CreateDebate


Debate Info

62
80
USA China
Debate Score:142
Arguments:66
Total Votes:159
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 USA (30)
 
 China (33)

Debate Creator

B1az3(14) pic



Could China beat the USA in a war?

USA

Side Score: 62
VS.

China

Side Score: 80
7 points

If China were to invade the USA they could probably beat our military. However, we would be impossible to occupy due to freedom loving gun owners(like myself). If the USA wanted to invade China, we would have a very tough time beating their massive military but we would have an easy time occupying them afterwords due to their docile populous. This is all assuming that it would be a conventional war of course. In a nuclear war both sides would obliterate each other.

Side: depends
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
8 points

China would never be able to invade the USA how would they get there troops here when we control the oceans and the air destroying all their ships before they get here and once they did they would be screwed. In a nuclear war China would be incapable of obliterating us because they lack the nukes to do so. They dont even have enough to wipe out the whole country. We however have enough to destroy China easily.

Side: USA
tbw3012(11) Disputed
1 point

That's where cyberwarfare and electronic warfare come in to unconventionally without nukes defeat the us army, navy and etc. No naval vessels left; then no defeat of China. China hacks the USA all the time and they are more likely to strike with a new stuxnet that destroys aircraft carriers and all other naval vessels that are computerized and not mentioning computerized jets and bombers and even drones would be subject to electronic warfare. They probably even have plans to bypass the American defense systems that counter cyberwarfare and electronic jamming by spying. China is one of the trio cyber superpowers in the world and probably has the best hackers in the world. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181179/Shocking-map-shows-600-times-Chinese-hackers-stolen-American-secrets-past-five-years.html

If any computer even offline that was made in Asia was used to make these black projects; then they are probably infiltrated the latest black projects because of the mass numbers of spies there is no easy way to track them after realizing that government surveillance programs don't stop terrorism as much as they should

http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/lenovos-pcs-spy-china/2015/02/24

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/03/chinese-student-spies-overwhelm-us-2/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record-collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/ 2014/01/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/edward-snowden-mass-surveillance-nsa-america/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/fbi-admits-patriot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/?page=all

Side: China
korii(11) Disputed
2 points

debate is about facts, elaborate more,for Wat shows that china can easily defeat the USA , because USA can one thing to defeat them and that the brain

Side: China
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
4 points

WHAT????!!!!! Make some sense man and now i must fill space.

Side: USA
tbw3012(11) Disputed
1 point

Assuming that China can be occupied is nonsense. No country will allow itself to be occupied after defeat without using nuclear or biological weapons on enemy turf. If they left them unoccupied in a possible defeat on either side then there would probably be no nuclear war.

Side: China
3 points

China's military at this point is not even double the size of the US military our technology and numbers in every manner except infantry is incredible. The USA would simply have to use blitzkrieg to destroy China. Our military is also far more experienced than the Chinese military and the training disparity is massive. The only way China wins is a war of attrition which we simply would not allow. The US would have complete control of air and sea and it wouldn't ake long with our ridiculously powerful airforce to destroy the Chinese infantry.

Side: USA
Axmeister(4322) Disputed
6 points

"China's military at this point is not even double the size of the US military our technology and numbers in every manner except infantry is incredible."

It doesn't matter how big your infantry is, all China needs to do is conscription and the US will wish they're still a colony.

"The USA would simply have to use blitzkrieg to destroy China."

Or China would simply use Blitzkrieg to destroy you.

" Our military is also far more experienced than the Chinese military and the training disparity is massive."

U.S military haven't fought a real war in years, you've merely attacked smaller nations, the "experienced" soldiers are probably as skilled as the chinese soldiers.

"The only way China wins is a war of attrition which we simply would not allow."

I'm sure China can easily source allies in Asia, allies that could include Russia, India or Japan. At the moment they also seem to have the power to bail out the Eurozone. I don't think you could wear them down of resources.

"The US would have complete control of air and sea and it wouldn't ake long with our ridiculously powerful airforce to destroy the Chinese infantry."

