Challenge Match. Semperfortis v Sublime620: United States vs China, page

Challenge Match

Semperfortis v Sublime620

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Semper’s Opening:

First and foremost let me thank TheVagabond wholeheartedly for all of his work in this forum, it is greatly and constantly appreciated. Next, I would like to thank my esteemed opponent for allowing me to pit my wit and skills against an opponent of his caliber.

Proposition:

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

During this debate I will show you where circumstances are already in place that makes a war between the United States and China likely.

I will take you through numerous, future hypothetical, yet likely, circumstances that have a high degree of occurrence expectation, that increase that likelihood exponentially.

We will examine economic variables, world standing, monetary pressures, population estimations and military history to come to the ultimate conclusion that the debate topic is based in fact.

China’s position as a world power and the overall condition of her population will be examined as well as the situations in Taiwan and Darfur, and other likely “Hot Spots” that may occur in the future, that could lead to further aggressive behavior both from China and towards her.

In that same vein, we will look at the United States propensity to be the “Worlds Police Force” and her past behavior in that regard.

Argument:

While the United States likes to consider itself the single “Super Power” in the world today, often neglected is the presence of our neighbor to the Far East. Nuclear, Modern and undeniably huge, China has a daunting military worthy of world respect.

The Chinese Military, the PLA: Peoples Liberation Army was founded in 1927; but make no mistake, they are modernizing and advancing technologically at a pace at least equal to that of the United States. As this debate progresses we will further and in depth examine the Chinese Military and their capabilities. We will compare the Chinese military to that of the United States to obtain a better grasp of each countries motivation or lack thereof for a conflict.

What is war?

Cicero defines war broadly as "a contention by force"; Hugo Grotius adds that "war is the state of contending parties, considered as such"; Thomas Hobbes notes that war is also an attitude: "By war is meant a state of affairs, which may exist even while its operations are not continued"; Denis Diderot comments that war is "a convulsive and violent disease of the body politic;" for Karl von Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means"

War

Pay careful attention to; “A continuation of politics by other means.”

In this debate keep in mind the political world we find ourselves in and how those same politics have led us to the war we are now engaged in. We will look very closely at this as we proceed.

What causes a war?

War arises because of the changing relations of numerous variables--technological, psychic, social, and intellectual. There is no single cause of war. Peace is an equilibrium among many forces. Change in any particular force, trend, movement, or policy may at one time make for war, but under other conditions a similar change may make for peace. A state may at one time promote peace by armament, at another time by disarmament, at one time by insistence on its rights, at another time by a spirit conciliation. To estimate the probability of war at any time involves, therefore, an appraisal of the effect of current changes upon the complex of intergroup relationships throughout the world.
---- Wright, 1965: 1284

Understanding Conflict

Looking at that very complete assessment, one observes many of the variables that are occurring today both in China and in the United States. We will look more closely at this as we progress.

Economic Pressures
Territorial disputes
Treaties and the enforcement of those treaties
Defense Obligations
World Opinion
ETC

Each and every one of the pressure points that can spark an international conflict, and eventually lead to war, is present in the current relationship between China and the United States.
When looked at pragmatically, it is surprising that conflict has not broken out by now.

Just look at the times the United States and China have found themselves on opposing sides, in virtual full conflict, and somehow avoided a war.

Korea
Vietnam

Socratic Question #1:
“Do you believe that a war can be healthy for a failed or failing economy?”

Socratic Question #2
“Do you believe that war is ever inevitable?”

Summation:

In this debate I intend on leaving you with a better understanding of the internal and external pressures present in China. I will also show you how those pressures can and most likely will lead to war between China and the United States.

I will also show you how such a conflict may be caused by the United States as the “worlds most powerful economy” crumbles in the future and the pressures the Chinese are experiencing now, come to the West.

At the end, I will leave you with no alternative but to conclude that:

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Remember that 91 years and some change is a long, long time.

Thank you

Semper

Challenge Match

Semperfortis v Sublime620

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Semper’s Reply #1

Rebuttal:

The only thing stimulated by war in America is the military industrial complex. This may not be true in China, but certainly in America.

Wrong my opponent…

The war's effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production

WWII

Even now with our extremely limited engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, our economy benefits from increased production and technological advancement.

We are at the beginning of a new era of enlightenment. We are still learning, but at an accelerated rate.

I honestly believe that as social fears, religious extremism, and fascist regimes decline, so will necessity of war.

I hate to break it to you, but this is not the 24th Century, I am not Jean-Luc Pecard and the Islamic Extremists are winning in many countries and influencing political and economic decisions on a global scale.

Social fears, Religious Extremism and Fascist Regimes are currently at their peak of power and influence and there is no current indication they will decline anytime soon.

China’s propensity for violations of individual rights is well documented and apparently, looking at the current situation in Darfur, not declining at all.

The current juxtaposition of the Chinese philosophy of government and the United States, places those two countries on a direct path toward a violent confrontation. If the inevitable political and economic pressures do not force a war, one can be expected due to the complete incongruity of national ideology between the two super powers.

Not as far as I can see.

If war was foreseeable, it could most definitely be prevented; however that is never the case. War and violence are inevitable traits of mankind. This is a sad but very true statement.

the outcome if which would be so important that the rest of the world would be picking sides also.

The rest of the world always picks sides my valued opponent, however in most conflicts that makes little difference as to the outcome.

Remember we are not necessarily debating a full scale nuclear/global conflict. We can thank the Lord that after WWII conflicts have been kept strictly conventional. There is no reason to believe that a war between China and the United States would be any different.

