The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

World War III Part 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,045 times Debate No: 19515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




Part 3, this will be the last installment of this awesome series of debates,

Pro = Armed forces
1) China
Saudi Arabia
Syria and Lebanon
Anybody else who hates Israel (If con can think of any he can use them to his advantage)

Pro = Allied forces
US (but on a limited scale as agreed before)
Belarus (invaded by Russia)
Ukraine (invaded by Russia)
Slovakia (invaded by Russia)
Czech Republic (invaded by Russia)
Denmark (close trade ties with US and Germany compared to UK and Russia)
Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Estonia
^ reasons why these countries would join my side


OK. I get a few more and then we will start killing each other. Palestine, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. These guys hate Israel. now pakistan & palestine im pretty sure. these others may have other things to do but they might help partially. sorry about the huge delay since i have had some problems inreal life.
Debate Round No. 1


Why the hell did i only make this 3 rounds? Lets just get down to it.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Seeing as how they are currently under US occupation I doubt that they will be able to give any kind of support to a war against Israel, particularly Afghanistan since there is no timetable set up for withdrawing troops, in fact Obama committed 30,000 more troops there a year ago so us troop numbers in Afghanistan show no sign of reducing. Even though we plan on withdrawing from Iraq relatively soon the Iraqi government in no way could field a modern or large enough military to put up any kind of fight against Israel.

Palestine meanwhile still isnt an independent country, so any military put together by them would simply be rebels who would then receive orders from other nations. These other nations would include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. Pakistan may contribute support, however their longtime enemy has never been Israel, it has always been India. Any support that Pakistan would contribute would be minimal because of the hatred they share towards India.

As for the Arab countries vs Israel, Egypt has recently undergone a massive revolution where no actual government has been restructured to run the country, it is still a transitional government organized by the military so any large commitment of troops by Egypt against Israel would only cause massive civil unrest i the country, or rather MORE massive civil unrest.

Syria and Lebanon troops = 360,000 total.
Saudi Arabia troops = 230,000 total
Iran troops = 500,000 total

Israel is officially listed at 175,000 however they have a conscription military which during times of war has allowed the country to field a military of well over 250,000. Although this number pales in comparision to the number of troops other Arab countries can field, Israel has already fought large wars such as these in the past. In the third Arab-Israeli War, Israel fought on their own against Arab forces outnumbering Israel 550,000 to 250,000.

Israel won the war and occupied the entire Sinai Peninsula, The Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and parts of Lebanon. Israel lost just south of 900 troops, the Arab countries lost anywhere from 13,000 to 23,000. And they did it all in about 6 days.....

Israel has a history of repelling any massive invasion by a coalition of Arab countries, while heavily outnumbered, with no foreign countries also providing aid, and they made it look easy.


Russia, As I have shown in the last two debates. Has a very weak military, is not modern, is spending a very small amount of money on its military, and 80% of its economy is built on exporting resources to parts of Europe. If Russia were to expand into Eastern Europe they would overrun smaller nations in their path such as Belarus, Poland, Ukraine and a variety of other smaller countries that lie in their path.

Russia's current standing military is estimated to be at just over a million (using the same site as above) but the actual number of troops that Russia could actually put on the battlefield is questionable because of their inability to supply a large number of troops over vast distances. When Russia intervened in Georgia they had a far mroe massive military but problems riddled the affair and made Russia look rather weak.

"The Russian Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C�I) performed poorly during the conflict. The communication systems used were obsolete, resulting in one case where the commander of the 58th army was reported to have communicated with his forces in the midst of combat via a satellite phone borrowed from a journalist.Due to the absence of satellite-targeting, precision-guided munitions could not be used. -

If you read other parts of that article you can see how Russian generals claim Russia could not fight a modern war, that equipment used during the soviet Era was obsolete, how Russia's swift victory came mostly from errors made by the other side, and even how one commander had to borrow a cellphone from a journalist to contact his commander because the communications equipment they were using were obsolete...

