The US vs China (war game debate)

The Objectives of This DebateSince this is a bit of a novel concept, I wanted to first clearly state before I continue what I see as PRO/CON objectives for this debate.PRO/CON have an obligation to describe the MOST REALISTIC SCENARIO given two EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC caveats:1) TOTAL WAR is a given, and there are "no diplomatic, economic or cultural opportunities to avoid full scale war."2) "The conflict is entirely isolated to the US and China", i.e. no outside intervention is allowed for this debate.PRO is articulating US actions while maintaining as much realism as allowed by the two caveats, and CON is articulating Chinese actions. Since US/China actions are heavily predicated upon realistic assumptions involving both parties, the expectation is that PRO/CON will be constantly challenging the circumstances inherent in the calculus that resulted in the action taken.Both PRO/CON agree that a US win is inevitable, but the degree and nature of the victory is highly contested. Whomever ascertains the more appropriate degree would be deemed the winner of this debate. RebuttalCON's moves1) Totally irrelevant. From CON's source: None of China’s long-range nuclear forces are believed to be on alert;most U.S. ballistic missiles are on high alert ready to launch within minutesafter receiving a launch order. http://www.fas.org...Thus, there are no "advanced stages" of launching a US nuclear strike. There is only the strike, and China does not have an early warning detection system, meaning that China will not know the US has launched until the warheads have already connected with their targets. 2) It is assumed that both China AND the US have already taken maximum defensive postures as is appropriate given the spectre of nuclear warfare. It is assumed that both populations have already been inundated with propaganda that (justifiably) heralds the end of the world and Armageddon. 3) It is assumed that both countries have already activated maximal, obligated military service. I do not know what the Chinese equivalent would be, but in the US, every single able-bodied male that is still obligated to serve through the Selective Service would ALREADY have been called to duty. 4) The Chinese have only two logical responses given a state of TOTAL WAR with NUCLEAR POWERS: a) IMMEDIATELY launch all available ICBMs against the US in what will amount to China's "minimal deterrence" strike against major US population centers, or b) IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDER. The reasoning behind this fatalistic scenario is that China is well aware that it does not possess a credible second strike capacity, meaning that its nuclear weapons are "use or lose". If China does not launch first, it will face the scenario where it will essentially be at the mercy of an unexpected decapitation strike from the US at any time, without warning. More than likely China will choose immediate surrender. If China delays such a scenario even by 5 minutes, it faces the distinct possibility of a US decapitation strike. A Chinese surrender is the most likely scenario because even if China decided to use such a scenario as a false pretense to prepare for a first strike against America, America would certainly utilize its second-strike capability to destroy China. Basically, any other option other than a truthful and forthright surrender will invariably result in the utter destruction of China.China has NO Counter-Strike Capability I cannot believe CON is still advocating the validity of a Chinese second-strike capacity. CON's own source is predicated upon the US launching only 60 warheads against all 20 Chinese DF-5A ICBM silos, accounting for multiple strikes and decoy silos. However, there's no reason to limit the US decapitation strike to a mere 60 warheads launched from submarines. There is no reason to fear a Russian counterstrike in this debate, so ALL of the US arsenal can be launched against China. That includes nearly 300 SLBMs (sub-launched ballistic missiles), another 450 ICBMs, all MIRV capable (i.e. multiple warheads per missile), and of course the B-2 stealth bomber fleet. This equates to thousands of nuclear bombs and warheads launched against China in what will essentially be a "nuclear carpet-bombing" of the country.It is highly likely that such a thorough strike will destroy any and all Chinese DF-5A nuclear silos as well as the DF-31A mobile ICBM systems that I brought up in round #3 and CON did not even mention. Once those systems are eliminated, China will cease to have a viable strike capacity against America in any form. It is also highly likely that such a thorough strike will erase most of the Chinese population, no matter how deep a bunker they have dug for themselves as a grave.CON's scenario of biological weapons (hemorrhagic fever) requires a viable delivery vehicle, i.e. a DF-5A ICBM. The US decapitation strike would render this scenario irrelevant to this debate.CON's chart depicting about 25 million Chinese casualties only assume 60 SLBMs launched in a first-strike by the US. As already stated, a US first-strike in this scenario, without fear of international intervention, will probably number in the thousands. The casualties in such a scenario will probably be upwards of over 1 billion.Conclusion The US move is simple - a MASSIVE, PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE.China's move is thus also simple - IMMEDIATE SURRENDER, or IMMEDIATE LAUNCH OF ALL ICBMs. Given that the latter option would still result in the same outcome of a US decapitation strike, the only real choice the Chinese have to achieve optimal results in this war is to IMMEDIATELY SURRENDER, sometime within the few precious minutes they have in the US launch cycle during which the US is confirming its pre-emptive strike.