What is the true cause of war in modern times? An epic lapse in reason and understanding.

Not necessarily, in fact I would argue that this is seldom the case. When a people are being repressed, destroyed, enslaved or conquered, there always has to be one that will stand and say “NO MORE!” Being a protector of the weak and defender of individual liberties, even on a global scale, is never a bad thing. If the United States finds herself embroiled in a war with China, defending the sovereignty of Taiwan, I would consider that very justified and support it completely. This is a very real possibility when considering any conflict between China and the United States.

Also as you will see later on, the very real threat of the rising economic strength of China could very well threaten the United States in such a manner as to make a war with China not only inevitable, but a last effort in order to survive as a nation.

Socratic Questions

Socratic Question 1: Who would instigate this war?

Answer:
I would hope it would be China; however if the actions of the Chinese Government are such that it forces the United States to step in and prevent a genocide or the conquering of a sovereign nation, then the United States could very well be the spark that ignites the flame.

If China’s economics become such that they threaten the continued existence of the United States as a sovereign nation, conflict would be justified.

If China’s intrusion into our electronic and technological databases continues unabated, I would consider conflict justified.


Argument:

Wars and rumors of wars

Man has always been at war. Man has always wished for peace, but that peace has always eluded man. There will always be evil in the world and because of that, there will always be a need for men, and countries, that will stand against that evil and combat it wherever it may flourish.

China has a history of blatant disregard for international law.

Regarding the article "China enhances its cyberwar forces" (Aug. 30): The ability of Chinese government hackers to break into sensitive government and military Web sites shows not only the callousness that the Chinese have toward the governments of free nations, but also the increased threat that China poses toward its neighbors and the United States.

It is only a matter of time until the Chinese military will be able to break into the Pentagon's computer systems. What's at stake here is not the dominance of a superpower, but the freedom of the entire world.

China Threat

Want a current and looming reason for a war between the United States and China? There you have it.

The electronic age has advanced individuals, nations and the world at an incredible rate. The one significant downfall to this is the increased susceptibility of foreign tampering or even hostile actions against a nation’s electronic infrastructure. Is there any doubt that the United States will NOT sit still and allow our most important secrets to fall into Chinese hands?

Just another likely scenario for conflict between the United States and China.



Economic Parity:

The United States and China are locked in a long-term competition for economic primacy. China, today the smaller challenger, is growing at a much faster rate than the more mature economic engine of the United States. This dynamic change is generating the conditions for an overtaking in the future, anticipated to be between 2025 and 2035. From our strategic perspective, this places China into the zone of parity and potential transition with the United States. Our empirical work shows that under conditions of parity, peace is achieved when both parties are satisfied. But if the challenger is dissatisfied, the probability of war increases dramatically.

Oxford Journal

As you can see in the above referenced article, as economics reach a level of equality, the prospects for conflict increase exponentially. In the article you will find comparison relationships with many European Countries as well and the unlikely probability of any conflict with them and the reasons behind the probability of conflict with China.


Remember that a “Status Quo” is never maintained for any period of time between competitive nations in economics.

Another reason why:

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Summary:

While my opponent would like you to believe that the world is fast becoming a place of serenity and calm consideration; the opposite is actually more factual. Economic pressures, religious intolerance and territorial disputes are at an all time high and these have always been the “blasting caps” for global conflicts.

The fact is that the United States will never sit idly by and allow China to completely dominate global policy and world economics.

Therefore:

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Thank you

Semper

First Rebuttal

My opponent has made a critical oversight. The US is no longer a nation that produces. In WWII, we had companies at home producing all of the guns, clothes, food, etc for the soldiers. There were so many jobs open that women were often called in to do "men's work".

The reality of war on the US economy today?

It is costing us money. Great money. Don't get me wrong, the military industrial complex is cleaning up, but the American citizens are being raped of our tax money to pay for the war.

First Source

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Socratic Question 1: How many factories have opened up in your town since the start of the war?

There are people profiteering from the war, certainly, but it is not being distributed as it was in the old days. So who's making the money?

Second Source

The U.S. lawmakers have invested a total of 195.5 million U.S. dollars in the defense department's contract companies and gained much profit from the Iraq war, said a new study released on Thursday.

Any questions? Between our own law makers and companies like Haliburton, there is no money for anyone else.

I hate to break it to you, but this is not the 24th Century...

Social fears, Religious Extremism and Fascist Regimes are currently at their peak of power and influence and there is no current indication they will decline anytime soon.

We have made great strides in the past 50 years. Fifty years ago, blacks couldn't use the same restrooms as whites. We are becoming a more tolerant and advanced society.

The abundance of liberal teaching and information (thanks internet) have allowed many to have an opinion that is not fed to them by the media.

The rest of the world always picks sides my valued opponent, however in most conflicts that makes little difference as to the outcome.

Exactly. This would not be US v. China. It would be much worse than that.

Not necessarily, in fact I would argue that this is seldom the case. When a people are being repressed, destroyed, enslaved or conquered, there always has to be one that will stand and say “NO MORE!” Being a protector of the weak and defender of individual liberties, even on a global scale, is never a bad thing.

There's a large difference between social conflicts and global war. In fact, Iraq is a great example of a social conflict that we imposed ourselves into.

When a nation says "NO MORE!", a civil war will ensue, and social justice prevails. This has always been the case in history.

When a nation wants to free itself, it does.

I would hope it would be China

I agree. In fact, I would say that it would have to be China. The United States is simply to liberal for unjust wars.