Meanwhile the active militaries of the small European countries to be overrun by Russia would total
Ukraine = 130,000
Belarus = 72,000
Poland = 99,000
Latvia = 5,000

Even though that adds up to a third of Russia's military, the military of Georgia who fought Russia was only about 20,000. If Russia couldnt swiftly handle a nation with a miltiary of this size they would pale in performance towards a coalition of governments with a combined military 15x greater than that of Georgia. If Russia were to try to overrun these countries they would fight themselves into submission before they even went head to head with one of my European powerhouses, Germany.

So to summarize:
Israel could easily handle any Arab attack being heavily outnumbered because they have done it before and won in a matter of days while most of the Arab world is still undergoing Democratic revolutions, movements, and crackdowns.

Russia may field a large military but because of their weaknesses shown in the Georgia conflict it can be assumed that they would fight poorly in trying to annex eastern Europe before they even went head to head against Germany.


Iwish you made it 5 rounds but whatever. According to your sources, 500,000 troops from Iran + 360,000 from Syria and Lebanon + 230,000 from Saudi Arabia = 1,090,000 troops + miminal support from Egypt and Pakistan. Egypt's active force is 468,500 so let us divide by 50 because of the revolution. Egypt : 9,500 troops. Palestine does not contribute because of having only 21,000 soldiers but Pakistan unleashes more. Pakistan is a minor enemy of Israel and has 617,000 troops. Miminal amount would be about divided by 20 so it's about 31,000 troops. So 1,090,000 + 31,000 + 9,500 = 1,130,500 troops. In the 3rd Arab-Israeli War, there was only a 300,000 soldiers difference. Right now ir's 1,130,500 troops vs. 250,000 troops. Now USA helping Israel or not is a very debated issue but since you said, "with no foreign aid" I will exclude the support of the USA. Therefore there is a 880,500 troop difference which means the Arab countries will overwhelm Israel. This is almost 5 times as many troops as Israel so that will overwhelm Israel. Population doesn't account for everything but to these countries with a very small amount of troops (compared to USA and China and others), population can matter if there are way too many troops. The troops now are more than double the Arab troops in the 3rd Arab-Israeli war so Israel gets invaded and loses.

Next, I would like to clarify that we agreed that Poland made a deal with Russia and were part of the Armed Forces. I believe you forgot to include Poland and UK as the Armed Forces. Russia has a number of 1,027,000 troops but we will divide by 2 because I agree that if the full army went out, they would lose because a lack of resources to completely suffice it's military. One third is much more like it. No matter, Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Estonia. 513,500 troops is pretty good. The UK would send out 175,000 troops since they have 197,000 troops and Poland would send out 90,000 troops. Now let's look at the countries getting invaded.

Belarus: 72,940 troops
Ukraine: 129,925 troops
Slovakia: 16,531 troops
Czech Republic: 17,932 troops
Latvia: 5,745 troops
Denmark: 26,585 troops
Lithuania: 8,850 troops
Georgia: 21,150 troops
Estonia: 4,750 troops
That whole army of countries are 304,408 troops compared to the 778,000 troops of Poland, Russia, and UK. Russia is okay considering so much help and is still sustaining pretty well and Poland is a little shakened but UK is pretty good. Now USA, Canada and Germany come in (since they do come in usually pretty late) and send out troops. Let's take a look. As we agreed USA would not take as severe action because they did that in the Korean conflict. We will divide the army by 20. 73,418 troops were sent while having 50,000 stationed in Germany according to you from "Part 2". I don't know if there are any U.S. troops in the countries on the chart above but I will estimate that to be 50,000 troops. So USA has 173,418 troops in this war. Meanwhile Canada has 65,722 troops. I will say that Canada won't go all out but send 1/5 of what it has. Canada sends 13,144 troops to help fight in Europe. Also Germany has 250,613 troopsall into action. So now there is 741,583 troops very close to the number of troops in the Armed Forces. I will use China since you said I could but you can use the USA but not any of the other nations in the Korean conflict. China comes in and sends very small amount of troops. I will divide it by 20 so it will be 114,250 troops. That would result in the Armed Forces having a lead by 150,667 troops. Therefore Russia, UK, and Poland can beat down the Allied Forces because of their number in troops and strength. Russia, UK, and Poland will win the Russian conflict.
Debate Round No. 2


The Pro uses almost exclusively numbers to suggest a complete overrun of my coalition of countries against his forces through sheer numbers, but there are many other factors that defines war that he completely missed.

