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

Russia vs. USA (War)

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,844 times Debate No: 59570
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (2)




In this debate, we will be arguing about the military of the US and Russia. My opponent may decide whether he wants to argue only Russia vs. US, or Russia/China vs. NATO. I will arguing for Russia's/China's victory, while my opponent will be arguing for USA's/NATO's victory. In this scenario, the USA/NATO will attack, although if my opponent wants to change this and gives good reasons, then we'll change it to where Russia/China is attacking. After identifying which one (NATO vs. Russia/China or Russia vs. USA) my opponent would like to argue, he may begin.
Recapping what my opponent must do in the 1st Round:
1. Identify whether he wants to argue USA vs. Russia or Russia/China vs. NATO
2. Begin developing a battle plan (please try to be relatively specific)

Recapping the rules:
1. US/NATO is attacking
2. No nuclear weapons
3. My opponent will be arguing for USA's/NATO's victory.

I will answer any questions in the comments.


I choose to support Usa and Nato vs Russia and China. US and Nato begin by sending B2 and F22 raptors in and bombing cities , key military bases (most particularly airfields), and strongholds with most updated antiradar technology in the night. These bombings target factories and civilians to reduce productivity and manpower, and to reduce military strength most particularly airpower. Short range rocket launching sites , military camps, and tactical bombers placed in turkey, romania, estonia, latvia, and lithuania. 20% of elite soliders, tanks, and other military equipment sent to protect those bases. Many active fleets sent to the Black Sea and to Scandanaivan ports and around the coast of china. 30% of the nato's combined expeditionary force become a spearhead force into the middleeast. Large numbers of militia from local nato nations sent to reinforce the spearhead with increased numbers. Total drafts occurin all nato nations and the nations begin turning to wartime production with many facotries producing war time material. Usa controlled satelites monitor russia/chinese military movements. The usa's best computer programmers program the most elite virtual attacks possible.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, thank you for accepting :)

"US and Nato begin by sending B2 and F22 raptors in and bombing cities , key military bases (most particularly airfields), and strongholds with most updated antiradar technology in the night."
Only 21 B2s have ever been made, this is not a significantly large force and can be dealt with. The F-22s on the other hand, may be a slight problem. Russia has a surface to air missile systems known as the S-400 SAM placed all over the country. A single one of these machines is capable of targeting up to 36 objects with up to 72 missiles simultaneously. It also has a target distance of 600 km, meaning it can see the B2s and F-22s coming in from far away. The B2 is, in fact, quite slow and will be an easy target for the S-400. After the initial "surprise" strike by these planes, the Russian bases will be prepared and any further attacks by this force will result in heavy losses because four or five S-400s are capable of eliminating the USA's entire force of B2 and F-22s.

"Many active fleets sent to the Black Sea and to Scandanaivan ports and around the coast of china."
To get to the Black Sea, NATO's forces will first have to go through the Mediterranean, and then squeeze into the Black Sea through the Bosphorous Strait. Not only will this take time, but even though NATO's fleet will greatly outnumber that of Russia, the Russian Black Fleet would be able to hold them off at the choke-point that is the Bosphorous Strait. If my opponent also wishes to send fleets through the Baltic Sea (South of Scandinavia) and to St. Petersburg, there is also a choke-point in the way and the Baltic Fleet will also be able to hold off NATO's forces, at least for some time. My opponent also speaks of sending fleets to the coast of China. China has the world's largest mine warfare force, numbering 119 ships, and Russia has the world's second-largest mine warfare force, numbering 34 ships. These ships will work actively to mine the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. This will make it very difficult for the US Navy to move through, and will give Russia/China much time to prepare. There, of course, will be losses as well when moving through a minefield made by 153 ships.

Now, Russia and China turn to wartime production, effectively utilizing China's enormous manpower and manufacturing capacity. Russia will bring in about 25% of its 4,600 towed artillery pieces to the border of Russia and Estonia/Latvia. To support that, many troops and AFVs (about 20% of Russia's 27,600) will be brought in. This force will bombard the NATO bases day and night with artillery, and then slowly start pushing in with the infantry and AFVs. Russia, with much support from China, will begin actively bombing and performing air-raids on the NATO bases in Turkey. Russia will bring in it's tank forces (reinforced by China's tank forces) to the borders of Russia and Europe in preparation for attack. All surface-to-air missile systems available will be in battle-ready condition.

After taking initial losses in warplanes after the attacks of B2s and F-22s, Russia/China forces are ready to retaliate and further bombardments will most likely result in heavy losses for NATO. Since Russia/China do not have a very strong air-force (in comparison to NATO), most planes will be ready to defend and take out specific air targets, not much attacking will be done with them (yet). Well, other than Turkey (as mentioned above).


My opponent has made no move to counter my swift strike to secure the middle East and given no opposition to a modern nato military's advances it is reasonable to assume the middle east in under nato's control. I'd also like to point out B2s although in small numbers have devastating capabilities. The anti-air guns you speak of will be unable to notice the stealth craft until after bombings have begun, targets, have been neutralized, and most anti-air gun in the bombing vicinity, silenced. The radar given off by stealth planes are glimpses almost identical to that you would get off a bird. Since this was a surprise attack and unsuspected, whatever glimpses that were read are beyond a reasonable doubt disregarded as birds or other insignificant objects in the air. Even then these glimpses can only be seen once the planes are already near bombing vicinity of their targets so those guns with target distance 600km will be unable to detect it so far. Only one stealth craft has ever been shot down before in history and that was an outdated f117 nighthawk. Also coming back the point of b2s and f22 raptors small but deadly destructive capabilities. Their bombings are highly accurate even at the high velocities they travel at. They single-handedly wrecked Iraqi military targets with high success and no losses. "During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, in simulated combat exercises 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses.[35] In the exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat; neither Blue Force loss was an F-22. During Red Flag 07-1 in February 2007, 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported Blue Force strikes and undertook close air support sorties. Against superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, 6"8 F-22s maintained air dominance throughout. No sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, a single F-22 was judged lost against the defeated opposing force.[N 4]" Therefore despite their small numbers their combat capabilities are magnified disproportionately to the quantity of them available. Therefore the stealth aircraft force has been hardly scratched by the s400s.