If China’s intrusion into our electronic and technological databases continues unabated, I would consider conflict justified.

Really? You are prepared to sacrifice, say, 200 million lives? That is bold, my friend. I'm not so sure the American public agrees.

Want a current and looming reason for a war between the United States and China? There you have it.

The electronic age has advanced individuals, nations and the world at an incredible rate. The one significant downfall to this is the increased susceptibility of foreign tampering or even hostile actions against a nation’s electronic infrastructure.

Hmmm. I must say, your reasoning has me confused.

Do you have any idea how bad our government's online security is?

Third Source

McKinnon (AKA Solo) admits he infiltrated computer systems without permission. The 41-year-old former sysadmin said he gained access to military networks - using a Perl script to search for default passwords - but describes himself as a bumbling amateur motivated by curiosity about evidence of UFOs. He said numerous other hackers had access to the resources he was using and questions why the US authorities have singled him out for extradition.

So, instead of going to war... how about we upgrade our security systems? Hey, it would produce new jobs at home?

So, the first problem has been avoided using a little common sense.

How about problem 2:

As you can see in the above referenced article, as economics reach a level of equality, the prospects for conflict increase exponentially. In the article you will find comparison relationships with many European Countries as well and the unlikely probability of any conflict with them and the reasons behind the probability of conflict with China.

Again, first instinct is towards war? As I said, we have enlightened ourselves a bit, and we now recognize that war is not always the best option.

Fourth Source

That's good news all round. For sure, China's stupendous economic growth is unsettling. As Washington economist (and former Clinton adviser) Robert Shapiro points out, China's exporters are taking markets away from nations like Mexico, Thailand and Brazil, all of which need to see steady growth to raise their populations' standard of living. But over the coming decade, the U.S. will have a vital interest in maintaining a mature dialogue with China�on what to do about North Korea, the future of Taiwan, global warming and the demand for fossil fuels. The last thing Washington needs is a row with Beijing about trade. If that means more Treasury Secretaries flying back from negotiations with their Chinese counterparts with not much more than a few cheap rugs, too bad.

Time Magazine doesn't even support a trade war with China, let alone full blown military intervention.

Challenge Match

Semperfortis v Sublime620

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Semper’s Reply #2

Rebuttal:

My opponent has made a critical oversight. The US is no longer a nation that produces.

Hardly an oversight my good opponent; simply a refusal to be subjected to absolutes. You are limiting yourself in this debate by making statements like the above that have no basis in reality.

Of course we still produce and that production is augmented and increased by war; you may not like it, but it is factual.

I will not use up an inordinate amount of my allotted URL LINKS in giving you a list of companies that are currently “doing better” because of the conflicts we find ourselves embroiled in, but here is a short list.

General Dynamics
Alliant Techsystems
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Incorporated
AM General

On and on and on…

All producing military necessary technological materials and all employing thousands of Americans due to the demand for such materials.

but the American citizens are being raped of our tax money to pay for the war.

Wrong again.

When was the last major income tax hike? Last I checked the Bush Tax Cuts were still in effect and will be until 2010.

Socratic Question 1: How many factories have opened up in your town since the start of the war?

Answer:
Completely irrelevant, I live in a resort town. Never been any manufacturing, never will be.

However: The simple fact that we have transformed from a production based war economy to a technological based war economy is no less profitable for the average American.

Any questions? Between our own law makers and companies like Haliburton, there is no money for anyone else.

That makes no economic common sense whatsoever; unless of course you were beaten out of a military contract by Haliburton. What exactly does “no money for anyone else” mean?

We have made great strides in the past 50 years. Fifty years ago, blacks couldn't use the same restrooms as whites. We are becoming a more tolerant and advanced society.

Oh really?

Government respect for religious freedom in China "deteriorated markedly" over the last year, the report said. It found the Chinese government actively persecutes members of unregistered and minority religious groups, including Tibetan Buddhists and followers of the Falun Gong sect.

CNN

Ever heard of……
Sunnis and Shi'ite's?
Islamic Extremists
Tiananmen Square

We are definitely NOT becoming anymore tolerant in our “advanced” society.

Have you not been listening to the news in the past few years? The prevalence of Islamic Extremists and their influence in European Countries is increasing at an alarming rate. Just because the Civil Rights Movement has taken great strides in no way justifies your statement. “Black Vs. White" is a VERY minor tolerance issue in world politics.

This would not be US v. China. It would be much worse than that.

Picking sides and actively engaging in conflict are two completely different individual “National Policies” my opponent.

Historically you will find this has been proven numerous times.
China in Vietnam
China in Korea
Iran in Iraq
Syria in Iraq
ETC

Your assessment that “It would be much worse” is not based on supportive factual evidence at all and is merely a personal opinion with no historical or empirical evidence to support it.

There's a large difference between social conflicts and global war. In fact, Iraq is a great example of a social conflict that we imposed ourselves into.

Tell the 10’s of thousands of dead Kurd’s families that Saddam was NOT waging a war on them. Perhaps YOU may be able to justify their deaths as a “Social Conflict” however I seriously doubt that makes their surviving family members feel any better.

When a nation wants to free itself, it does.

That is pure revisionist history, again with no basis in fact. It is a matter of historical fact that even our vaunted United States revolution could not have been possible without the help of the French and other supporting countries.
With the exception of some smaller, rather insignificant city states, I know of no major revolution that was successful completely independent of foreign assistance.