Technology: Israel has the most advanced military force in the middle East while many Middle Eastern countries rely on their own manufactured weapons that arent even comparable to 1970's US technology. Russia is still using Cold War technology which caused the massive country to almost completely screw up an invasion of a country the size of Missouri... The inferiority of Middle-East technology and what is left of Russia's military would reduce their effectiveness in combat considerably.

Terrain: Israeli Tanks and Air force have a far greater range and striking capability than any weapon the Middle Eastern countries could whip up, and Eastern Europe is still about 80% forests that would force any large scale Russian invasion to bottle neck through the limited openings in the forest that give it access to the rest of Europe. Such terrain would slow down such an invasion to a crawl where resistance fighters in the invading countries could roadblock, set land mines, patrol with anti-tank weapons, etc. which would do untold damage to their forces.

Leadership: The power of an army can be greatly limited based on the experience or lack thereof by the general commanding it. Israel has perhaps one of the finest sets of generals and commanders in Middle Eastern history while other Middle Eastern countries take orders almost exclusively from their king/president who often has little experience in any kind of warfare or military strategy. In the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein gave much of his orders to his million man army and his military strategy was so poor that in a matter of days he had to surrender and withdraw from Kuwait. The lack of leadership in Arab countries in the past significantly contributed to their failed invasions of Israel and ever since their military structure of giving orders remains unchanged and still ineffective. Russia meanwhile goes through the same system but on a more limited scale which would cause them to not have a significant detriment on the performance of their troops, but it would still be a factor in their ineffectiveness....

Willpower: Since it is agreed that the Arab nations are invading Israel and Russia is trying to annex Eastern Europe than the willpower of the countries on my side to not be overrun would triumph the will power of the Arab countries to pursue an endless siege against a superior opponent along with the willpower of Russia to engage in what would be a decades long conflict to try to annex countries of little resources at the expense of their economy.

Supplies to their army: Russia as agreed is very poor and limited in their ability to supply any number of troops with armaments, ammunition, and supplies even within a reasonable distance, so their ability to supply troops trying to occupy Eastern Europe would raise an insurmountable number of logistics problems for supplying their army. In the middle East meanwhile Israel is in such close contact with their Arab nations that ability to supply their troops would require a minimal distance to move goods, the distance of Israel to the battlefields it would be fighting on would be comparable to the distance between Boston and New York...

Occupation: The US could barely handle Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the most inferior armies in the world before 9/11, and after the US occupied those nations it took almost 10 years for the US to finally withdraw from ONE of them only when peace finally came. That being said it would take many many more years for an already technology inferior Russia to do the same against the nations of Eastern Europe who are also fighting with the same cold war technology the Russians gave them in the days of the Soviet Union. If Russia were to overrun any individual country in Eastern Europe the time and number of troops that would be needed to keep the region secure and stable would drain any remaining troops from an offensive further into Europe.

Experience: Israel has fought countless wars in the past and knows the Arab battlefield so well its as if they designed it themselves whereas many Middle Eastern nations still rely on WWII style techniques of invasions that for decades have left them ineffective in operations against Israel. Russia meanwhile has not been in a severe military conflict since they invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's and even when they poorly handled Chechnya (which was WITHIN their own borders) battlefield experience among troops and generals was non-existent, and that remains the same to this day. The lack of experience from both sides would greatly reduce their ability to overrun Eastern Europe and Israel solely with superior numbers...

Iraq: This seems out of pace I know, but if the Pro continues to state how Pakistan and Iran would contribute troops, then any troops they do commit would have to go through US held Afghanistan (if Pakistan were contributing forces) and then both nations would somehow have to cross through Iraq in order to play a part in the distant battlefields, and if Iraq were appeared to be overrun that could draw a large US response against these countries.