Russian and chineses satellites are shot at by high precison rockets. Aircraft carriers launch long range aircraft to strike targets behind the 'choke points'. The aircraft carriers around the chinese coast deploy aircraft to disrupt mining operations. The force present in the Middle East is reinforced by 5 million regular army units of nato supported by both heavy and light artillery, light and heavy vehicles, and thousands of tactical bombers and fighters.. Rockets launching sites are placed in the middle East. Rockets are fired at the industrial heart of russia. The force crosses caucus mountains and begins to traverse through the caucuses. I expect my opponent to counter attack this force so it moves evenly securing both of its flanks, lighter units supported by superior air power invade, heavier units are placed behind the light units so in the case of a counterattack, lighter units can fall back and receive the supporting and devastating power of the long range and powerful heavy artillery all this time supported by supremacy in the air.
Debate Round No. 2


I will note several things about the B2. First of all, it has a small load as far as bombers go, meaning it cannot cause as much damage as you would like it to. Next, the B2 is slow, going only 915 km/h. This means that the plane would be on the radar of the S-400 for over half an hour before the B2 would reach the target. As mentioned, after initial surprise, the B2s would not be a problem. My opponent is trying to win a war with 21 planes. Although the Russian forces would take losses, the bombers would be eliminated. Not only by S-400 missiles, but because of targeted attacks by Russian planes. My opponent mentions the success of the B2 in Iraq. I would like to remind him that the B2 has never faced the full military capability of a developed country. With some losses, but the B2s would be eliminated quickly. Also, consider Russia's enormous size. The B2s would be on Russian territory for a long time with every single run they do. This just increases the chances of their discovery and elimination. My opponent also mentions the success of F-22s in simulations. The F-22 is unmatched by most Russian planes, and therefore, will be eliminated by Russian surface-to-air missiles. Not just by S-400s, but also by other systems such as the S-300 and the Buk missile system. As proven by the Nazis in WW2, a war cannot be won through air attacks. After the initial shock, the defenders recover and hunt down the enemy planes. Made easier by the fact that there is such a small number of them.

My opponent speaks of bringing in air-craft carriers to help get through the choke-points. The Chinese have developed a missile known as the DF-21. Only one of these missiles is enough to take out an entire aircraft carrier. These kinds of missiles will be shipped to most major ports of Russia/China and be used to effectively eliminate or significantly damage aircraft carriers. Carriers around the Chinese coast will also be eliminated and mining process continued.

My opponent is firing missiles into the "industrial heart of Russia", never specifying where exactly that is located. The Russian A-135 anti-missile system has been moved to all major cities and factories, making it almost perfectly safe to continue working even with missiles being launched at the cities.

My opponent begins to move forces through the Caucasus mountains into Russia.
1. The geography (mountains) make it difficult to move an army through quickly, meaning they would be open to attack during the process.
2. My opponent uses aerial supremacy to help the attack, but may I ask where the planes will be refueling and re-arming?

I will transport another 3,000 towed artillery, and ALL of Russia's 3,700 MLRSs (largest force in the world) to help stop the incoming force from South. If you don't know, an MLRS is a system (artillery) which launches multiple rockets at once. For example, a single MLRS is capable of launching 6-8 missiles in under 20 seconds. All of this artillery will be concentrated near the Caucasus and will be bombarding the exposed and fatigued soldiers that are coming out of the mountains. I will also send 4,000 of Russia's 15,500 tanks (also largest force in the world) to stop the invasion. Help will be requested from the Black Sea Fleet and battleships will also be bombarding the enemy from the sea. Mountains are yet another choke-point and the NATO forces will not be able to muster many soldiers at a time because they are coming through a choke-point. This also means that the soldiers/machinery will be very concentrated in one area, making it even easier for artillery to do heavy damage.

Let's also not forget that the soldiers need supplies. Ammo, food and fuel. Where will this be coming from? Where ever it is, it is far away and it is difficult to supply soldiers in heavy fighting that are so far away from home. The Russian fighter jets will be given orders to target cargo planes carrying supplies to the soldiers, slowly "choking" the NATO forces coming through the Caucasus. Between being deprived of resources, cold weather and never-ending bombardment, the force will slowly begin to dissipate. Even after they make it through the mountains, they will face almost a third of the Russian tank force.

My opponent has failed to reinforce the bases in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and as a result, they crumbled under the barrage of artillery and attacks of AFVs. After taking control of those bases and looting ammo, supplies and technology, those forces will return and join the defenders of St. Petersburg who are fighting against the NATO navy coming in through the Gulf of Finland.

Now, I shall begin my attack.

The Russian Army has, in fact, been practicing bombing runs to the USA (Hawaii), and now these runs will be for real. Russia will use all of its 34 Tu-160 bombers to target ports on the Western Coast of the US. Now, I will provide some info about the Tu-160.
1. It has a top speed of 2,000 km/h, over two times the speed of the B2.
2. It has a weight load of 165,000 kg, over twice the load of the B2.

This is enormous destructive power and, in fact, the Tu-160 is the largest bomber ever made. This force will be supported with Russian Su-34s and Su-35s. As a result of the initial bombings, the US Pacific fleet will be considerably crippled. The same day that the bombers complete this task, the Chinese Navy counting 45 Frigates and 24 Destroyers (along with 20 Russian submarines) will make their way across the Pacific Ocean until the hit the West Coast of the US.