You exaggerate America's power. You may have military bases across the globe but China's military is far more powerful and organised. Here's a link to show it:

http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/18419

Side: China
3 points

USA without a shadow of a doubt. Not only do they have a larger support base among other countries and far more useful allies, but that aside they outclass China in many ways.

Economically China is heavily dependent on exports, most notably the USA. If the USA goes to war with China, one could assume they would stop all economic tradings with them and if they did, China would spiral into economic chaos. China is also simply unsustainable at the current period of time in comparison to the USA and would not be able to finance a war (especially considering that their economy is beginning to stagnate). It should also be noted that in social terms the USA has an advantage over China. Not only are many Americans patriotic, but they live in reasonably nice conditions, whilst many Chinese live in poverty. Quite simply, Americans would have more to fight for whilst it could be argued that in the midst of war many Chinese would question the ability of their Government to provide for them. Not only would this social breakdown lead to potential cracks from the inside out, but also lead to a less motivated country (something that is very important in wartime situations). One could also argue that the technological advances in the US are also superior to that of China. Some of you may argue 'but China has so many men!', which is true though in this day and age a million men can be killed from a few bombs without loss from the bombers. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying manpower is not important but in modern warfare it is not AS important as it was in history.

Side: USA
3 points

better weapons better tactics and much more better in building weapons faster than china and also in World War 2 USA had shemans against panthers and we still won.

Side: USA
2 points

This would be an extremely hard war to fight, because literally, all the things here are made in China. If we are with war with them, they are likely to cut off the trade, and therefore limiting the U.S supplies.

But america is my home, so I'm gonna have to side with the USA...

Side: USA
2 points

Exactly. And this is a BIG mistake, outsourcing of production.

Side: USA
link6065(740) Disputed
2 points

Not if the goal is to unify the globe. .

Side: China
1 point

It's a matter of logistics and force projection. The US has the means to mobilize and deploy hundreds of thousands of troops anywhere in the world in a matter of weeks. Moreover, they can sustain those troops as they have the logistical infrastructure to feed, fuel, and equip those soldiers indefinitely. The US has an incredibly powerful navy and airforce. In order to carry out a full invasion of the US, China would have to mobilize millions of troops, ships, and planes and hope the US doesn't notice via satellite else it interfere. They would then have to send this huge invasion force to the US inexplicably defeating the largest, most well trained and armed navy and airforce in the world. They would also need to have a huge supply fleet and infrastructure and resources to fuel the undoubtedly drawn out land war for the mainland. They would need to sustain their invasion fleet for multiple trips, unless they're going to build enough boats/planes for 750,000,000 soldiers. As things stand, China would be hopelessly outmatched if they attempted an invasion. I think the question is would China succumb to the US's superior airpower and logistical expertise if the US were to invade.

Side: USA
tbw3012(11) Disputed
1 point

EMP and cyberwarfare would target American infrastructure which is equivalent to a third world country. No electricity then no American supplies her allies would also be targeted by emp and cyberwarfare to target their food grid. No electricity for her allies then no food and water which means no supplies for your troops, tanks and etc. America's infrastructure is vunerable to defeat if they don't find a way to protect it from emp. http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-better-infrastructure-2013-3

Side: China
1 point

Not sure why you guys think Chinese infantry superiority would somehow trump US technological superiority. China just recently got their first Air Craft carrier and they bought it. US Naval force projection coupled with air superiority would prevent a massive invasion across the pacific which would be damn hard to cloak for the amount of troops China would need in order to have a successful invasion of the US. Not to mention in this scenario a Chinese invasion of the US would trigger NATO provisions for mutual self defense, as well as the US-Korean defense treaty. China would not just be fighting the US if they were to invade they would be fighting South Korea, the Philippines, and all of NATO....It should be noted the US and NATO members are China's biggest trading partners, the economic effect of an embargo from these two members would absolutely cripple the Chinese economy.

We are also forgetting China doesn't even have the navy necessary to even begin to undertake such an operation as an invasion of the United States, and the test bed for any Chinese attack against US interest is Taiwan, of which China will not invade due to US Naval Superiority in the region which would make an invasion near impossible to supply, and that is WAY closer then the US West Coast.