Socratic Question #1
“Name any SUCCESSFUL revolution that occurred with absolutely NO assistance from any other foreign entity”

Really? You are prepared to sacrifice, say, 200 million lives?

Is this another personal assessment, or do you have some factual evidence to support that figure? Espousing large casualty figures may have “shock” value, but as they are completely without factual merit, they are irrelevant. As has been stated, a war between China and the United States would not necessarily be nuclear.

So, instead of going to war... how about we upgrade our security systems? Hey, it would produce new jobs at home?

Perhaps you should run for office or invent a “Hack Proof” security system for the Pentagon as the current resident experts seem to be unable to do so.

Again, first instinct is towards war? As I said, we have enlightened ourselves a bit, and we now recognize that war is not always the best option.

No one is saying it is the “Best option” only those world experts in economic parity predict such a war. Key word there being experts. (See my previous links)

Time Magazine doesn't even support a trade war with China

Relevance please?

Argument:

Living in denial got the United States, Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001; continuing to live in that world of denial will inevitably bring us more tragedies.

We continually deny that Humans are inherently violent

We deny that historically the world uses war to resolves differences

We deny reality and continue to tell ourselves that the world is a better place and could not possibly be so evil as to again be enveloped in a World War.

The evidence is all around us and as the tensions grow, the likelihood of a war between China and the United States looms more and more likely.

In the coming years, as China’s economy booms and its armed forces grow, the United States will seek to curb Chinese military power and influence. The U.S.-China rivalry is poised to become the world’s most dangerous strategic relationship.

The United States is pursuing capabilities that are rendering MAD obsolete, and the resulting nuclear imbalance of power could dramatically exacerbate America’s rivalry with China.

The result today is a global nuclear imbalance unseen in 50 years. And nowhere is U.S. nuclear primacy clearer—or potentially more important—than in the Sino-U.S. relationship.

Atlantic.com

If ever there was direct evidence supporting:::

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

The above informational link will provide it.

As frightening as it may be to intellectually pursue such a thought process, to do anything less, is to live with our “heads in the sand”.

The idea of a war between the United States and China is not a sudden and surprising development.

US Confrontation With Chinese 'Could Come Earlier Than Expected'
By CNN Senior China Analyst
Willy Wo-Lap Lam

The Iraqi war has convinced the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership that some form of confrontation with the U.S. could come earlier than expected.

Beijing has also begun to fine-tune its domestic and security policies to counter the perceived threat of U.S. "neo- imperialism."

Hu indicated earlier this year Beijing must pay more attention to global developments so that "China make good preparations before the rainstorm ... and be in a position to seize the initiative."

Rense

Now examine closely the phrase:

“In a position to SEIZE the INITIATIVE”

If nothing else in the debate captures your attention, this one all telling phrase should.


Remember these quotes from “The Art of War by Sun Tzu, 600 BC.”

Opportunities multiply as they are seized.

All warfare is based on deception.

Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions.

Art of War

The FACTS are clear….

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Thank you

Semper

Response to Socratic Question

Socratic Question #1: “Name any SUCCESSFUL revolution that occurred with absolutely NO assistance from any other foreign entity”

Right off hand, in recent years? Though we may not have agreed with the outcome, the people clearly spoke in Cuba.

First Source


American trade dominated Cuba during the first half of the 20th century, aided by US government policy measures assuring influence over the island. This continued until 1959, when dictator Fulgencio Batista was ousted by revolutionaries (the major group was led by Fidel Castro). The banishing of American corporate holdings led to breaking of relations with Castro's government by the US. This position on Cuba was heavily reinforced by Castro's Soviet support and his loud anti-Americanism. Cuba has since been an isolated island dominated by Castro's dictatorship.(relations with the US). Castro remained in power from 1959 to 2008, first as Prime Minister then from 1976 as President of Cuba. On February 18, 2008 Castro announced he would not accept the nomination of president and would resign from power. Raúl Castro was elected President at the 2008 National Assembly session on February 24.[1][2]



Cuba is a prime example of what happens when a country is fed up.

And it only makes sense. The Iraqi people, for instance, have the greatest military ever compiled on their side, and they still cannot finish this "revolution". They do not know what they want, therefore, we cannot give it to them.

Second Rebuttal

Originally posted by semperfortis
I will not use up an inordinate amount of my allotted URL LINKS in giving you a list of companies that are currently “doing better” because of the conflicts we find ourselves embroiled in, but here is a short list.

General Dynamics
Alliant Techsystems
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Incorporated
AM General



This is what my opponent uses for "stimulating" the economy. Yes, those companies are probably making good money. They may have hired a few more workers here in America, but most of those would be for high education positions.

The manufacturing is still being done outside of the country. Average Joe America is not benefiting from this war. White Collar Already Has Too Much Money America is who is benefiting.



Originally posted by semperfortis
Wrong again.

When was the last major income tax hike? Last I checked the Bush Tax Cuts were still in effect and will be until 2010.



Bush tax cuts? Let's not let this turn into partisan banter. I hardly think cutting tax rates on capital gains is of any relevance to this discussion.



Originally posted by semperfortis
Completely irrelevant, I live in a resort town. Never been any manufacturing, never will be.

However: The simple fact that we have transformed from a production based war economy to a technological based war economy is no less profitable for the average American.



But see that is the point. Regardless of what town you live in, production companies have not moved in. They are all still moving out. So while these companies you listed above are growing profits and revenue, that's not being disbursed at all.

The simple fact is: blue collar workers of America have it tougher during times of war than normally. That's not how it used to be, but things have changed.



