because the war is far from over.
The majority of your argument focuses on the Korean conflict and most of it makes sense, but after going through your argument I found one thing that stood out a bit,
" ......which while North Korea will recover and be able to be strong in power in numbers...... "
I find it hard to believe that a resource-poor and already militarily obsolete North Korea could miraculously become a powerful force in a conflict merely weeks after in the same conflict they had been trampled and almost overrun by US + Japanese + South Korean forces. No nation in the history of the world has ever been completely overrun by an invader and within weeks been able to create a strong military out of nowhere. With North Korea's lack of resources it would take years and perhaps decades to rebuild while China now fights the entire war.
As for the conflict against China, If the Chinese troops start to invade the Korean Peninsula then that would draw a much larger response from Japan and the US. The US would not launch an all out invasion of China's coast like you said, but if enough US military were deployed into the Korean War then they could push Chinese forces all the way back to the Yalu River (river that is the border between China and Korea) and then that is where the stalemate will occur.
China is a lot like North Korea where they have a large army but a technologically inferior one to the West, most reports forecast that China will not have a modern military for another ten years until 2020. So China would be able to repel any offensive made by my countries, however I feel that because their military is slightly less advanced they will not be able to completely hold Korea
As for the trade thing, it is not known if that will be the ultimate defense JUST for China. It would definitely prevent the US from deploying a large amount of troops against China because there are still many factors to take into account. If China entered the war they may be slashing their own trade to America and that could be harmful so they too might not provide all out support for North Korea. The trade defense works for both countries and if America wants to get back on their feet while China wants to continue to grow then it is possible that both countries would refrain from an all out attack against each other over the Korean Peninsula.... This trade deal may preserve China from being attacked but the animosity of South Korea against North Korea, along with Japans animosity against North Korea and China, would be enough to at least drive Chinese support back towards the Yalu River.
China would not be overrun, but North Korea surely would be and only then would some kind of peace treaty be made. China would still be largely preserved but North Korea would lie in ruin.
As for the Russia argument, we agree Russia would be expanding into Eastern Russia, but again the US would not immediately respond because 1) They are preoccupied with the Korean conflict, and 2) Russia poses no threat to American assets yet. If Russia to push dangerously close to any American allies (Germany, Italy, maybe Sweden) then America may prepare for a counter offensive. We've done this before in WWII except it was the other way around. We fought Germany and Japan at the same time but in reality we focused on bringing down Hitler first before we concentrated on beating Japan. This conflict would be the same way where the Korean conflict would be settled first and then once settled focus could be shifted against the UK and Russia.
The US is against anyone being occupied by an invading nation, but the US does prioritize and will respond by trying to end one conflict (Korea) faster if it allows them to deal with other escalating conflicts. The US would not go all-in on both war fronts but they could still be able to put up a good fight on both sides because of American troops located in many places overseas...
Russia has a large GDP (if 1/33 of the US GDP is considered large) but resource rich Russia drives their economy by exporting these resources to other nations. If they were to start using these resources to power their weak military and not their economy then Russia would only be able to be a devastating force for a very short time. Russia's economy is 80% resource exportation. And guess who buys most of these resources, EUROPE :O
So if Russia were to start building a massive more advanced military to enter WWIII they would be doing quite some damage to their economy in the process since they are now fighting against the countries that gave Russia 80% of its trade income. Russia already has an underfunded military and if they were to expand it at the cost of their own economy they could end up like North Korea's military. Formidable in numbers but that would be it...
As for the UK vs Germany, if Russia were to invade Germany and win they would not be able to do so by just flying into it with (a poorly supplied and built) air force and overrun the country just like that. They would have to move thousands of tanks and troops over land to Germany, and many countries lie in the way of doing that.
I see what you mean about other countries since this is a World War. I admit that since Russia would be invading eastern Europe many countries would resist, meaning they would be on my side. Since I (rather unfairly) listed some that could (emphasis on could) end up joining my side because of a Russian invasion, lets make a deal to make it even.
You can name as many countries as you want to join your side if,
1) You can provide evidence that these countries would join your side for a good reason
2) We call it a tie in the Korean conflict
We both agree at this point that North Korea would be overrun, but that China is of large enough power and advancement to resist any all-out invasion and occupation. Also a majority of this debate (and the last debate) has been about the Korean conflict so I think this would be good since we could now focus on other aspects of this war
If you agree to the deal above, here is what I will concede to make it fair,
1) I will severely limit the number of troops the US could deploy to the European conflicts. After all the Korean conflict came first and that is the one the US would be the most involved with, so to be fair I am willing to not use steep American intervention as a reason why my side would win.
2) I will wait until the next round to bring in other countries to my side, and only after you have introduced countries to your side. This gives you the chance to pick any countries you want and then after you select your countries I will choose mine so that we can keep this debate relatively fair.