Numerical superiority in ground infantry can only get you so far. Without combined arms fire (major US military doctrine) it becomes damn near useless. It's great to have 1 million men fighting 300,000 as long as those 300,000 aren't calling in naval bombardment, coordinating with armored cavalry, air strikes, and artillery bombardment. It's a force multiplier effect and China currently has no answer to US Naval supremacy in the region especially not US Air Craft Carriers.

Besides both the US and China are nuclear powers, and even if it came to that the US could possibly limp on after a Chinese nuclear strike considering the disparity in nuclear arms is massively stacked in the US's favor, 1.2k warheads compared to ~250.

Side: USA
tbw3012(11) Disputed
1 point

China has plans for that its tactical emps and cyberwarfare on enemy naval superiority and airforce. If America doesn't have access to her navy or airforce including her allies then China wins. Those modern jets have to be connected to something digital like satellite connections or radio this is a vulnerability that could be used to send code that could disrupt the fighter jet/bombers' computer system. It could fool the pilot into reading decoy radar blips to try to get them distracted to compensate for a smaller airforce or even navy. They probably have plans to defeat these manhattan project style hacking attempts; but so does China to circumvent their digital defenses against hacking attempts on fighters and bombers including drones as well. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/fbi-hacker-flight-computer-systems/

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane/

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hackers-commandeer-new-planes-passenger- wi-fi/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/15/wi-fi-on-planes-in-flight-hacking-us-government

Now, imagine what another major power can do if a civilian can do that to a commercial plane imagine what they can do to tanks, drones, attack helicopters, fighters, and bombers to be used against us by Chinese Manhattan Hacker Projects?

Side: China
1 point

usa is the most powerful country in the world and just all the hilarious chinese mind it

Side: USA

I'd have to generally favor the USA overall. While Chinese active duty military exceeds that of the US in raw numbers, it is not nearly as lopsided as the general populations of the two countries would reflect; the difference is more than made up in the US' favor by better training, equipment, and the utilization of numerous force multipliers.

Even ignoring logistics, China would need to augment their military with a significant number of conscripts, representing a noteworthy proportion of their population, in order to compensate for the US' other advantages.

Such conscription, particularly to fight against the US, is likely to cause further domestic instability in China; China relies on its military for internal stability far more than many other nations do as well, and a war that necessitates using most of the military would leave things at home extremely tenuous; conscripts are notoriously unreliable troops at best, known for desertion and defection.

China would be very likely to tear itself apart simply trying to match the US, I'd expect. And remember- all this is ignoring the logistical needs of a force that size, supporting infrastructure for which simply doesn't exist.

Side: USA
1 point

Depends on the circumstances . Are the countries allowed allies ? Can they use nuclear weapons ? I'm sorry but the lack a description makes it hard for me to decide but I would say the U.S seeing as China has a higher population within a smaller country meaning nukes or any explosive would be more effective .

Side: USA
1 point

No. Impossible.

The world might not even beat the USA in a war at the moment. If given enough time to train personnel and stockpile fuel/munitions, the US could conquer the world.

List of things it has more than the world: (10 times more) active nuclear-powered carriers, aircraft, modern naval warships, nuclear missiles, nuclear-powered nuclear-capable submarines. Those are just some that I remember.

In order for China to have a chance, it would have to be a strictly land war which is impossible in this age.

Side: USA
0 points

List of things it has more than the world: (10 times more) active nuclear-powered carriers, aircraft, modern naval warships, nuclear missiles, nuclear-powered nuclear-capable submarines. Those are just some that I remember.

In order for China to have a chance, it would have to be a strictly land war which is impossible in this age.

