The US vs China (war game debate)

I thank deFool for suggesting this rather novel concept. It has been quite interesting.As I engaged in a half-round opening in round #1, I will similarly engage in a half-round closing this round.ClosingThis TOTAL WAR lasted 5 minutes. During these 5 minutes, the US began the process of launching a decapitating nuclear first-strike against China, one that would have been executed if not for the clear, unequivocal, unconditional surrender issued by China during this time. AgreementsMost importantly, CON agrees with PRO's moves for both China AND America. To the extent that CON agrees that the entirety of this war was a quasi-nuclear standoff that did not involve any direct violence, CON concedes the debate to PRO, as PRO has succeeded in mapping out a more accurate portrayal of this TOTAL WAR between America and China, given the caveats outlined in round #3 inherent in this scenario.Disagreements PRO/CON disagreements are noteworthy.D1) CON seems to believes that a war predicates some sort of debilitating armed interaction, that "we have reached the very final round and still have yet to begin the launches that were once thought to be key to the scenario."This is simply not a condition for a conflict to be defined as warfare. War was declared, hence this was a war, even if no one died, and not a single bullet was fired. War is simply the pursuit of political means via force of arms, and America pursued those means and benefited at the expense of Chinese sovereignty, without a single bullet fired, and without a single life lost.In real life, this is why no nation in the world would be caught dead advocating for a war with America...it would have to concede far too much to resolve such a conflict.D2 CON seems to think this was a Cuban missile crisis (CMC) - type scenario, but fails to realize that unlike the CMC, both combatants were ALREADY ENGAGED in TOTAL WAR, and that one side offered an unconditional surrender. Therefore, the results of this 5 minute war would have long-lasting repercussions, as the US would more than likely occupy China with China's unequivocal permission. This occupation would resemble a Japanese-style occupation - PRO will list some stipulations as examples:1) Full and total disarmament of China's nuclear arsenal and other WMDs2) Full and total disarmament of any portion of the PLA that could project power more than 100 miles off China's coast (i.e. dismantling the military and creating a self-defense force)3) Re-writing of China's governing document, as well as a wholesale reorganization of China's political structure.4) Mandatory disclosures to the US of any and all of China's military capabilities5) Heavy restrictions on energy consumption on the country6) Encouraging humanitarian and quality of life issues, while discouraging any and all heavy industry (which can fuel a rival military-industrial complex) D3) China would NOT declare a "triumphant victory". The results of surrender will be immediate, and pronounced. The economic freedoms that allowed China to build a force that threatened nuclear war with America would be curtailed. Take-awaysSome noteworthy observations outside the scope of this debate:T1) CON: "If there is a useful takeaway from this debate, it is that promises of easy victories should be taken as a dangerous warning sign that real war is imminent. This, more than "anger talk," or "saber-rattling" is a far more certain indication that planners are serious about causing a war. Alternatively, bravado could be seen as a sign that a nation is eager to avoid a fight."PRO agrees, with the caveat that despite its length, this war was anything BUT easy. Armageddon had been declared. The entirety of the Chinese military apparatus had to agree within 5 minutes to an unequivocal, unconditional surrender to its enemy lest it face total destruction. The US faced a real risk of a "minimal deterrence" strike launched by China against American population centers that could have wiped out the majority of the US population.T2) CON: "Another uselful takeaway might be that the US and China will continue to fight wars in the same manner that we saw in Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam. That is, indirectly, by proxy. Personally, I would expect the coming war with China to be economic, political and diplomatic."PRO agrees as well, fully, with CON's statement, and will add that the "economic, political, and diplomatic" war is currently ongoing.T3) China is rapidly modernizing. While this scenario may hold true today, in as few as 5 years China may indeed have a viable second-strike capacity against the US, and thus a viable deterrent. A nuclear standoff would then become much messier, and would not involve an immediate surrender on the Chinese side.---Cheers, and thanks for reading this debate.