[Originally posted by semperfortis
That makes no economic common sense whatsoever; unless of course you were beaten out of a military contract by Haliburton. What exactly does “no money for anyone else” mean?



What does that mean? What is there to not understand?

The money is not passed down. Yes, there are a few CEO's and independent contractors that get to line their pockets with extra cash, but no one else.

In the old days, war profiteering was as big as it is today, but at least then it used to create jobs at home. The money was, in essence, filtered down through the public. Due to outsourcing, that no longer happens in America.



Originally posted by semperfortis
We are definitely NOT becoming anymore tolerant in our “advanced” society.

Have you not been listening to the news in the past few years? The prevalence of Islamic Extremists and their influence in European Countries is increasing at an alarming rate. Just because the Civil Rights Movement has taken great strides in no way justifies your statement. “Black Vs. White" is a VERY minor tolerance issue in world politics.



Again, I think we are getting a little of topic here, but I will retort.

First, I was clearly referring to Western countries. Though I do believe America and her European friends do need a lot of work, we are setting an unprecedented standard in social awareness.

Second, Islamic extremism is bi-product of war, occupation, and forced idealism. Want to stop terrorism in Western countries? Pull out of Iraq, grow energy sources to become as independent as possible from oil, and let the Middle East set their own policies.

We can either do that, or go into full blown war there.

But that's neither here, nor there. That has to do with our policies abroad, and countries far less advanced socially than we are. They have a long way to go to catch up to us.



Originally posted by semperfortis
Tell the 10’s of thousands of dead Kurd’s families that Saddam was NOT waging a war on them. Perhaps YOU may be able to justify their deaths as a “Social Conflict” however I seriously doubt that makes their surviving family members feel any better.



Spin it however you want. What we are doing right now is holding the hand of a country that is in social conflict.

There is mass genocide going on in many parts of the world that we don't police. In fact, Clinton tried to stop genocide in Bosnia and such, which caused Bush to run on the campaign slogan of "No Nation Building".

Occupying a region in hopes of establishing a new government = Social Conflict.

China her allies v. US hers' = Global War.

Quite a difference.

Could the US even gather the forces for such a war? Not without major confrontation directly from the Chinese. What does that mean?

In my opinion, my opponent needs to prove that China plans to attack us.

Do the judges not agree that China attacking America would be the only way that our military would gather the forces up for such a war? After all, the United States has been through in this wasteful Iraq war, do the judges really buy my opponent's theory that American's will go die in China over cyber-attacks?

My opponent then tried to fool us into believing that the US and China are going to begin another cold war, and I must say, that surprises me. It seems we may face similar circumstances to the U.S. and U.S.S.R. cold war.

In what way does that lead to war? Both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were smart enough to know that war would have meant the destruction of both countries. It was not winnable.

Just like the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was a stalemate, so will be the U.S. and China.

It would be absolutely irrational for either the U.S. or China to start conflict. Not only would both superpowers crumble, but if nuclear war ensues, it could be the end to humanity.

Socratic Question

Socratic Question 1: How could either country achieve victory against the other?

Challenge Match

Semperfortis v Sublime620

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Semper’s Reply #3

Note: I apologize for the delay, but my career is at times hectic and totally unpredictable being dependant on the unlawful actions of others.

Rebuttal:

“Name any SUCCESSFUL revolution that occurred with absolutely NO assistance from any other foreign entity”

Right off hand, in recent years? Though we may not have agreed with the outcome, the people clearly spoke in Cuba.

Sorry wrong again.

While I will not spend an inordinate amount of time on this, it bears stating that Cuba in fact had MASSIVE support for and against the revolution.

In fact, the 26th of July columns were constantly supplied with ammunition, ordnance, and certain specialized communications equipment, by air and sea, from various locations in Florida and Louisiana. The bulk of the ordinary military stores were drawn from the armories of the Alabama National Guard, which served as the 'augmentation' for the para-military operations conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency in Latin America.

The group trained in Mexico under the leadership of Fidel Castro and returned to Cuba in November 1956, on a small yacht named Granma.

Wiki

After much research, I have not been able to find one single incident of revolution that was started and carried through simply on the premise that “The people wanted it.” Granted that is usually the initiating factor, it is however never enough to topple a standing government.

The manufacturing is still being done outside of the country. Average Joe America is not benefiting from this war. White Collar Already Has Too Much Money America is who is benefiting.

As my links and research have proven this to be untrue, perhaps you would care to provide some PROOF to substantiate your postulations?

I hardly think cutting tax rates on capital gains is of any relevance to this discussion.

Partisan Politics aside, the truth if the matter is simple; the tax cuts were across the board and not just on Capital Gains.

But see that is the point. Regardless of what town you live in, production companies have not moved in. They are all still moving out.

No factory has moved “OUT” and no factory will move in. Simple dynamics of a resort community.

Your entire premise is flawed. We are no longer a “production” society, we have graduated into one of technological advancement and it has been and continues to be healthy for this nation.

Regardless, the FACT is that as my links and information have shown and I might say, appropriately disproved your opinions, production and employment increase as a result of conflict. Just simple facts, not opinions.

First, I was clearly referring to Western countries.

Again your point is completely irrelevant and wrong.

The debate topic is in consideration of a war between China and the United States, not two western countries. The fact or fantasy that tolerance is increasing in western countries is of no consequence if the intolerance in China precipitates a war. If the intolerance of Islamic Extremists causes another conflict, what difference does it make that the United States treats minorities better.