The United States Military operates on the Shock and Awe Doctrine, which generally employs technological superiority in a flashy and sudden form, designed to destroy the enemy's moral very quickly. This doctrine does not work in all situations, however, as it is based on short-term encounters, and runs into difficulty in long term conflicts, as we do not have the funds and infrastructure to continuously support all of the assets you have listed. Additionally, in a conflict with China, we would see ourselves quite literally outnumbered in terms of available manpower. Even if we had "enough time to train personnel", we simply wouldn't have the manpower reserves to match China. This would most likely lead to either a horribly brutal conflict revolving around nuclear weaponry, which would lead to mutually assured destruction, or it would lead to a war of attrition, which would see both of our economies in shambles.

It really isn't that far fetched to think that China might possibly win, even with our technological superiority. I'm not saying it is likely, but it is hardly "impossible".

Side: China
flewk(1193) Disputed
1 point

The United States Military operates on the Shock and Awe Doctrine, which generally employs technological superiority in a flashy and sudden form, designed to destroy the enemy's moral very quickly. This doctrine does not work in all situations, however, as it is based on short-term encounters, and runs into difficulty in long term conflicts, as we do not have the funds and infrastructure to continuously support all of the assets you have listed.

The first part of my comment addresses this with stockpile of munitions/fuel and training of personnel. I am not sure where you are going with this.

Additionally, in a conflict with China, we would see ourselves quite literally outnumbered in terms of available manpower.

As I have already pointed out in the first comment, a war between the US and China will not be a strict land war. That means it will be mostly naval battles. As I have already pointed out, in terms of active naval warships, the US beats the world in most classes. The most important being the Nimitiz-class equivalent carriers, the world has the french vessel Charles de Gaulle (half the capability of a Nimitz). Nuclear-powered carriers are made for long term conflicts. They can engage for over 120 days without returning to port. The record was something like 230 days during Operation Enduring Freedom. Almost 8 months of continuous engagements.

So now you are probably thinking that China just has to sink a couple of the 10 active nuclear carriers. Well... that would take a miracle considering how much the US outclasses the world in terms of the Cruiser, Destroyer, and Frigate classes (all equipped with the Aegis system).

You are grossly underestimating the number of active/reserve military personnel in the US Navy and US Air Force. We would never have enough ground troops to match China, but our current Navy and Air Force are similar to the People's Liberation Army if not more.

China has reported it has at least 4 nuclear capable submarines along with its nuclear ICBMs. The problem is China's technology. Its ECCM systems are obsolete units purchased from the US and Russia. There is always the potential of sneaking a few across, but the overall damage will be minimal.

So yes. Impossible for China to win unless if the US decides to forego naval and air combat.

Side: USA
1 point

I know the USA has the strongest Army and also the Big 5. USA should win every war because China is weaker than the USA. North Korea should get destroyed first in order to win The Korean War. So I think The USA will win the Chinese Civil War because of the army. Our president of the USA should have made that war.

Side: USA

Right now I will say the USA but things could change in the next few years.

Side: USA
1 point

I am Chinese and patriotic, but forgive me because I don't think China will win, especially at this critical moment. The domestic corruption is very serious, from government institutions to armies in China, everything should be measured by interpersonal relations, rather than your talents or abilities. The amateurs are leaders of professionals; the politicians are parents of citizens. Just because they have good relations or born in rich or official family. If you wanna do something important, you have to beg the politicians to do what should be their jobs. The PLA is outgunned if confronted with the unarmed citizens, but it will be different situation if encountered the US Armies.

Side: USA
tbw3012(11) Disputed
1 point

No confidence? Look at history when Germany invaded Russia/USSR and look at would happen if China was invaded by USA with the world's largest economy by ppp in China then China can shift their economy to mass producing weapons, tanks, missile defense, drones and all the other equipment with the stolen tech from America. Now, its stolen American tech the most advanced in the world vs America but in numbers. According to scientific law it mostly depends on who uses their numbers more wisely. It is most likely knowing that the Chinese have the history of Sun Tzu on their side. Its science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's laws

This is what China would do to deny America from attacking them

1. Assuming China's anti ship defense weapons are successful at denying America's aircraft carriers and naval vessels within the asian pacific area. Including Australia and everywhere else withinn Chinese reach which includes all of the middle eastern bases and the ones near India if any.

