The U.S. and allies would most likely win a war against Russia/China.

"The amount of money invested on defense and production does have a significant affect on a country's military effectiveness and strength." Indeed it does have an effect, but as I said, just because the US spends more than the rest of the world combined, doesn't mean the US can take on the world. "Tanks would be proven ineffective in such a war scenario with the U.S. and allies. A land based war between both parties is highly unlikely(unless air superiority is secured), only further proving the importance of sea and air domincance in such a confrontation. " Even if sea/air dominance was secured by USA/NATO, then US would have to continue the attack on land. That is where the USA and its allies would be crushed. "I think you misunderstood the title of the debate, TheRussian. The title is "The U.S. and allies would most likely win a war against Russia/China." I didn't specifically say NATO, but rather all of the United State's allies. At times I did only mention NATO, but American allies in the Pacific are included as "allies". In a full scale war, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan would come to the U.S. aid" I understand the title, but there is not a single logical reason why Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan would come to the USA's aid. 1. They are not in NATO and therefore have nothing obligating them to help the US. 2. Why would they join and have their country ravaged by war? That's like saying (for example) that since you actively get oil from Saudi Arabia, then they are your allies and would come to your aid in times of war. Those countries would not gain anything from joining the war effort, and wouldn't join. Even if they did, they are so close to China and Russia that they would be overrun in the first days of war. "Now you said that Taiwan has a very weak airforce, which is not true. The Taiwanese air force has some of the best U.S. aircrafts such as F-16's, which are expected to be upgraded to specifically counter new Chinese aircrafts." That may be true, but Taiwan only has 286 fighter jets in total, even less are F-16s. That is not a significant force. http://www.globalfirepower.com... "How can Russia and China repel the attacks coming from so many different locations?" China, alone, would be able to repel most attacks coming in from the East, while Russia would be able to cover the Black Sea and Eastern Europe. "You most likely will have US aircraft being sent in from Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, Germany, etc. to strike communication lines and key areas. Again, how can Russia and China repel such a massive offensive which would most likely take them by surprise?" Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan are so close to China that it will be no problem to overrun most of the NATO forces there even if they decided to join the war effort. Germany would also be unlikely to join the war effort because current relations between NATO and Germany are strained. In fact, Germany is currently considering to join BRICS, an alliance that includes Russia. Even if Germany does decide to actively support NATO, if aircraft are sent from Germany, they will be going in the direction of Moscow, where most of the best Russian forces are concentrated. That would be no easy fight to win. The attack would not be much of a surprise because: 1. These countries are already in bad relations, meaning that they are battle-ready. 2. We are in the 21st century, and you cannot move significant forces across oceans and continents without being noticed. http://www.nytimes.com... "U.S. carriers don't need to be close to a target to strike, they can stay at a distance." Yes, but if there is a missile that can single-handedly destroy an aircraft carrier at a range of 1,100 miles, then even "staying at a distance" won't be enough to keep aircraft carriers safe. "The Chinese navy presence in the Pacific is not capable of stopping a full U.S. naval offensive. Top U.S. officials are not concerned about the building of a second Chinese carrier, which only suggests China's navy doesn't pose much of a threat" The 7th fleet is (using my opponent's map) the USA's main naval force in the Pacific. Let's compare the 7th fleet to China's Navy, which is all located in the Pacific. 7th Fleet has 50-60 ships, while the Chinese Navy has 69 Frigates and Destroyers (which already outnumbers the 7th Fleet), along with 69 Submarines, 353 Coastal Defense craft and 119 Mining ships, which will make it very difficult for the 7th Fleet to maneuver because of extensive minefields. I think it is quite obvious that the Chinese Navy poses a very serious threat to the 7th Fleet. http://navysite.de... http://www.globalfirepower.com... "And we must not forget that the U.S. will not just send in a bunch of fighter jets to be shot down, they're going to take care of Russia's and China's air defenses." It is difficult to just fly in and destroy anti-air systems with no losses. Even as the NATO forces try to do this, they will take losses because of systems such as the S-400 and S-300. My opponent's next paragraph about penetrating through Russian defenses in the Black Sea is...misleading. I do not know where my opponent got this information (as he provided no source), but the Russian Black Sea Fleet is much more than what my opponent says. The Black Sea fleet consists of: 5 Anti-submarine ships 7 Amphibious ships 3 Submarines 16 Coastal Defense Warships 4 Minesweepers 9 Missile Boats http://flot.sevastopol.info... This force could hold-off NATO long enough at the choke-point that is the Bosphorous Strait for Russian forces to prepare on the shores of the Black Sea. My opponent mentions easily penetrating into the Black Sea and the attacking Russia from the West. While the NATO forces would get into the Black Sea, Russia's far superior ground forces would prove critical in not allowing NATO forces to land on Russian beaches. My opponent's next paragraph addresses the fact that Russia and China wouldn't be able to deploy their ground forces. Of course they would! Even when/if NATO managed to break through the naval defenses and get "boots on the ground", they would be met by an overwhelming force which NATO would not be able to handle. They would not be able to attack the US directly (at least not in the beginning of the conflict), but NATO forces would simply die out. NATO faces: 1. Having a hard time getting more and more expensive oil. 2. Transporting soldiers and equipment thousands of miles. 3. Being on the offensive. 4. Having less manpower. My opponent then speaks of F-18s/F-22s picking off enemy forces on the ground. While this is a possibility, there are not that many F-22s to talk about them as a ground-breaking force. There are less than 200 F-22s, and they would be easy targets for S-400s. I mean, 3-4 S-400s are capable of destroying USA's entire force of F-22s. F-18s are inferior to the F-22s and while US has a lot of F-18, they are Cold-war era technology. Russian and Chinese planes would be able to challenge the F-18 in the sky. Each surface-to-air missile system has its own radar and jamming them all would be impossible. NATO planes would still pop up on the radar and be a target. Russia alone has over a dozen ballistic missile silos all over the country and NATO would not be able to eliminate them all and make Russia as defenseless as my opponent portrays. http://russianforces.org... I would like to note that my opponent, once again, has not provided any sources. Although Europe has tried to move away from Russia's oil and gas, they have not managed to do so completely and to this day, over a third of European oil and gas is imported from Russia. Once this supply stops, it will be an enormous impact on Europe, where most NATO countries are located. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for the debate.