Remember the topic?

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

There is mass genocide going on in many parts of the world that we don't police.

Simply more proof of my point.

In my opinion, my opponent needs to prove that China plans to attack us.

That would “exactly” be your opinion. The fact is the debate is titled…

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Emphasis Mine

I am under on obligation to PROVE anyone is going to attack anyone else.

See the word “LIKELY”

Do the judges not agree that China attacking America would be the only way that our military would gather the forces up for such a war?

If that is the “LIKELY” scenario you wish to subscribe too, that is fine with me. Either way, it validates my side of the debate.

Socratic Question

Socratic Question 1: How could either country achieve victory against the other?

ANSWER:

The answer to that is multifaceted and factually irrelevant to the debate. However under the rules I will answer with the limited information available on such a subject.

As massive as both countries are, a war between them would consume inconceivable amounts of resources and so one may hypothesis that “Attrition” would play a part in a victory.

As technological as China may be now and heading toward, the United States still out paces them exponentially and so one may hypothesis a victory due to more advanced weapons.

As touched on before, the world community will likely choose sides; a victory could well be dependant on both world pressure and the active involvement of friendly countries.


Argument:

My opponent seems stuck on who would start such a conflict, or who would prosper from a war, even the tragedy that such a war would cause in the international community.

I would draw your attention to the debate title.

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Not one of my opponent’s concerns is relevant to the topic. I have provided to you substantial evidence from noted experts that a war is not only likely, but probable.

If more is needed to convince you, then here is more “Proof” of what the experts believe.

CHINA'S XENOPHOBIC AND increasingly strident nationalism reinforces the argument that it is destined to become America’s next great strategic rival and, therefore, that the United States should begin to think seriously about the possibility of war with that country.1 The combination of continued autocracy in Beijing, China’s militant assertiveness across the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea, and the growing influence of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) “in the development of China’s national identity and security policy” all point to a determination to displace American power in East Asia and the Western Pacific.2

Air Power

More?

One U.S. China expert, who asked not to be named, said: "This is a national crisis. As a nation we must confront the reality that China is actively mobilizing the Chinese-American community to subvert the security of the United States of America."


"This latest Chinese penetration will cost American lives as much as it could mean we could lose the coming war for Taiwan, and with it, our strategic and economic ascendancy in Asia. There must be no confusion: China has committed an act of war that belies all its bloviation about 'peaceful rise,'" stated the expert.


Other China experts, such as Al Santoli, director of the Asia America Initiative, noted that the success of the Chinese military spy ring is a direct threat to both world peace and U.S. national security.

News Max

All scary stuff and all pertinent to the debate topic.

Summation:


As you can see, I continue to post expert commentary and providing links to substantiate my position in this debate, as well as sound and historically accurate opinion. My opponent, on the other hand, continues to post opinion and supposition with almost no basis is fact, and strays off topic with such scenarios as “Who would win” and “How many would die”.

All valid discussions for another debate, yet hardly relevant to the debate topic.

I submit to you, that upon examining what has so far been posted, the logical mind can only come to the conclusion that….

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Thank you

Semper

Third Rebuttal

Look, I must apologize to the readers and judges. I have not been exactly digging up sources, finding facts, and going for my opponents jugular. I suppose I just have not felt that there has been much for me to argue against.

Has my opponent proved that war with China in the near future is possible? Sure. But likely? Not as far as I have seen.

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

First Source

Main Entry:
1like·ly Listen to the pronunciation of 1likely
1 : having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable

Yes, China is growing economically. They are not becoming a rivaling superpower, they are a rivaling superpower. And, yes, the Chinese have been responsible for some cyberattacks.

What happens when two superpowers are at odds with each other? Everyone walks softly. Neither side backs down, but neither side dare advance. Contrary to my opponent's answer to my Socratic Question, it is not a winnable situation.

The risk that a superpower - especially China - would use a nuclear missile rather than accept defeat is all too real.

At most, our situation could be classified as slowly building up to a mild cold war. That is worst case scenario right now.

I ask the judges, can you even fathom a war with China? Even assuming just conventional weapons were used, can you imagine it?

A lot more than hacking would have to take place for that to occur.

So we can talk about who's stronger, or how fast China is growing, or how much their ideals differ all day, but it's really irrelevant.

Second Source


Somehow I think their 160 warheads just might do the trick.

Third Source


Quite an impressive standing army.

Of course, China would be just as scared of war with the US as we should be of them.

It's just not plausible. Possibly a few proxy wars fought, but never would we see China v US, full blown war. It is simply not practical, and both nations are far to intelligent to even consider it.

So, yes, my opponent is correct. He has posted facts, no matter how irrelevant they are, and I have not used many sources.

But how can I really prove a negative? I just wanted to bring reason to this debate. Sure my opponent has used sources, and he has sensationalized every one of them. Blown them far past out of proportion.

My opponent suggests we will likely take a chance at ending the world as we know it for economic stress and cyber attacks. He then posted an article where we busted some Chinese spies... like we don't spy on them.

I mean, we are discussing the United States right? We set the damn standard for spying.

And then he says that China is xenophobic and nationalistic? Really? Freedom fries and supporting the terrorists. You are for us or against us. Support the troops. Don't question President. Cut and Run. Freedom isn't free.

Those are American phrases, not China's. Again, America set the standard for xenophobia and nationalism.

I may not have posted as many sources, but I have used logic, something I think my opponent has been lacking in this debate.

Are you going to let some biased articles based on China due to some xenophobic American, who can't differentiate global policy from spit, decide our future with China?