2. China gets support from new Russian missile defense systems like s-500 estimated to be mach 32 sorry no way to defeat this air defense so say by by to f-22 and f-35s and stealth craft they are now outdated so now it depends on who is able to use their craft since America is denied from using their aircraft they lose air superiority and ground superiority since there is no way to provide equipment and troops and tanks and etc.

3. Stealth bombers and weapons are now outdated so everything relies on cyberwarfare. Now, its a game of uncertainty so does m.a.d. assumming no nuclear weapons in this military conflict if America uses nukes then the world including America becomes extinct and nuked.

Will America risk the extinction of the human race by using nuclear weapons on Chinese military bases knowing that China's nuclear policy is to strike major metro areas including the west coast and east coast and midwestern major metro areas. Which is why they have a smaller nuclear arsenal because they don't target military bases but civilian targets as a form of deterrence to accept defeat from Chinese forces? If it remains in a non-nuclear conflict America will lose and if it is nuclear; America will be destroyed so both sides lose if it goes nuclear.

Also, assuming that s-300, s-400 and s-500 makes cruise missiles unable to penetrate bases so you have to use decoys so cruise missiles cause limited damage.

Also the western and southern flanks are protected by mass produced s-400s and s-500s and denial weapons that target military bases.

China has a better chance of winning if they use their numbers and economy to mass produce stolen American tech to outgun the Americans with their own technology. Not to mention that the pollution levels would be skyhigh in China from the sleeping giant warmachine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_(missile)

Side: China
1 point

China has positioned itself atop a precarious economic golden pinnacle: at the moment trade and industrialized business are the two major contributors to the Chinese economy. If, for one reason or the other, The United States became totally reliant upon India and Mexico for manufactured goods and materials, China would either have to evolve their economy, find a surrogate country to trade with, or crumble under significant economic losses. So with this in mind, why would China instigate a conflict with this prior knowledge? Even if the PLA expanded further into international waters within the South China Sea, a peaceable agreement would be far more beneficial for both opposing countries than gong to war. If war did break out, however, I believe that both the U.S. and China would suffer greatly from population loss and financial crises both during and after a Sino-American conflict.

Side: USA
1 point

NO. the United States would never go on a war with China because they are trading partner and also China holds $1.5 Trillion of US debt. But in terms of a materialistic war the United States out runs any nations. The US air force has 20295 total aircraft with 5924 combat aircraft including (fighter jets and attack-helicopters) compared to China with 4709 total aircraft and 2573 combat aircraft. But despite this if a nuclear war was to break (highly unlikely) both countries would be devastated. US Nuclear Arsenals would destroy China faster because the States has 7500 Nuclear warheads out which 2106 are active meaning ready to fire at any time. The US has a greater advantage because it has Air force bases across Europe and Asia. So it would be impossible for Chinese army to reach US mainland.

MATERIALISTIC COMPARISON:

United States / China

Active Personnel: 1.4 million / 2.33 million

Reserve Personnel: 1.11 million / 2.3 million

Tanks: 8,848 / 9,150

Armoured Vehicles AFV: 41,062 / 4,788

Total Aircraft: 13,892 / 2,860

Fighter Jets: 2,207 / 1,066

Attack-Helicopters: 920 / 196

Total Naval Strength: 473 / 673

Aircraft Carrier(s): 20 / 1

Destroyers: 62 / 25

Frigates: 10 / 47

Submarines: 72 / 67

Nuclear Weapons: 7500 / 250

Defence Budget: $577.1 Billion / $145 Billion

SOURCE: Global Fire-power (2015)

Side: USA
tbw3012(11) Disputed
1 point

1. Assuming China's anti ship defense weapons are successful at denying America's aircraft carriers and naval vessels within the asian pacific area. Including Australia and everywhere else withinn Chinese reach which includes all of the middle eastern bases and the ones near India if any.

2. China gets support from new Russian missile defense systems like s-500 estimated to be mach 32 -130 sorry no way to defeat this air defense so say by by to f-22 and f-35s and stealth craft they are now outdated so now it depends on who is able to use their craft since America is denied from using their aircraft they lose air superiority and ground superiority since there is no way to provide equipment and troops and tanks and etc.

