USA is unable to invade China
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I (kouen) will argue that the USA can't try to invade China and succeed(less than 50% chance) while the opponent will argue that if the USA tries to invade China, USA is likely(higher than 50% chance) to succeed.
"Succeed" being : USA captures Beijing/Peking (the capital)
There is only one possible option I see for USA successfully invading China. It involves espionage, deceit, and overthrowing the politico from the inside.
The process of defeating China in an invasion would take approximately 30 years, indoctrination, and bribes. First, American operatives migrate to China by legal means, and set up normal lives supporting minor government entities. They begin to create a web of connections that allow them to determine who are Nationalists and who will be susceptible to bribes. All bribes and buy offs will be done in a way that gives the US government total deniability.
By creating our own population within China, buying off as many families as possible, and having US Nationalists procreate with Chinese, we will slowly begin to elevate our position within the political and military spheres of China. By the end of 30 years, we will have leaders in both the military and political offices that are loyal to the cause of defeating China. The children borne of American/Chinese pairings will become indoctrinated to bring the downfall of their country.
With enough time, people, and money, from within, China will be overtaken.
Step 1 of the "Invasion": immigrate and become trusted
Step 2: procreate and bribe
Step 3: offspring indoctrination and spread of dissenting opinions
Step 4: cause trouble within the country, demolishment of infrastructure, destruction of systems of monitoring for invasion, flood the market with faulty product, flood the economy with false currency, theft and destruction of government property, spread of propaganda against the current regime
Step 5: China is in Civil War, trying to stop the fighting within its borders
Step 6: have our operatives (bought, bred, and immigrated) act in such a manner that convinces the UN, EU, NATO, and other world organizations that China will soon become a threat to those outside of its borders
Step 7: excommunicate China from global agencies and the US convinces others within the agencies that action is necessary (whilst making no allusion to their part in the chaos)
Step 8: full on invasion by land, air, and sea. The little resources left for defense will be quickly overrun.
Russia would help if they were promised a significant amount of land from the deal. Many other Asian countries would be happy to expand their borders.
The only two ways to overtake China are with help from surrounding countries or through lengthy espionage and sabotage.
Both sides put up an interesting case, and each had their own challenges, but as I see it, Pro edged this one out.
Pro starts off, as one would expect, listing all of the economic, political, and military resources China has at its disposal. To counter this, Con outlines an 8-step plan to infiltrate China with Americans, causing internal strife which can be exploited by the United States to destabilize the country. In response, Pro takes down every point Con offers relatively well. Most importantly, he questions how practical it would be to promote mass immigration into China without sparking suspicion, and that the Chinese (taught to hate the Americans) would naturally be weary of any and all American activity in the country.
The main problem Con had, more so than anything Pro said, was that he never really explained how the U.S. could reasonably achieve any of the steps he listed. This leaves his case feeling rather hollow, and given that he dropped Pro's refutations, I cannot say Con's plan satisfied his BoP. It is easy to say: "Do A, B, C, and D and China will fall," but it is significantly harder to elaborate upon the mechanics of A, B, C, and D. This issue followed Con throughout the debate.
Con changes his tune in his second round, arguing for cooperation with other countries in Asia to bring China down. However, Pro offers a satisfactory rebuttal, pointing out that China's political and economic leverage over Asia would make orchestrating a unified front to bring the CCP down quite challenging.
Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeiture.
All in all, a fun debate. I personally love playful topics like this.
China has the capability to do the same. Also, destroying the capital doesn't do much. Not all of China's powerful politicians live in Beijing. China would still have its entire military as there are no bases in Beijing. The American helicopters would be easily destroyed, and China would nuke every major American city; USA would nuke every major Chinese city; Everyone loses the war.
This assumes Russia and North Korea would not want to get involved.
Additionally, China has nukes, too.
However, I don't live in China so I have no idea how military capable the CCP truly is.
Apologies for forfeiture, ran out of time due to my schedule. Interesting topic, and I believe a better argument could be made on my part if I had more time to research the topic. Good debate.
This is a debate I would be interested in
Throwing three large nukes at where Beijing approximately is is enough for the US to just fly helicopters here and claim it.
They wouldn't want to do that, but if they do want so, they have an almost 100% success rate doing so.