America's military is the greatest in the world.

My opponent's round largely consists of misperceptions and too narrow of a perspective." A funny thing to say considering that you're the one who's gauging a county's military might based solely upon the fact that it has some expensive toys. and it's misconception. "He either takes a too simplistic view, unfairly disregards effectiveness, and even gets some facts plain wrong. I will respond with my same format but incorporate my opponent's as well:" Ad homiem, if I'm guilty of such things then announce it at the same moment that you intend to show how. "My opponent rejects my point about quantity over quality by arguing countries like China have been updating it's military. First of all, he has absolutely no stable way of depicting or tracking the progress of China's military given their secrecy" http://www.sinodefence.com... Mmm, very secret. "Further, while they are very likely updating their army they are still racked with problems - notable conscription and inadequate equipment." I did say they were updating their equipment. "Not only does the USA army beat China in both regards" For numbers, remember that China still has more active personnel than the US, you know this, don't lie. For the second point, you can't say America has all the best stuff, because if you intend to stand by your "secrecy" point then you can't possibly know the epitome of Chinese military technology. "but it'd be ignorant to forget that the USA is ALSO improving their army as well. I already referenced a long-term program dedicated at transforming the US army for a more appropriate functionality given 21st century warfare (meaning a lot of integration, information networks, etc.)." Precisely how and how much such things improve combat potential is arguable and perhaps even nonexistent, it is therefore entirely irrelevant. "My opponent misuses the point about Russia facing a similar situation with the Nazis - they survived because the Nazis made two fatal errors: they attacked Russia in their own soil (i.e. harsh weather - Napoleon lost to this) and because their forces were spread from fighting the Allies and Russia." My opponent doesn't seem to realise that I know precisely why the Nazis lost to Russia (also, attacking them on their own soil? as opposed to attacking them on someone else's soil?) but what he fails to mention is that a vast majority of the German Werhmact infantry marched into battle with nothing but a bolt action rifle called the KAR-98. Then you have the MP-38 which wasn't much different from the MP-36, it was pretty much just an improved hammer. Towards the end of the war, as the STEG-44 drew closer to completion, more and more Wehrmact infantry were being equipped with the MP-38, note also the addition of the MG38 being replaced with the MG44 Mashiengun (yes that is where we get the word for it, but I'm not confident of the spelling) The Germans were very very keen to perfect the notion of automatic weaponry and arm their soldiers accordingly. The very presence of the MG44 was something that demoralised Allied soldiers simply because it was that effective. The unignorable fact is that weapons can turn the tide, it's entirely probable that Germany may have never truly conquered Russia even if it had turned the tide because of Russian weather, and yes attacking Russia was an enormous mistake, however my opponent disregards entirely the part played by the individual soldier and the tools and training he is given, without which an army is nothing. "Did you not read my round?" I did, yes, and your round ignored the splintered US military that Barnett spoke of (amusing considering that you believed without question his testimony that America can "kick anyone's @ss") and also didn't adequately answer for my point (which again, Barnett agrees with) that the US over trains each individual soldier. I think I have the right to mock you a little for spouting phrases like "different units for different operations" when you've yet to realise that by nature, that means that the US military isn't as good as it looks on paper because unlike so many other countries, the US takes some unearned pride in it's ability to build nations. Do you think a morally ambiguous nations like China will care about nation building? "Having boastful special forces in no way lets us examine their tactics, review their cases, etc." http://www.marines.cc... No, I not be kidding you. "which in the overall scheme of warfare, doesn't matter that heavily). " Thanks for that. "We still have Delta force, DEVGRU, Special Activities Division, etc. In fact, the amount of branches and units are quite lengthy[1]." What's this? Using someone else's arguments are we? "Lol, you kidding me again? I honestly doubt I need to reinforce my point here - having a ghetto attempt at a UAV in no way compares to state-of-the-art military equipment" and Matilda tanks couldn't stand up to German Panzers, still took them on though. "I'm not sure what's sad about watching this program - I do too :)" It's hosted by a generic macho man who's probably never seen boot camp, much less combat, who seems to think himself an expert on military matters because he can spout the occasional piece of blindingly obvious tactical information and it talks about weapons that, bar a few, are mostly too costly, too wasteful, ineffective in the field or just plain dumb. Oh, and I hate his voice. "anyway, your video bolsters my point that the USA army is constantly devising and developing new weaponry." Not an Army project, the presence of the US Colonel was to see if the artillery system in question was worthy of US military use. This was a civilian or weapons manufacturer project, not a development funded by the US Army. "Accuracy involves being able to account for these factors, so honestly I have no clue why my opponent links me a new improved artillery system that helps the USA defeat environmental problems." Because you asked for the link, don't be coy. You said: "if you're willing to cite the system in question, I'd be helpful to determine it's effectiveness" "it can fare enough with most units relying confidence in their rifle (around 90%)" Now where did that little statistic come from? Also, this point on your behalf contradicts with your argument against my point regarding the STEG-44. "Unless you can demonstrate a stark consistent example of it's failures then your point is moot (it'd simply be you chanting we need better guns, without showing a demonstrable capable gap in the M4 that leads to considerable repercussions)." http://en.wikipedia.org... Not so great considering that American military units are operating quite a bit in deserts and other dusty environments. Also see the subsequent paragraph. "I never stated the Abrams, just stating it's superiority as a main battle tank. It'd be foolish to attack it's lack of invulnerability and yet ignore it's impressive capabilities" And it's arrogant to ignore it's weaknesses in favour of emphasising it's strengths. "I never stated the Abrams" Um, yes you did, you're the one that brought it up. "again, using your Nazi point is ridiculous" mmm, ridiculous, of course, the point that a previous world power had the best tanks and yet was still beaten is entirely irrelevant in an argument about the superiority and battlefield usage of an modern tank. "they lost simply because they bit off more than they could chew," I was referring to individual tank battles, not the overall war effort, please stop exaggerating. "but the USA military DOESN'T DO THAT" So did you never study the Vietnam war? or were you not told about all the air strikes in the second gulf war and how the shock and awe strategy relied mostly on bombers and fighter/bombers flying sorties over places like Baghdad? Not only does the U