3. Stealth bombers and weapons are now outdated so everything relies on cyberwarfare. Now, its a game of uncertainty so does m.a.d. excluding nuclear weapons so no nukes in this military conflict

Will America risk the extinction of the human race by using nuclear weapons on Chinese military bases knowing that China's nuclear policy is to strike major metro areas including the west coast and east coast and midwestern major metro areas. Which is why they have a smaller nuclear arsenal because they don't target military bases but civilian targets as a form of deterrence to accept defeat from Chinese forces? If it remains in a non-nuclear conflict America will lose and if it is nuclear; America will be destroyed so both sides lose if it goes nuclear.

Also, assuming that s-300, s-400 and s-500 makes cruise missiles unable to penetrate bases so you have to use decoys so cruise missiles cause limited damage.

Also the western and southern flanks are protected by mass produced s-400s and s-500s and denial weapons that target military bases.

Side: China
4 points

I believe they have us greatly outnumbered, I'm not sure how their expertise in fighting may be.

Side: China
5 points

to state china has 500000000 soldiers and they all receive the same training,and all it takes for china to defeat USA is to have a leader like Napoleon Bonaparte 1. no more......

Side: China
3 points

the most clear factor is population and determination, Chinese are determined people

http://yeinjee.com/asianpop/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/winter-training-chinese-03.jpg check that out

Side: China
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
3 points

Napoleon did not win wars he lost them. If they really want a good leader for their style of battle which is throw troops at them until we win they would want someone like general Grant. He did do incredibly well until his fatal blunders in Russia.

Side: USA
Nautilus(629) Disputed
2 points

It doesn't matter that the Chinese outnumber the Americans nearly 4.34 to 1, because the US has a large number of very powerful allies but they also spend much more on military then China does. The US spends 46.5% of the world military spending while China accounts for 6.6%. Not only current spending but the US has the economic capability to spend more than China ever could. The US has a GDP of 14.2 trillion dollars while China's sits at 4.99 trillion. If there ever was a war, the US could spend much more money on it, also the US contains most of the worlds weapons manufacturers and by far the most advanced military technology on the planet. Numbers don't really matter when it comes to modern warfare, the numbers game may have worked up until the end of WW2 as the soviet union almost single handedly won WW2 with while sustaining massive casualties, but now technology and money wins wars hands down if they are committed. All china has going for them is numbers, but the money, technology and powerful allies of the US would almost certainly defeat china.

Side: USA
korii(11) Disputed
5 points

ok fine you brought in you r GDP fine thanks for that but if USA spends that a year then how much does china spend on 500000000 soldiers a year without military equipment ,i mean that is the population of almost africa

Side: China
4 points

Now before I start don't get me wrong i'd rather the usa win but it's about a 23% chance. China has a poulation of almost 1,400,000,000. 1/6 of the worlds population. The usa has only 300,000,000. Normally about 2% of a countrys population is in the army one way or another. But in. A war-time draft it cold be around 20-55% but with china's communist like government they could force on every able-bodied person to fight. About 70% so you can do the math youself and see that it would most likely be china to win. However it's very unlikely for a one on one war between any 2 countries especially these two the most popular among the world

Side: depends
6 points

Not only that but if the US was to invade China they'ld almost definatly take the route through neighbouring country's and with China's infulence as the flagship for Asia the US could find themselves at war with one of the most powerful continents in the world.

At this moment, China is also one of the only country's in the world who might be able to bail out the Eurozone, they could easily have countries like France and Germany (maybe even Britain) supporting them.

Side: China
Majorlowe(1) Disputed
2 points

"With China's influence as the flagship for Asia, the U.S could find themselves at war with one of the most powerful continents in the world"

You're joking right? China constantly bullies it's neighbors. The only ally they really have in Asia is North Korea, most Asian nations would most definitely side with The United States of America. One of our closest allies, despite WWII, is Japan, we also have The Philippines (U.S Territory) and Taiwan as well, plus many others. Those that are neutral, could end up siding with the U.S. Money talks, and the U.S is the richest nation in the world. And that is known internationally. It is also known that we have the most powerful and most advanced military in the world. If you were small nation caught up in the mix, who would you side with? I definitely would not want to be an enemy of the United States.