I'm not falling for it.

Challenge Match

Semperfortis v Sublime620

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Semper’s Closing:

Another debate draws to a close and as always it seems to have been far too short. One grows to love the research and the intellectual combat.

Still and all, everything must have an end and here we are. Thank you TheVagabond for your all of your work, thank you Judges for taking the time to read our debate and thank you Sublime620 for your time and efforts.

Rebuttal:

Just a quick rebuttal for my closing as once more my opponent has chosen to combat my facts, figures and evidence with his opinion and suppositions. However I will make the attempt to bring some order and factual presentation to his reply.

What happens when two superpowers are at odds with each other? Everyone walks softly. Neither side backs down, but neither side dare advance. Contrary to my opponent's answer to my Socratic Question, it is not a winnable situation.

Actually you are again historically wrong. Perhaps you are basing your premise on the most recent Superpower struggle, the United States and the USSR. You have neglected the many other Superpower struggles throughout history that did not end as you have surmised they always will.

Defining a Superpower:

1.an extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.

Dictionary

Taking that into consideration, one must conclude that…

Nazi Germany was a Superpower. We know how that turned out.
Rome was a Superpower. Again we are familiar with the ending there.

Actually, Spain, England, France etc.. All Superpowers at one point in their history, all were engaged in a war and all have survived quite nicely.

In point of fact, both China and the United States have been engaged in conflicts long after the development of Nuclear Weapons and both parties seemed to be able to wage those conflicts without nuking anyone.

Perhaps you are talking about the nuclear option you seem set on bringing into this debate.

I will state again and hope that this time it is clear to you. A war between China and the United States would most likely NOT involve Nuclear Weapons.

Also note the debate title for the umpteenth time:

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Note that NO WHERE does it include the word Nuclear, nor is it referenced or even insinuated.

Your attempt at a scare tactic is all too clear and yet has only pulled you more off topic.

At most, our situation could be classified as slowly building up to a mild cold war. That is worst case scenario right now.

I am totally unfamiliar with your qualifications, but if you will read the debate fully, you will find NUMEROUS references to EXPERTS in their various fields that totally DISAGREE with your postulation. I have made those expert references available all throughout this debate.

So we can talk about who's stronger, or how fast China is growing, or how much their ideals differ all day, but it's really irrelevant.

How can you say that any of this is irrelevant?

MY GOODNESS MAN!!!! It is what the debate is all about….

Of course, China would be just as scared of war with the US as we should be of them.

All though it is far too late in the debate for it, you really should post references to your sources for information such as this. I have been unable to find a reference to such an audacious statement and believe it to be another of your opinions stated as fact.

So, yes, my opponent is correct. He has posted facts, no matter how irrelevant they are, and I have not used many sources.

Every single one of my “facts” and my “references” have pertained to this debate and I will gladly stand behind their relevance.
However by your own admission, you have neither rebutted my sources, nor provided sources of your own.

You have by all accounts ignored the expert references I have provided.

ending the world as we know it

And YOU accuse me of sensationalism!!!! (My first ever emoticon in a debate I believe)

Finally..

Quite an impressive standing army.

Yeah, so was this and it lasted only a few days.

Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. With mobilization, Iraq could have raised this to 2 million men under arms--fully 75% of all Iraqi men between ages 18 and 34.

Global Security


I really have no idea what the rest of your post was in reference to or your xenophobic reference to the United States, so I will continue on with my summation.


Summation:

Ladies and Gentleman; I have never felt as confident about a debate as I do this one. It all comes down to evidence.

I have posted evidence, my opponent has submitted opinion.

I have referenced think tanks, universities and military experts; my opponent has referenced little to nothing.

My opponent’s one main contention throughout this debate has been that China and the United States will not engage in conflict because of nuclear weapons. Neither the debate topic nor reason demands that nuclear weapons be an integral part of a conflict between the United States and China.

As promised in my opening, I have discussed economic reasons for a war, technological reasons, world standing, population and monetary pressures. All of which has gone unchallenged by my opponent.

We have examined together Hot Spots and the United States self-assumed role as World Police.

All clearly outlined in my opening.

You have been presented with information from Historical Sources, International Study Groups, Historians, International News Articles and Major Universities. All of which support my contention that:

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

You have read probabilities and Journals from Oxford; Professors of Political Science and Professors of Government Studies; all support the premise of the debate title.

"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

As I researched this debate, I began to gain a better and more thorough understanding of the intricacies of the relationship now between China and the United States as well as the possible pit falls facing that relationship in the future. As horrible as a war between two such large and powerful nations would be, we can not live with our heads in the sand and ignore all of the international danger signs and probability factors that are now present.

Always remember: “The Truth Shall Set You Free”

Clearly and unequivocally I have proven, even to myself, that:


"The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century".

Thank you

Semper

Closing Statements

I want to make one thing clear:

One cannot compare wars and countries before WWII. These countries did NOT have nuclear capabilities. Rome did NOT have nuclear missiles. The Nazi's did not have nukes (thank GOD!). Could you image WWII if the UK, France, Russia, the US, Germany, Japan, etc had nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Nazi Germany was a Superpower. We know how that turned out.
Rome was a Superpower. Again we are familiar with the ending there.

Actually, Spain, England, France etc.. All Superpowers at one point in their history, all were engaged in a war and all have survived quite nicely.

Yes, and if the US and China would fight this war with swords and rifles, I might agree with you.