After a path has been established by the Chinese Navy, most of China's water-transportation crafts will be dedicated to carrying 14,000 Chinese and Russian tanks, 7 million Chinese and Russian soldiers, and all of China's 1,700 SPGs across the ocean. Since this is a risky move, this force will be protected by China's only aircraft carrier, an additional 500 Chinese fighter planes that will be resupplying on the ships, 30 Chinese submarines and 50 of Russia's Corvettes. This will guarantee the safety of the majority of forces that will be shipped across the ocean.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Navy located by the West Coast will take some losses because of remaining US Navy BUT will begin to bombard the beaches and cities, making a drop off point free of NATO forces.

All remaining Russian tanks, along with most of Russia's AFVs will be shipped through the Black Sea to Turkey, and from there will push down into the Middle East in an attempt to disrupt the flow of oil to NATO.

I would also like to note that while Russia easily produces enough oil to supply itself and China, the US and most of NATO countries do not, meaning that considerable funds will have to be used by NATO just to keep its machines running.


First off i'd like to point out by opponent was unable to point out any method of identifying the camouflaged planes. Even if the planes do move slowly, if they are not detected they are simply not shot down. Once again radar absorption factor will have to factor in no matter how hard my opponent would like to avoid mentioning it. In any war one side simply ignoring another side's ability to counter their weapons ( in this case camouflage) does not mean it doesn't have an effect. In fact it is made even more devastating if my opponent makes no move to counter the camouflage advantage. For example take this analogy. If you are blindfolded and you have a bazooka and someone with a pistol is silently( stealth planes also have sound absorption and many other stealth advantages other than anti radar.) approaching, true your bazooka is long enough range to hit and most certainly powerful enough to destroy him. But he is moving silently and you are blindfolded, you don't where to shoot because you can't see him so he will come still closer. In this case my opponent made no move to counter these stealth advantages and instead ignoring the major disadvantage so this blindfolded guy isn't even trying to take off the blindfold or listen for his opponent's footsteps which are silent. So the obvious result is the undetected person with a pistol comes close enough and shoots the blindfolded man and he dies. Person with pistol wins. Also I made very clear airports would be targets for the initial surprise so coming back to the example, the person with a pistol shoots and kills blindfolded person with a bazooka, since the blindfolded man is already dead he can't fight back. So airports already destroyed cannot deploy aircraft. My opponent mentions Russia is vast so in this case a lot of ignorant blindfolded men spread VERY far apart hear some of their comrades die from a pistol shot so maybe they can fire at where they hear the pistol shot but by then the person with a pistol has left the area just like stealth planes will move on after they bomb targets. The other blindfolded when who are ignorant and oblivious to the fact they are blindfolded fall prey to the same tactic and just don't realize they can't aim and shoot at what they can't find. My opponent also mentions ww2 which ironically against my opponents point actually proves air to ground supremacy is vital to winning wars. Germany had air to ground supremacy for the first half of the war and that would be the time they were winning. Then allied aircraft bombed German aircraft production factories and airports so Germany lost air supremacy then allies start to win. You again ignore the aircraft's devastating and out of proportion bombing abilities even with small numbers. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Germany had fewer aircraft than Soviets, but the initial surprise attack wiped out the Soviet air force and German gained air to ground supremacy which it would keep for until spring 1943 so fewer aircraft are capable of still gaining air supremacy.

My opponent speaks of attacking the aircraft carriers themselves in round 3 rather than the aircraft I already deployed into the air round 2, so therefore my opponent made no move to defend his fleets and ports from the aircraft already in the air so if no attempts are made by my opponent to shoot down the aircraft, they simply reach their targets and drop bombs without any casualties. The aircraft remain in the air and continuously slaughter the entire Russian and Chinese fleets targeted without being shot back at. Therefore those fleets have been destroyed. The Us navy has antimissile attached to many of its ships including all its aircraft carriers. so those missiles are dealt with and the aircraft carriers survive to continue refueling and rearming the uninterrupted planes until all targets are destroyed entirely. Therefore the mining ships are destroyed and mining operations have failed.

The rockets are still going to be shot.

The refueling and rearming of aircraft occurs in Turkish bases and other NATO nations near the caucus mountains. NATO's artillery will fire at opposing artillery as well that oppose the advance. More reinforcements arrive, more than enough of the newest technology resources needed to counter the reinforcements my opponent sent. The tactical aircraft consisting of thousands of bombers and fighters attack the artillery pieces after NATO's own artillery pieces have destroyed many anti-air artilleries. This force will include hundreds of mobile rocket launchers from which rockets can be launched many km away to strike the Russian army and it will include thousands of howitzers,C-RAM, AN/TWQ-1, just to name a few of it's reinforcement artilleries sent. Germans destroyed a soviet tank force stronger than it's own not through the use of tanks, or anti tank weapons but through the air. Since I have air to ground supremacy these tanks will be destroyed and rendered inoperable before they can reach their destination. ( soviet tank attacks in 1941 were dis-coordinated and their formation and effectiveness destroyed through the air leaving them piecemeal for advancing Germans to destroy isolated tank units without being hindered.) The Black Sea fleet did not fire back on the aircraft i sent earlier and has already been destroyed without a single loss. With the black Sea fleet eliminated, NATO's forces which are now present in the black sea in turn begin bombarding Russian positions ahead of the advancing NATO forces.

The middle East now under NATO's control is more than enough for fuel concerns, NATO nations in Europe have the resources needed to create ammo and food. Even if it couldn't NATO could still supply much needed food much like america supplied itself in ww2 from back home.