Also, China is not the only country that can bail out Europe. The U.S is technically the only one who can bail them out. You do realize that China owns only less than 8 percent of the entire U.S debt right? 2/3 of the U.S debt belongs to the U.S Government themselves, as well as American Investors, Banks, Civil Service workers and Military personnel through their pension plans. China's GDP is half the amount of ours. Oh and China has it's own set of debt as well, trillions by the way.

Side: USA
tjones101(1) Disputed
2 points

ok before you go to the math understand in was a us marine a us navy seal and a us green beret i have been all over the united states yes its population is only 389,624,126 and yes asia has over 3,987,645,126 yes there military is strong yes the do have nuclear warheads alot of them. but im going to tell you now in examplw in war world 2 at the end we launched to nucelar warheads that were atmoic on 2 diffreent countries in asia. no other country ever knew the us had a war head every other countrie pretty much crapped there pants. and just to think back then they thought because were small country they could take us down but the atomic bomb was the deal. i cant say what ive seen in action but i can say that we have the best technology in the world every othe rco0untrie is 50 years behind on the technology we have. but to this day we have devces that other countries have no idea about yes if nuclear war broke out we have 2000 more nuclear waqr heads then any other country besides russia. but our war heads are far more precise than theres the5rs are like the atomic bomb in 1947 our war heads are hydrogen bomb lithium bobms with twice the power as thiers.; also we are the only country that can launch a bowm from 10,000 miles away by touching a button every other country has to mailny fly or mainly operate by ship and be within 500 miles of there target causing us with a hugh warning hours beforee they could launch anyhow. the only possible way for any country to launch a warehead without us knowing hours ahea of time is by highjacking a us plane knowing us flightcodes arms codes and warhead codes and forcing a us captin to ferify by voice wich would niot happen there is no other way without the us knowing hours ahead of time. also just a little info we have technology to litteraly block a warhead launched at us causing it to exp-lode in the air or over seas away from land over 300 miles away like a green lasered electronic force feild that over runs the missle blocked the bomb forces it to explode as soon as it hits the feild line no other country has this technology every other country is us tanks from 20 years ago for gosh sakes. we are technology that causes every country to know not to even try and say they do we have the technology to stop it wich no other country really knows about just like the atomic bowm we launched 2 of them in 1947 ever country didnt even know there was such a thing so if theyn tried again we have technology they do not know about that wou;d be the same instince as world war 2 they would be in shoke of the technology we sercretly have. yes theirarmies are larger who care swe have the biggest air force the biggest navy and the most highley trained maned marines in the world casuing big advantages to the us in the earlie 1900 the united stated gave over 50 war ships to british columbia in exchange for peace between the us and them. we already have the largest navy and we gave 50 ships to british columbbia that we could claim back at any time. the us is the only country to fight in every war we are the only country to have military bases all across the world in war world 2 we had tropps in germany in japan in vietnam in so many diffrent places helping all these countries plus we still beat japan if we would call all of our troops all of our air force and navy with our technology just took all of them instead of fighting in 20 sdiffrent countires at once if we took them all and just attacked assia or africa or anywere there is no possible way for any country continent to stand any chance against us i know is served ive been there .

Side: USA
4 points

The chinese people are just too much to handle. You can't overpower them unless you have some high tech energy based alien multi advanced weapon. The chinese has copied all of the us tech uncluding electronics, weapons etc.

Side: China
4 points

For the nonce , China has risen into a gigantic force that would easily affect global economic balance , as USA does . Judging the aspect of military and financial , it has surely biased towards China ....