Originally posted by semperfortis
In point of fact, both China and the United States have been engaged in conflicts long after the development of Nuclear Weapons and both parties seemed to be able to wage those conflicts without nuking anyone.

Key word is "conflicts". There is a large difference between small skirmishes and a nation on the brink of destruction.

First Source

Deterrence theory is a military strategy developed during Cold War. It is especially relevant with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, and figures prominently on current United States foreign policy regarding the development of nuclear technology in North Korea and Iran.

Why do you think the US doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons so badly? The answer is simple! They will become the next level of superpower (the modern superpower). One with nuclear weapons.

This brings about a whole new level of smugness and authority. If Iran attained nuclear weapons, we would not be able to threaten them with war anymore.

Deterrence by is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), conventional weapons strength, economic sanctions, or any combination of these can be used as deterrents. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union did not in fact adhere to MAD and was prepared to fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war.1

Is this clear enough? I suppose to save my opponent some trouble, I could have explained to him that this was the difference between the cold war and all the other ones he was citing. Nuclear deterrence IS the reason we never fought Russia.

It will remain the reason we never fight China.

I haven't cited "experts" such as my opponent claims he has, but that is only because nuclear deterrence is known. It was created and coined by experts.

Second Source

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

This is what I've said all along. Instead of focusing on how one side would win the war, my opponent wanted to stay off of that issue. He mocked the idea of nuclear deterrence, as if the Cold War was a bad dream.

Of course, in the end China withdrew their comment and apologized, but the end goal was successful. China let the US and the world know that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons.

I don't know what else to say. We could go to war with China. I suppose if someone digested the facts hard enough, they could prove we would be on the verge of fighting Canada.

Another example of nuclear deterrence is France.

Third Source

BREST, France: France said yesterday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

This is strategy folks. France is not aiming their weapons at anyone. All they did was raise their shirt a bit to show the weapons they have tucked into their pants.

Summing it all up

My opponent's reasons for war with China:

• Economic stress
  
  
• China's hacking of US government computers/servers
  
  
• We have exposed Chinese spies within America
  
  
• China is xenophobic

Is this not basically a carbon copy of the cold war? Economic stress on the US, catching the Soviet spies and executing them, and xenophobia.

My points:

• Nuclear deterrence has brought about a new age of global politics. Nations cannot just attack each other without possibly facing total annihilation by all involved.
  
  
• Go to Google and type "no war between China and US" (or any derivation of that). I promise you there will be no results. Experts are not bothering to even respond to my opponent's sources because they are illogical. To be so bold as to say the US and China will be fighting a war based off of economic stress is jumping the gun just a bit.
  
  
• My opponent stated that he is entirely confident. That he has submitted evidence, and I have submitted none. But my opponent never correctly answered any questions about who would win, and how.
  
  
• If the US wants to quit being hacked by China, they simply need to educate the end users on computer security. Most successful hacks of the United States military have been through scripts that find default passwords.
  
  Businesses that carry private company information have better security than our government. I worked for a company that had a wireless signal sent to a device on my key chain with a new password every 8 seconds.

So I don't know exactly what evidence my opponent expected me to find. I guess he wanted me to call up the psychic network.

I want to reaffirm to the judges that I was never expected to prove a negative. I cannot prove that some Homer Simpson will not sit on a button and launch a nuke at China, effectively starting WWIII.

But I did the only thing I could do: show that countries that hold nuclear weapons also hold a new level of respect. I've shown that under no normal circumstances, such as economic stress, will nuclear armed nations go to war.

My opponent has not proven any real situation that would cause the US to attack China. He has not proven that China would attack the US.

In fact, my opponent - who, mind you, is so sure that this war will be taking place - was not even able to decide WHO would start this war. He did not know where it would be fought, with who on each side, and with what weapons. He didn't know who would win. He wasn't able to cite a specific cause. He basically cited a

Maybe he should work for the CIA (I've heard making bold assertions based off of lax evidence flies OK around there).

Lastly, I would like to make note of the fact that my opponents sources were all opinion. Many of his sources were from glorified bloggers. He continues to say how he posted so much "expert opinion". I ask the judges to reread his posts and find how many of his sources were truly expert. How many of his sources cited military experts, or had any military background at all? How many of them were just speculation?

So, will The United States and China are likely to go to war against one another in the 21st century?

Not if either one of them cares to continue to exist.

---

Thanks to semperforits for the great debate. Now I know what it feels like to have argued with a champion.

To the Vagabond, thanks a million. I will refrain from debating for a bit to give you that break you so deserve.

And to the judges, for taking the time to read through my rambling. I do appreciate it.

reply to post by semperfortis

---

Congrats semper. We'll meet again. I vow to be much more vicious in the next bout.

You did a great job keeping me off tempo. I will not be falling for any mind tricks next time.

Many thanks to Chissler for arranging the judging of this great matchup at long last.

It bears mentioning that: with this debate, Semperfortis has surpassed MemoryShock as the most experienced debater in the forum, and has also reclaimed the honor of being the winningest member of this forum.

He has also tied our champion Intrepid for ranking points, and will be eligible to issue a challenge for the title if he should win another match before Intrepid does likewise.

Hats off to Semperfortis, who on top of being one of the most skilled and prolific members of the debate forum, is also one of the most actively giving and community-oriented.

Now that I've buttered him up though, I'm afraid I've got bad news for him...

Effective as of the end of his Ongoing Match with Memoryshock, which everyone should read, I challenge Semperfortis to a rematch, and unlike our last match- I suggest that this be a judged debate.