America's military is the greatest in the world.

Before it begin, I should make it clear that our burden in this resolution will have to show that America would likely defeat any other country in a 1v1 situation. This is a great way of determining military superiority, but if my opponent wishes to cite power projection or the ability to handle varying situations as being part of the definition of "greatest military", I'm ready to handle that as well. Until then, I will assume that if America has no competing nation in terms of military might, it will effectively be the greatest in the world as of now. My approach to this debate will primarily be comprised of examining the basic branches of most military forces: ground, air, sea, and other. By taking a comprehensive view of most of America's military might, I'm confident that America has swept any opposition on most fronts, even numbers in some aspects. Also, I want to note that I will be referencing a lot of units, programs, etc. (as should be expected in a debate like this). Due to character limits, I will only reference a website I will depend on heavily or specific links I desire. Otherwise, most things I refer to here should be easily accessible via a quick Google or Wikipedia search. ==================== Ground Forces ==================== What's funny is that the video my opponent details features Thomas Barnett, who says early on in the video that the USA can kick anyone's @ss -- plain and simple. His talk henceforth is about transitioning to a state of peace, which while important for issues about foreign policy, has no business when having a debate about which country can kick more @ss. The first point I want to talk about that my opponent also addresses is the USA's amount of personnel. While I agree that obviously there are other countries (notably China) with a higher count this doesn't overpass the fact that often quality beats quantity. What this means in the relevant sense is that though China has large numbers, their technological inferiority, untested troops, and forced conscription puts a fierce damper on their effectiveness. Unless they had trillions of soldiers and were a nation equivalent to an ants, the USA has sufficient technological and personnel training to compensate for their lack in numbers. Innovative programs such as the BCT Modernization help vastly improve America's Army tactical advantage over enemies. Take a look at this link to get a brief summary of China's inadequacy[1]. Quite humorously, my opponent claims that the US "overtrains" it's soldiers. Unless the training was meticulously long or expensive as to damper the effectiveness of such a program, I can't see how over-training would occur. Obviously, it's true a single soldier can't do everything, but that's precisely why we have DIFFERENT UNITS FOR DIFFERENT OPERATIONS. For example, the reason why the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is so damaging for our Marines is because it isn't their job to find the terrorists among the innocent, to rebuild another nation's infrastructure, etc. That is precisely the main job of special forces. Marines and the Army do what they do best -- come into, blow sh! t up, and leave. My opponent then lists several examples of US technology not being as mighty as we think they are. I'll respond accordingly: 1. He unfairly downplays the importance of special forces - while Britain and Israel have special forces rivaling our own, the secrecy shrouding such units is too much to make any clear decision. However, what we do know is that the USA has quite a lot in their pockets - Seal teams (including former Seal team 6, now DEVGRU), Delta Force, CIA's Special Activities Division, Rangers, etc. 2. The UAV drones America uses are MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than any DIY ones you can make off Google. If it was that easy to make it, by simply Googling it, you really think other countries wouldn't do the same? As is with most DIYs, they feature a product that is similar but far inferior to the ones you are aiming to create. 3. To summarize USA's armor in development only in terms of it's artillery is silly and tunnel visioned. Not only are there many more programs out there (with a large portion dedicated on equipment), we have much more impressive land power than simply a artillery system in the making. First of all, the artillery system is designed to be accurate and overcompensate environmental conditions -- if you're willing to cite the system in question, I'd be helpful to determine it's effectiveness. Secondly, vehicles such as the M1 Abrams (easily at least among top 5 main battle tanks in service) are an incredibly important asset for America's land power. My opponent cites the assault rifles, and while it's true that the Army and Marine corps are looking for a candidate, the M4/M16 are still very powerful and reliable assault rifles. And of course, the Army relies on supporting it's troops with armor, so this integration should be able to overcome most odds they come across. To focus individually on the M4 and ignore all other aspects is to completely ignore any military conflict. ==================== Air and Sea Forces ==================== The USA has a staggering amount of aircraft and sea ships. To imagine this, the USA has the most (18,169) aircraft systems in service, with Russia's 3,888 being the second most. Such a stark difference in technology and numbers speaks for USA's air superiority. They have a plethora of highly effective aircraft, enabling the USAF to be well-suited for any situation. Likewise, the US Navy has a vast amount of ships. With USA being the top (1, 559), China comes in on second with only 760 - do note that the USN has a much more sophisticated navy. The pinnacle example are the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, aptly named supercarriers. In today's warfare aircraft carriers are seen as the flagships of any navy, and the USA boasts 11 of them. This means they have HALF of the world's aircraft carriers, with the best competing nations only having 2 (UK and Italy). ==================== Other things to consider ==================== I don't have enough character limits to expand on this point - I will in future rounds. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Determining a country's military might isn't as simple as listing facts, as I have done for a majority of this round. Further, separating branches into different categories isn't as simple as this as well - land troops can take over ports while sea ships can cut off supply routes reinforcing enemy ground forces. Modern warfare, especially given the direction the USA is headed towards, concentrates on having an interconnected system that relies on the strengths of it's units while compensating it with the different varieties others have to offer. However, what I have listed gives a clear thought of the military capability of the USA. This, coupled with years of experience and an immense military production rate certifies the USA as the sole military superpower of today. There are potential players, but right now it's the USA which dominates. ---References--- 1. . http://www.cnn.com... 2. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... 3. . http://www.strategypage.com... 4. . http://www.sipri.org...