World War III Part 3

The Pro uses almost exclusively numbers to suggest a complete overrun of my coalition of countries against his forces through sheer numbers, but there are many other factors that defines war that he completely missed. Technology: Israel has the most advanced military force in the middle East while many Middle Eastern countries rely on their own manufactured weapons that arent even comparable to 1970's US technology. Russia is still using Cold War technology which caused the massive country to almost completely screw up an invasion of a country the size of Missouri... The inferiority of Middle-East technology and what is left of Russia's military would reduce their effectiveness in combat considerably. Terrain: Israeli Tanks and Air force have a far greater range and striking capability than any weapon the Middle Eastern countries could whip up, and Eastern Europe is still about 80% forests that would force any large scale Russian invasion to bottle neck through the limited openings in the forest that give it access to the rest of Europe. Such terrain would slow down such an invasion to a crawl where resistance fighters in the invading countries could roadblock, set land mines, patrol with anti-tank weapons, etc. which would do untold damage to their forces. Leadership: The power of an army can be greatly limited based on the experience or lack thereof by the general commanding it. Israel has perhaps one of the finest sets of generals and commanders in Middle Eastern history while other Middle Eastern countries take orders almost exclusively from their king/president who often has little experience in any kind of warfare or military strategy. In the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein gave much of his orders to his million man army and his military strategy was so poor that in a matter of days he had to surrender and withdraw from Kuwait. The lack of leadership in Arab countries in the past significantly contributed to their failed invasions of Israel and ever since their military structure of giving orders remains unchanged and still ineffective. Russia meanwhile goes through the same system but on a more limited scale which would cause them to not have a significant detriment on the performance of their troops, but it would still be a factor in their ineffectiveness.... Willpower: Since it is agreed that the Arab nations are invading Israel and Russia is trying to annex Eastern Europe than the willpower of the countries on my side to not be overrun would triumph the will power of the Arab countries to pursue an endless siege against a superior opponent along with the willpower of Russia to engage in what would be a decades long conflict to try to annex countries of little resources at the expense of their economy. Supplies to their army: Russia as agreed is very poor and limited in their ability to supply any number of troops with armaments, ammunition, and supplies even within a reasonable distance, so their ability to supply troops trying to occupy Eastern Europe would raise an insurmountable number of logistics problems for supplying their army. In the middle East meanwhile Israel is in such close contact with their Arab nations that ability to supply their troops would require a minimal distance to move goods, the distance of Israel to the battlefields it would be fighting on would be comparable to the distance between Boston and New York... Occupation: The US could barely handle Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the most inferior armies in the world before 9/11, and after the US occupied those nations it took almost 10 years for the US to finally withdraw from ONE of them only when peace finally came. That being said it would take many many more years for an already technology inferior Russia to do the same against the nations of Eastern Europe who are also fighting with the same cold war technology the Russians gave them in the days of the Soviet Union. If Russia were to overrun any individual country in Eastern Europe the time and number of troops that would be needed to keep the region secure and stable would drain any remaining troops from an offensive further into Europe. Experience: Israel has fought countless wars in the past and knows the Arab battlefield so well its as if they designed it themselves whereas many Middle Eastern nations still rely on WWII style techniques of invasions that for decades have left them ineffective in operations against Israel. Russia meanwhile has not been in a severe military conflict since they invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's and even when they poorly handled Chechnya (which was WITHIN their own borders) battlefield experience among troops and generals was non-existent, and that remains the same to this day. The lack of experience from both sides would greatly reduce their ability to overrun Eastern Europe and Israel solely with superior numbers... Iraq: This seems out of pace I know, but if the Pro continues to state how Pakistan and Iran would contribute troops, then any troops they do commit would have to go through US held Afghanistan (if Pakistan were contributing forces) and then both nations would somehow have to cross through Iraq in order to play a part in the distant battlefields, and if Iraq were appeared to be overrun that could draw a large US response against these countries. After all this is taken into account It could be concluded that 1) Even if Russia were to somehow handle their military well enough to overrun a single Eastern-European country, the time drain on supplies and the number of troops needed to be used to secure the nation being occupied would be so great that it would cripple any additional invasion through the country and if given enough time Russia would have to pull out support, similar to Cuba, a small country that sapped so many resources it contributed to driving Russia into the ground. 2) The military expertise of Israeli leaders along with superior technology and an enormous willpower would allow Israel to repel any large scale Arab invasion (again) and that would allow Israel to overrun many of its nearby enemies in the process such as Lebanon, parts of Egypt, pieces of Saudi Arabia,etc. 3) Russia would not be overrun but given enough time any land they did seize during the war would become to costly for them to hang on to and in the end they will retreat back to their original borders, maybe even give up parts of their own country. In the Cold War when Russia imploded they had to secede much of its own territory to create independent countries in order to create a barely stable economy. In these times of instability it could happen again following a large scale Russian invasion... 4) Parts of the Middle East would flat out get their butts kicked by Israel which is superior to them on every level except troop numbers and face occupation. I now would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the Pro, this was hands down the most interesting and funnest debates I have ever had on this site, I enjoyed how he wanted to dive into this even more which spawned 2 other debates rather than force a vote at the end of the first debate. I would also like to thank any readers who have consistently read through these debates over a period of weeks and patiently waited for this final debate to start, your patience is nothing less than extraordinary. Thank you again :D