Fleet in Finland again has been destroyed by aircraft which did not get fired upon.

Considering most of my opponents fleets have been destroyed by aircraft already whom once again were not shot at there is no way a fleet can have attacked US territory. No doubt Hawaii has also been practicing defending itself from such threats, and anti aircraft missiles will destroy the VERY few Russian aircraft and fleets that survived initial assault. My opponent i request you do not forget, the initial surprise attack destroyed the aircraft, and destroyed aircraft cannot attack. Chinese navies once again already destroyed as mentioned earlier. Since pretty much all the Chinese navy is destroyed my opponent's planned attack can never occur.

Once again the fleet was destroyed.

I must remind my opponent the middle east is under NATO's control so NATO has enough oil. Russian tanks cannot be transported since Prussian black sea fleet was destroyed by NATO aircraft.

The US spends about as much funding as the rest of the world so the US alone could easily provide enough funding for resources. The US is rich in resources. Many of it's resources aren't being used due to environmental protection law but those resource deposits will be opened.

With major parts of the Russia and Chinese fleets destroyed by the air since my opponent did not try to shoot down the aircraft, The planned invasion of my opponent has been stopped short. The cyber attacks mentioned were never dealt with so cyber communication has been hindered and US shuts down as Russia websites except ones that would benefit NATO, Russian messages are intercepted and edited using pro-NATO propaganda. Similarly Russia cannot broadcast communications well without satellite so Russia communication is severed. An increase in pro-NATO rebels will appear. Newer invasion from Scandinavian peninsula, east china sea, Romania and Hungary, and east coast of Siberia occur with millions of soldiers, hundreds of thousand equipment pieces.
Debate Round No. 3


In answer to my opponent's first paragraph:
Yes, there will be initial damage, but the defenders quickly adapt. When they look on their radar, and see 21 "birds" of identical size, all coming in perfectly for the base, they are not stupid and will be battle-ready. They would have planes patrolling the skies, meaning that when the bombers are spotted, more fighters/interceptors will be sent into the sky to eliminate the target.
Yes, the Germans had the advantage, but who won the war? Soviets/Allies. Also don't forget that while the Germans had several hundred bombers, your forces have 21.

"My opponent speaks of attacking the aircraft carriers themselves in round 3 rather than the aircraft I already deployed into the air round 2, so therefore my opponent made no move to defend his fleets and ports from the aircraft already in the air so if no attempts are made by my opponent to shoot down the aircraft, they simply reach their targets and drop bombs without any casualties. The aircraft remain in the air"
This is a silly argument. With the aircraft carrier down, there is no place for your aircraft to refuel and resupply on ammo. They would be helpless after several hours of battle. They can't "continually slaughter" the Russian forces if they have no carrier to get more ammunition and fuel. Therefore, I don't see how my opponent counts on destroying the entire fleet, when his planes (the ones that were already in the air before the carrier was destroyed) have only enough supplies to wage battle an hour at the most.

"The Us navy has antimissile attached to many of its ships including all its aircraft carriers."
My opponent has failed to correctly read his source. His source speaks of new "anti-torpedo technology", not "anti-missile". Therefore, the NATO aircraft carriers were still devastated by the usage of the DF-21.

"Therefore the mining ships are destroyed and mining operations have failed."
Since the DF-21 still have found no counter, the mining operations continue, and the level of risk for aerial attack has significantly fallen because of the lack of usable aircraft carriers.

"More reinforcements arrive, more than enough of the newest technology resources needed to counter the reinforcements my opponent sent."
This is a very general argument. I gave specific numbers of how many artillery, MLRSs and tanks were located there, while my opponent said "more than enough". That is an invalid argument.

As mentioned, all reinforcements are under the risk of being taken out of the sky because Russian fighters are on the hunt and the planes have a long distance to cover.

"The tactical aircraft consisting of thousands of bombers and fighters attack the artillery pieces after NATO's own artillery pieces have destroyed many anti-air artilleries."
Another general, and invalid statement. NATO does not have "thousands of bombers", nor does it have "thousands of fighters". NATO only has a total of 3,000 fighters, and no where near as many bombers. All of these would not be concentrated in one area to simultaneously attack.

"This force will include hundreds of mobile rocket launchers from which rockets can be launched many km away to strike the Russian army and it will include thousands of howitzers,C-RAM, AN/TWQ-1, just to name a few of it's reinforcement artilleries sent"
Mobile rocket launchers are not able to shooting very far. Once again, this is a very general statement and my opponent provided no numbers. Nothing to indicate quantity except "hundreds" or "thousands"' which makes the force sound big.
NATO would have to send all of its artillery to one spot to have "thousands of howitzers". C-RAM is not even artillery. It is Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar. The AN/TWQ-1 my opponent mentions is a "mobile, short-range air defense protection". So not only would it not be capable of firing "many km away" as my opponent claimed, but it is not even artillery. It is anti-air defense.

My opponent heavily relies on aerial assaults to damage the tank force. The Russian force would take casualties, but as mentioned, S-400s and S-300s would take their toll. I mean, 3 or 4 S-400s are capable of destroying USA's entire force of F-22s.

"The Black Sea fleet did not fire back on the aircraft i sent earlier and has already been destroyed without a single loss. With the black Sea fleet eliminated,"
This is also invalid. My opponent said nothing about attacking the Black Fleet in Round 2. He said that he would use aircraft carriers to eliminate targets behind the chokepoints. Well, now since the aircraft carriers are destroyed, I don't see what he expects of the few, base-less aircraft flying around that have no ammo left. The Black Sea fleet is damaged, but functional.

"Fleet in Finland again has been destroyed by aircraft which did not get fired upon."
Once again, the aircraft have no carrier to return to. They fly around for an hour and are useless.