After all this is taken into account It could be concluded that

1) Even if Russia were to somehow handle their military well enough to overrun a single Eastern-European country, the time drain on supplies and the number of troops needed to be used to secure the nation being occupied would be so great that it would cripple any additional invasion through the country and if given enough time Russia would have to pull out support, similar to Cuba, a small country that sapped so many resources it contributed to driving Russia into the ground.

2) The military expertise of Israeli leaders along with superior technology and an enormous willpower would allow Israel to repel any large scale Arab invasion (again) and that would allow Israel to overrun many of its nearby enemies in the process such as Lebanon, parts of Egypt, pieces of Saudi Arabia,etc.

3) Russia would not be overrun but given enough time any land they did seize during the war would become to costly for them to hang on to and in the end they will retreat back to their original borders, maybe even give up parts of their own country. In the Cold War when Russia imploded they had to secede much of its own territory to create independent countries in order to create a barely stable economy. In these times of instability it could happen again following a large scale Russian invasion...

4) Parts of the Middle East would flat out get their butts kicked by Israel which is superior to them on every level except troop numbers and face occupation.

I now would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the Pro, this was hands down the most interesting and funnest debates I have ever had on this site, I enjoyed how he wanted to dive into this even more which spawned 2 other debates rather than force a vote at the end of the first debate. I would also like to thank any readers who have consistently read through these debates over a period of weeks and patiently waited for this final debate to start, your patience is nothing less than extraordinary.

Thank you again :D


1. Israel can easily beat any Arab nation but 1,130,500 troops vs. 250,000 troops is just too much to account for. They have never been able to beat 1 million Arab troops or more because that is just too powerful. Overwhelming all of the accounts my opponent have mentioned, Israel would be able to whip the butts at 250,000 vs. 999,999 troops. But this is close to 5 times more than Israel's army. Never before has Israel been able to beat back such a huge number of troops and I agree that Israeli leaders are better than Arab leaders (even though they are still good) and that Israel has better technology (but Arab has more weapons because of all the combined countries) and more willpower. However, Israel can not repel such a huge scale of invasions with almost 5 times their size. See, Israel's extraordinary features which makes their army like able to beat 3 times the size. But over a million is just too much for Israel to handle. Israel would be barely beaten to the ground and lose their country to the Armed Forces. Also you added Iran's troops yourself so it does count. Also Iran and Pakistan can get through without causing much trouble. The U.S. would not have any any major response because they are still dealing with the Russian conflict and they just got done with the Korean conflict.
For the Russians, my opponent still forgot U.K., China, and Poland. As in my last argument, I totally agree with my opponent's facts except that if U.K helped a whole lot, Poland did it's best, and China came over, they would easily conquer all of nations I mentioned, and Russia would still be in an okay position for resources. Also with U.K., Poland, and China helping to occupy the conquered countries, they can easily conquer and occupy without being driven to the ground. The Armed Forces will totally overrun all of the European nations on the Allied Forces. U.K. would have pretty good technology and be able to sustain the countries to compete well.
I thank my dear opponent for continuing the best debate series ever and helping me improve my debating skills as you can see throughout the series. I urge the fellow voters to vote Pro and to enjoy reading this awesome series. Merry Christmas and God Bless You!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
f*ck dammit 16kadams....
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
Posted by airmax1227 6 years ago
16k has questionable voting habits
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
Really 16kadams, a "why not point"?
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
yep, last one
Posted by OberHerr 6 years ago
So, is this the one?
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
If you do then be warned, these things last forever
Posted by bcresmer 6 years ago
I want to do one of these because they look really cool
Posted by OberHerr 6 years ago
Yay! Been keeping up with these and was wondering if you guys were gonna continue them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: take that back. pro proved that israel would get overrun. Grammar pro, and conduct is a why not point.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 6 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a good job explaining why Israel would beat the other Arab countries, which was poorly refuted by Pro, as quantity beats quality. Overall, good debate, and it was a fun read.