Side: China
4 points

For 1, China could create a vacuum cleaner effect by attacking Pacific Nations like Japan and Australia. This would draw the Americans to th Pacific Regions... but only to wear them out militarily. Whilst this primary theater of war is in operation a second and third theater could move from African bases to the east coast of America and West Coast simultaneously. If sufficient American forces are in the pacific to fight the Chinese the U.S homeland would be more vulnerable to a Landing party by sheer Numbers alone.

Side: China
3 points

There wont be a war between china and the united states. do you know how much money both countries make off each other?

Side: China

They have been hacking us for over 30 years and we didn't even know it. A simple cyber attack.

Side: China
3 points

The hacking industry has evolved crazily, and we are not nearly as skilled as China is and they have the worlds best Computers, also Compared Chinese power as in weapons and Tactics.

Kung-Fu is taught to all of the chinese in the military Vs. American Martial arts which is taught to all the special forces

China: An AK variant vs. US M8 Carbne, there is a reason the usa changes weapons very few years because their last one wasnt good enough, the AK never gets changed and its easy to use

Side: China
LIDF(1) Clarified
2 points

Lol do you think chinese military equipment are powerful? That's how funny are you supporting weak weapons to defeat USA are you retarded?

Side: USA

China hacks our Grid, then takes out the grid. With the grid token out, there's nothing but pure anarchy.

Side: China

It's obvious China would win because of more patriotic soldiers,more number of soldiers in the garrison ,better weaponry,shrew tactics,USA doesn't stand any chance.

Side: China
flewk(1193) Disputed
1 point

Not better weaponry. Not better tactics either. US has had a lot of experience with naval and air combat. China has none (modern).

Side: USA
1 point

Of course China could beat the USA in a war if God allows them to beat the USA....and He very well may allow that

Side: China
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

And why would God allow that?

Side: USA
1 point

Is your answer to any hypothetical or "could" question the idea that "if God wills it?"

Side: USA
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Do you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner? Yes or no please.

Side: China
1 point

China is referred to as "The kings of the East" in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and will come to the battle of Armageddon with a 200 million man army exactly as foretold in the Revelation. China today boasts of being able to put that many men on the battle field. It is written that ALL nations will come to battle over Jerusalem.....so the USA will no longer be the USA because they will no longer protect Israel...The USA will either fall under conquest of a foreign power or will be completely change "fundamentally" as Obama put it, so the USA wont' be the same country framed by the US Constitution. The USA in reality is not the same country as it stands now. It wouldn't take much to plunge the USA into almost complete chaos so that a boatload of Chi-Coms with AK-47s and bazookas or whatever they carry in light infantry could stomp right over the whole mainland of the USA

Side: China
1 point

1. Assuming China's anti ship defense weapons are successful at denying America's aircraft carriers and naval vessels within the asian pacific area. Including Australia and everywhere else withinn Chinese reach which includes all of the middle eastern bases and the ones near India if any.

2. China gets support from new Russian missile defense systems like s-500 estimated to be mach 32 -130 sorry no way to defeat this air defense so say by by to f-22 and f-35s and stealth craft they are now outdated so now it depends on who is able to use their craft since America is denied from using their aircraft they lose air superiority and ground superiority since there is no way to provide equipment and troops and tanks and etc.

3. Stealth bombers and weapons are now outdated so everything relies on cyberwarfare. Now, its a game of uncertainty so does m.a.d. excluding nuclear weapons so no nukes in this military conflict

Will America risk the extinction of the human race by using nuclear weapons on Chinese military bases knowing that China's nuclear policy is to strike major metro areas including the west coast and east coast and midwestern major metro areas. Which is why they have a smaller nuclear arsenal because they don't target military bases but civilian targets as a form of deterrence to accept defeat from Chinese forces? If it remains in a non-nuclear conflict America will lose and if it is nuclear; America will be destroyed so both sides lose if it goes nuclear.

Also, assuming that s-300, s-400 and s-500 makes cruise missiles unable to penetrate bases so you have to use decoys so cruise missiles cause limited damage.

Also the western and southern flanks are protected by mass produced s-400s and s-500s and denial weapons that target military bases.

Side: China
1 point

good good no one will win all win loose, just matter in time beacuse all the human brain thinking how to

Side: China