It seems as though a very large portion of my opponent's plan relied on aircraft carriers transporting planes to destroy Russian/Chinese forces. His misunderstanding about the DF-21 has cost him.

Now, my opponent says that "no doubt Hawaii has been preparing for such strikes".
1. He provided no source to support this, merely made an assumption.
2. The planes are not attacking Hawaii, they are going for the West coast of mainland US.

Since the Russian/Chinese attack force was NOT destroyed by NATO aircraft, the attack continues and the fleet successfully makes it to the USA shores. They take some losses, but there is little resistance after the heavy bombing done by the Tu-160s.

Once again, because of my opponent's reliance on aircraft carriers (which were destroyed), the Black Sea Fleet can continue to move Russian forces through the Black Sea to take over the Middle-Eastern oil supplies and flank the NATO forces stuck in the Caucasus mountains.

"The US spends about as much funding as the rest of the world so the US alone could easily provide enough funding for resources."
This is absurd logic. That's just like saying "Well, I spend ton of money already, which means that I can spend a ton more".

"The planned invasion of my opponent has been stopped short"
As mentioned, my opponent made a mistake and his carriers were destroyed after all. The invasion continues and makes it to USA's shores.

As a response to cyber attacks, Russia/China shut down most media systems, not allowing for NATO propaganda.

"An increase in pro-NATO rebels will appear"
This is a false assumption. Especially right now, there are more pro-Russian patriots than ever before. Just like in WW2, they will be prepared to fight till the last breath. There will be little to no "pro-NATO" going on inside of Russia.

"Newer invasion from Scandinavian peninsula, east china sea, Romania and Hungary, and east coast of Siberia occur with millions of soldiers, hundreds of thousand equipment pieces."
Once again, my opponent uses general terms. He seems to think he has an endless supply of people and equipment. Scandinavia? When did NATO forces get there? E. China Sea is heavily mined. E. Coast of Siberia? NATO forces will literally have to march 12,000 km or so to get to Moscow. That is not a realistic plan and the poor, freezing soldiers would be slaughtered in the open by artillery and tanks.

To sum things up:
1. My opponent misread (or didn't read) his source, and his aircraft carriers have been destroyed.
2. Russian/Chinese fleets are still functional.
3. My opponent never specifies quantity, only saying "thousands" or "hundreds", not even knowing the amount of fighters, bombers etc. that NATO has.
4. The invasive force has made it to the USA.

I await my opponent's answer.


I ask my opponent how the two would be distinguishable or if they are even targetable. There are over 780 species of birds in Russia and it is futile to reject the premise that they could not tell the two apart. The B2’s would travel in patterns mirroring those of the thousands of birds due to their indistinct flight pattern, which would make any attempts to discern the aircraft unintelligible.

In several hours of battle modern aircraft can destroy the best of ships and given the large quantity of aircraft in modern day, it is very capable of causing crippling damage to any fleet that has no orders to fire back and so the planes.

My opponent either intentionally tried to deceive or misread the source himself and accused me of 'misreading' the source. He even openly admit his mistake in comments and i pointed it out in comments.

and so we see my opponent and i both agree he made a mistake so there is no arguement about it, my source simply does mention antiair defences.

HOWEVER even if my opponent wasn't trying to intentionally misread my source, and he really didn't see antiair he still no right to say 'just because my source didn't show it means that the arguement is invalid. In fact if my source not including all the details meant my arguement is invalid, then my opponent is a victim of his own mistake and a hypocrite. My opponent says"a single MLRS is capable of launching 6-8 missiles in under 20 seconds." but i didn't see any part of his source saying this. Using his flawed logic it would mean since his source didn't support MLRs simply are not capable of doing precisely that. It's flawed logic my opponent made up on the spot to help himself because an MLRs' ability to shoot missiles is not affected by but is instead affected by the design of MLRs just like an aircraft carrier's ability to shoot down missiles should not be based off the fact my opponent can't see it in the source but instead on the the actual mechanism of aircraft carriers. Their defence includes but is not limited to the aegis system will are capable of shooting down df 21s so aircraft carriers do in fact survive. Mining operations are disrupted, targets behind choke points are destroyed. This disproves what he said and is common sense so aircraft carriers do survive.

A general argument is still an argument and cannot be incorrect because it is general. It’s common sense that general arguments can be correct.

If NATO as you said has 3000 fighters then NATO does have thousands of fighters and US alone has over 2000 bombers so if you didn’t know what thousands meant here’s the definition.

F22s have stealth, as simply explained before so s400s and s300s won’t get shots on them.

Round 1 i mentioned sending fleets to black sea, , my opponent mentions black sea has a choke point called bosphorous strait in round 2, , round 3 I attack targets behind the choke points so it includes black sea fleet behind bosphorous strait,, DF 21s are in china and my opponent only mentioned sending DF21s to Russia but never firing them and even he did aegis would take it down. So conclusion is there are NATO forces present in the black sea have destroyed russian fleets based there.

I was simply saying US has a large defense budget available, in fact more than russia and china combined.

All arguments, assumptions, and moves based off the fact that aircraft carriers were destroyed because my opponent did not see a paragraph in my source is invalid as the aircraft carrier were protected by aegis and various other antiballistic missile systems.