3) I will drop Japanese and Korean influence but you may retain China. If we come to a settlement on the Korean conflict then Japan and South Korea would become irrelevant to the other conflicts, however because China is large enough I think it would be fair to allow you to still use them in your arguments regarding Europe.
If you decline the deal (which is perfectly fine) Then I will continue arguing about how the US + South Korea + Japan would wage war against China and offer evidence showing that China may suffer considerable damage in a prolonged conflict. Meanwhile I will try to offer other evidence of what would happen in other conflicts, but not in as much detail as I (or some of the voters) would like.
If you accept then you could use round 4 to start bringing in more countries to your side while continuing the Russia debate.
The trade thing is that China would be able to hold it's ground because it would not let North Korea fall while USA would not let South Korea fall so let us call this conflict a tie. North Korea would not lie in ruin with Chinese support but North Korea surely would not be able to get to South Korea so there would be a peace treaty and I will call this conflict a tie. If you do not agree with me and would like to debate about this, I will prove to you how China will not leave the war in all-out attack form without North Korea getting back on it's feet and when it's the time, they can destroy the top parts of South Korea hurting them powerfully. If we both just agree to call this war a tie and make peace, we can focus on the next
TWO parts I would like to get to. Europe & Middle East. Korean Conflict-Finished And Calmed Down.
1)- Middle East will start with the Middle Eastern countries against Israel. Israel will be the sole country standing with some support. I think we can talk about this conflict first to agree on stuff and then get on to the real war of this conflict in Part 3.
2)-If you agree to the terms which I believe you do, because I agree, UK is already on my side since I started out with it. United Kingdom would also like to expand as Russia and would support Russia so they can both expand and they would sign a 10 year treaty. I hope you agree that EU and UN would both be disbanded. I will also not solely rely on China in these conflicts. France would help United Kingdom and Russia because over the years, they have been major allies and France would also like to avoid being taken and instead take other nations. Canada and India are very good friends of Russia and UK while being very powerful allies and are major factors. India is very close in distance to China and will most likely help UK and Russia to get more wealth after the war if the Armed Forces win. (Just think of a name, I like Armed Forces) Poland (another exile government) would avoid being conquered. It would partner up to get a few countries and expand it's territory and GDP. I know that this country is the other end of the globe but let's say that Australia decides to expand it's military and territory (like Japan) and conquer New Zealand and the Pacific islands such as Hawaii allying itself with the Armed Forces with help from the Armed Forces. Now if you agree to your own terms, let us end the Korean conflict and begin the European conflict!
1) Fine its a tie
2) As for Israel, they would probably be invaded by the Arab countries (its happened before in the past multiple times, http://en.wikipedia.org...) so seeing as how your nations (Russia, North Korea, etc.) consist of the nations invading other nations I think that most of the middle eastern countries would be on your side whereas Israel would be on my side (nations being invaded like South Korea)
As for your second point, I agree to the terms but of the countries you believe would join your side, the reasons you offered are a little, off.
" France would help United Kingdom and Russia because over the years, they have been major allies"
First of all, France and Russia havent been allies in anything since WWII, and France and the UK HATE each other, theyve fought so many wars against each other over the years I fail to see how they would work together... in fact the French hate just about everybody so I think that they would side against whoever were to invade them...
"Canada and India are very good friends of Russia"
No they are not, Canada is part of NATO so if anything they would side with the US because they are trading partners. 80% of all Canadian exports go to the US and about 2% go to Great Britain, Russia didnt even crack the list so Canada would be a very close US ally. As for India their trading partners are similar to Canada with 40% going to the US and Germany with only 11% going to UK and Russia (Russia again not cracking the list) but I dont feel that these ties are large enough where they would enter into this conflict...
Poland, Ok Poland is pretty close with Russia so you can have Poland (they have really bad history with Germany anyway so I dont really have an argument)
As for Australia, well we ended the pacific theater so they wouldnt provide much to our future arguments anyway, I think we should leave them alone and focus on the Middle East and Europe like you said
So to summarize the new members of the allied and armed forces,
Armed forces (Pro)
North Korea = beaten but saved
China = alive and well
Saudi Arabia (hates Israel)
Egypt (hates Israel just as much)
Syria and Lebanon (hate everyone but really hate Israel)
Iran (hate Israel and the US)
Poland (hate Germany)
Allied forces (Con)
South Korea = survived and now safe
Japan = alive and well
France (they hate the UK and Germany)
Switzerland (they are always neutral)
Sweden (same as Switzerland)
Australia + New Zealand
I can only imagine how confused the voters are right now. There is going to be a part 3 to this debate and trust me that will be the end of it, right now we are just debating which teams would join which side to really focus on debating for part 3.....
Ill post a link to that debate at the end of the next round
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 4 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: better arguments
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.