My opponent has once again failed to respond to an attack I have sent just like when he did not respond to attack on Middle East, it was lost; the planes were not shot back at since there was no order to do so; now there are no orders to resist the coming invasion. This time it will cost him. A combined NATO(mostly Europeans) army of 30 million men include those in previous service and newly drafted will be supported by already in active service and newly made resources including 2000 fighter craft, 500 tactical bombers, 200 SPGs, 150 MLRs, 12000 tanks, 6000 artillery, 12000 armored vehicles will cross the border from romania and hungary into ukraine/belarus then russia. Their progress into Russia will be rapid given the advanced technology possessed by NATO and the added fact that the Russians will not be firing back plus waiting for refueling and supplies to arrive will be unnecessary since captured russian oil and other supplies will be used. They will take Army group A and B. Army group A will traverse through belarus then take Tula, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Ryazan, Penza, Saratov, Yaroslav, Novgorod, and other cities in it’s drive west towards the ural mountains effectively capturing all russian resources and cities in their path. Army group B traverses through Ukraine then takes Voronezh, Volgograd, Rostov Von donu, and other cities in it’s drive south towards the caucasus. It will attack the Russian army based there positioned to fight NATOs caucasus forces. The Russian army will be sandwiched and without orders to fire on the army converging on it from the north making it an easy victory and effectively eliminating russian armies in Western Russia. Army Group A stays based in Russia and group B moves Between Caspian Sea and Ural Mountains and moves around the mountains to continue attacking Siberia with the support of captured Russian equipment.

After destroying key supply lines and munitions in russia, the flock of b-2 stealth bombers and f22 raptors embark on a conjunct mission with select planes on the carriers in the east china sea to assault the city of Shanghai. Before the targets are attacked, 50 nuclear submarines are positioned in the east china sea. They will fire non nuclear missiles to target anti air defense systems and after the targets are neutralized, they will continuously fire missiles at the city while the raptors and b2 bombers take out Chinese infantry and tanks. Hours before the attack, C-5 galaxy Transports will rapidly begin to carry over to the shore 1000 m1 abrams, 2000 m1126, and 500 MLRs and various infantry munitions, while concurrently via air transport ships, 100,000 United States Marines are escorted into the shore by F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter jets pre-equipped with anti missile defense systems.After the city is pulverized by hundreds of missiles, the massive land army of M1 abrams, M1126s, MLRs, and Marines will drive through into the heart of the city to eliminate any surviving forces. The USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin were recommissioned and fitted with modern guns. 30 million drafted United States Soldiers, 3000 more M1 abrams tanks, 1000 SPGs, 200 attack helicopters, are sent on carriers Massive Carriers escorted by 10 frigates, 40 destroyers, 10 cruisers and the newly restored Iowa and Wisconsin through the pacific ocean into the east china sea safe zone. Once the fleet reaches Shanghai, the soldiers and all of their vehicles and equipment will regroup with the initial invasion force in the city. The ships will split up and position themselves in control of the south China sea.

Since there is no rule my opponent made against this then I can use this link.
Debate Round No. 4


"In several hours of battle modern aircraft can destroy the best of ships...damage to any fleet that has no orders to fire back and so the planes."
Yes, they can. But battleships aren't just sitting ducks. They have AA guns/rockets as well. What do you mean "no orders to fire back"? They're not just going to sit there and be bombed. They will retaliate. Once again, it seems as though my opponent is trying to base his entire invasion plan on the usage of 21 planes. They would not last long. Once bombs are dropped, Russian warplanes can go into the air and physically locate the bomber. No radar needed. After they are found, the Russian fighters would just form a wolf-pack and hound the B2s to death.

My opponent next moves to address my mistake. I apologize for not reading in depth; BUT, I would like to say this: The US RIM-161 system is not considered fully capable of intercepting a DF-21 missile. Although there is a chance, it is highly unlikely that the DF-21 would be stopped.

This means that, after all, the mining operations continue (and are just about done at this point in time) and the aircraft carriers are destroyed.

My opponent then moves to attacking my claim about MLRSs. I think there is a misunderstanding. My opponent seems to think that MLRSs are designed to take down missiles. They are not. MLRS is artillery. My opponent then accuses me of making up numbers. I was not making up any numbers, even WW2 era Katyushas were easily capable of launching 6 missiles in 20 seconds. The modern Russian MLRS "Tornado" can launch 15 rockets in just under 20 seconds. I hope my opponent is satisfied that I've proved my point.

I am fully aware of the definition of "thousands". No need to be rude. My point was, that my opponent uses "hundreds" or "thousands" to make his force sound bigger. In reality, since it is such a general argument, while it may be "correct" as my opponent argues, I can easily use this general argument to my advantage. If I said that I sent 5,000 tanks, and my opponent answers with "thousands of tanks", then I can correctly assume that he sent 2,000 tanks, because that is still "thousands". As a result, virtually all of my opponent's forces have been crushed by overwhelming numbers.

My opponent claims that the "US alone has over 2,000 bombers". I have no idea where my opponent got this information, as he did not provide a source. The US has about 160 bombers. Could my opponent please provide a source for this aggressive claim?

S-400 will, in fact, get shots on F-22s. The S-400 and F22 have almost never faced in battle, but when they did, the F-22 lost. There was an F-22 shot down over Syria by an S-400 missile system. This means that not only can the S-400 see the F-22 on radar, but it can lock onto it and take it down.

"my opponent only mentioned sending DF21s to Russia but never firing them"
This is just...absurd. "Never firing them"? That's like saying "my opponent sent ammo to his soldiers, but never told the soldiers to load their guns and use it".

"there are NATO forces present in the black sea have destroyed russian fleets based there."
Not so quick. As I mentioned above, DF-21s are still capable of taking down aircraft carriers. Any carriers in the Black Sea have been eliminated. This makes it much easier for the Black Sea Fleet to hold off NATO at the choke-point. Only after a long battle and many losses would NATO finally get through the choke-point and into the Black Sea. At that point, Russian forces have assembled by the shore and NATO wouldn't be able to get their feet on Russian soil because of the heavy defenses.

"I was simply saying US has a large defense budget available, in fact more than russia and china combined."
1. The US spends more money on military than the rest of the world combined. Does that mean that the US alone could take on the entire world? Of course not! Money is not a good way of measuring strength. For example, Russia only spends $87 billion on military, but has more tanks than all of NATO combined.
2. At least $170 billion of those $615 billion is spent on maintaining military bases. Not even improving, only maintaining.

I would like to note that my opponent failed to respond to an attack I made towards the Middle East. I mentioned this attack in Round 3 but my opponent made no move to reinforce the forces in the Middle East. Most were destroyed, and the Russian forces returned to the homeland. As a result of this move, my opponent lost men, equipment, and oil supplies. NATO is having a very hard time economically trying to supply all of its transoceanic and transcontinental soldiers with food and oil.

My opponent plans an attack into Russia from Europe. He makes the force take a long route through Europe before reaching Russia, giving Russia ample time to prepare. I have no idea how my opponent plans to transport and supply this enormous force. That is just such an insanely large amount of military that it would take weeks just to get all of these soldiers and equipment into one place! Even if NATO manages to do this, and finds a way to supply all of that with food and oil, that would be an unbelievable strain on economy and logistics. I would also like to ask, where would the planes and tanks be refueling? Also, I'm quite sure that NATO would not be able to muster 500 bombers. Even my opponent's source shows that NATO would only be able to muster 205 bombers, all of which are US/UK bombers. (This also contradicts my opponent's previous claim that the US has over 2,000 bombers).

Granted that NATO would somehow manage to supply this operation, this would be Russia's response:
1. Send virtually all of Russia's remaining tank force to stop this attack, meaning Russia would have 10,500 tanks versus NATO's 12,000. I would also like to note that the Russian T-90 tank is superior to most tanks that can be thrown at it. The T-90 can literally fire a laser-guided missile out of its gun that has a range of 5 km. That means that a single T-90 tank would be able to pick off enemies from a distance at which the enemies can't even see the T-90.

2. A total of 313 Russian and Chinese bombers would be repeatedly bombing the NATO force on its way to Russia. (These bombers would be protected with about 500-600 Russian fighter planes)

3. Send all of Russia's remaining 8,800 towed artillery pieces (versus NATO's 6,000) that would be bombarding the NATO forces day and night.

4. Send 20,000 Russian and Chinese AFVs (versus NATO's 12,000), 4,000 MLRSs (versus NATO's 150) and 4,500 SPGs (versus NATO's 200). The NATO force would crumble under the unbelievable amount of artillery support. Russia would also send about 35 million troops to support this defense. Also, all of Russia's 500 2K12 Kub surface-to-air missile systems would be sent to take out NATO's fighters.

This NATO attack force would be crushed by the overwhelming defending forces.

My opponent's next paragraph is almost completely refuted because:
1. B2s are down
2. Carriers are down

I would like to note that my opponent has failed to counter my attack on the US mainland, and the forces have made to US shores. The enormous tank force is overrunning everything in its path and cities are mauled by Tu-160 bombers. Reinforcements arrive from the Pacific. US mainland is now flooded with Russian/Chinese forces.

My opponent's link is not a valid argument, because it's a link, like a source. You can't use a source as part your argument.

Thank you


It is completely up to my opponent and I to make sole decisions for the armies since there are no commanders. Already in this debate, one side states where he will attack and then the other side is given a chance to respond, it there is no response that there is no defense set up. This has been demonstrated several times in the debate. In the first round I invaded middle east, since there was no response my opponent and I both accepted middle east as taken. My opponent declared an attack on estonia, latvia, and lithuania. When I did not respond, we both assumed it as taken. Thus the same should be true for invasion into russia and attack on fleets. Either Way U.S. planes are well capable of crippling enemy navies even when enemy navies shoot back.

After stealth planes bomb a target, they don’t sit in the air like helicopters, they fly to attack other targets. By the time Russian planes take time to lift off airports, new targets far away are bombed and stealth planes are far away so russian planes must rely on radar which won’t work on stealth bombers. F22s and thousands of other planes took most action in my arguments. B2s weren’t the main fighting force and they survive by moving to new targets quickly whilst maintaining stealth.; is a biased source because it must speak in favor of chinese equipment because of government policies, thus unreliable.

My argument in round 4 states that my arguments are not what my sources say and was not about what MLRs are used for. My opponent simply believed that since he didn’t see in my source about antiair defences, my argument about antiair is invalid. I’m pointing out this logic would also hurt my opponent.

America’s navy is still more powerful than the combined navies of the russians and chinese even without its aircraft carriers and could defeat both. As stated in the last argument, US is NOT limited to the aegis defence system and still yet even the aegis defence system is capable of taking on the df21s who may not even have the capabilities to even aim accurately at their targets. My opponent states the DF 21 can outpace the aegis antiballistic missile system but it doesn't matter about it's speed if it can't even aim. My opponent did not provide an explanation for how df21s will accurately hit targets. Much of the aiming done with satellites which have been downed.

don't forget chinese satellites have been shot down

He says he can now customize how many resources I sent, but however many resources I send should be based on my interpretatation on how many resources are sent rather than how he intends to interpret it. In previous rounds I also specifically stated I sent enough force to defeat the russian tanks, this means my opponent cannot simply assume i sent less than enough forces.

Here is my source which supports US has at least thousands of bombers.

Syrians already knew of an upcoming attack. The attack on Russia was a total surprise. And simply being able to shoot down one aircraft doesn’t mean they can consistently be shot down, luck may have factored in, and no doubt much improvement has been done. Therefore the improvements allow f22s to survive.

I must remind my opponent of chronological order of events. In round 4 army group B has already defeated Russian Caucasus defense forces and have been sent to attack Siberia. By round 5, the forces that were previously in the Caucuses are already been sent to Siberia. There are simply no forces catpured. Parts of group A that were attacked simply move north wait for reinforcments and drive them off the Coast.

As mentioned in round 4, it specifically emphasized that captured Russian equipment will be used. My opponent did not refute captured Russian equipment is being used. Using Russian equipment gives the advantage of reducing the time needed to refit and refuel speeding up the advance.

It seems after I have taken European Russia, my opponent intends to furiously defend Siberia with Tu90 tanks which are in fact inferior to Abraham tanks.

Since my opponent furiously defends what is left of Siberian Russia, army group B evades Russian counter attacks by going South and instead invading China which has been wrecked eventually linking forces with other NATO forces already in China

My opponent claims he has invaded the US, but this is not true. The extension of my argument I linked to said

This clearly shows that his bombers sent over through the pacific ocean were shot down as I mentioned with this earlier. Pro said that I cannot use this as an extension of my argument, but that was not in the rules so it is not forbidden. He cannot simply make rules in round 5. This is not the same as a source because it is a personal document I used to extend my argument, not something from another author.

My opponent made no attempt to stop my attacks in china so therefore all of eastern China was taken by my US forces. The submarines bombed cities all along the eastern coast and then US forces proceeded to drive into the heart of China. More c-5 galaxy transports are coming over into the eastern shore dropping off 2000 more m1 abrams tanks, 10,000 AFVs, 400 Chinook transport helicopters, along with tons of oil, food, and ammunition for the land army. More massive personnel carrier ships are sent over, the fleet carrying 15 million more United States soldiers along with even more munitions. The submarines move up further in the East China Sea and begin to hammer Beijing with even more missiles. Once Beijing Is destroyed by this onslaught of missiles, Us forces will capture the city. After these attacks, millions of Chinese Citizens will be dead and their manpower will be greatly diminished. The submarines will continue to fire into china, taking out Military Convoys and remaining land armies. MQ-1 Predators fitted with combat capabilities will scan the area for remaining Chinese. Any survivors will be shot down with AGM 114 Hellfire missiles. Once the country is scanned, US missile silos will begin firing non-nuclear ICMBs across the country, targeting civilian masses and key munitions needed for survival in Shenyang, Wuhan, Chongqing Chengdu and in all neighboring cities. 30% of US forces will drive into Western China to demolish any towns not shot by ICBMs. Attack Helicopters and MQ-1 Predators still patrol the country looking for any guerilla groups.

After the final conquering of China, the antiradar B-2 bombers and the improvised antiradar f-22s fly out into siberia to do stealth bombings on Siberian Land Armies, antiaircraft guns, and remaining aircraft as well as artilleries. It is noteworthy that after taking eruopean Russia which has higher ecnomic, political, and military equipment, than Siberian Russia, opponent does not simply possess all the forces he would like to muster as many of them have been destroyed . About one quarter or russian population is in Siberia with reduced amounts of resources availible.Rockets are fired at Siberia day and night. All aircraft, tanks, and other resources of NATO move to attack the remainder of the beleaguered and ill moraled Russians. At least 15000 tanks, 5000 aircraft, 100 million troops, 8000 artilleries, 30000 vehicles attack the remnants of Russia. The other resources not included in the previous sentence are sent to clean up remaining resistance. NATO flags are raised over a conquered and devastated Russia symbolizing a hard won victory.

Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AsianGenius 7 years ago
my win
Posted by TheRussian 7 years ago
my opponent tried to win the war without even using ground forces so...unfortunately in this case, the Russian Winter would not have helped my argument much :/
Posted by Dynasty2468 7 years ago
both of u guys forgot about Russian Winter......
Posted by ricksterpr0 7 years ago
cons arguments should not count against him because they were during the duration of the debate. as for the 45 million, I was referring to his manpower in china. The 100 million men invading the "remnants of Russia." were sent across land I believe.
Posted by TheRussian 7 years ago
well, no point in arguing now...
Posted by TheRussian 7 years ago
well, no point in arguing now...
Posted by TheRussian 7 years ago
And you're saying that Con's arguments in the comments against the DF-21 do not count against him?
Posted by TheRussian 7 years ago
"At least 15000 tanks, 5000 aircraft, 100 million troops, 8000 artilleries, 30000 vehicles attack the remnants of Russia."
He clearly states 100 million. There is no physical way this enormous force could be supplied over seas in a military scenario.
Posted by ricksterpr0 7 years ago
I apologize. Con* did not use 100 million us soldiers, only 45 million.
Posted by ricksterpr0 7 years ago
Pro did not use 100 million us soldiers, only 45 million. Also he mentioned that they would be resupplied through the bases in eastern china along with the tons of munitions brought by his c-5s and the munitions on the personnel carriers. 45 million men is feasible given the massive ships he used and incredible amount of resources he provided. Not to mention he would also be using Chinese food and oil to complement his own.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by distraff 7 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 Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: There are two points that affect my decision: China's ability to destroy US aircraft carriers with missiles, and the US ability to destroy targets with Stealth aircraft. It is true that radar will not be able to detect stealth and they can refuel in aircraft carriers. Wolf packs might be able to take them down but this sounds really difficult as we don't know where they are. So I think the stealth craft can do a lot of damage but not unlimited damage. Con showed that the DF-21s would not be able to aim well and Pro showed that carriers would only have limited ability to defend against them. Overall, they will be ineffective. Overall I will have to root for Con for stronger arguments. Pro had bad conduct with the misinterpreted source.
Vote Placed by ricksterpr0 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won the debate all together. He refuted how the carriers were not killed and showed how his forces conquered Russia and China. I am also giving conduct points to con because pro continued his argument in the comments section, which was a sly attempt at skewing the debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.