World War III Part 2

The majority of your argument focuses on the Korean conflict and most of it makes sense, but after going through your argument I found one thing that stood out a bit," ......which while North Korea will recover and be able to be strong in power in numbers...... "I find it hard to believe that a resource-poor and already militarily obsolete North Korea could miraculously become a powerful force in a conflict merely weeks after in the same conflict they had been trampled and almost overrun by US + Japanese + South Korean forces. No nation in the history of the world has ever been completely overrun by an invader and within weeks been able to create a strong military out of nowhere. With North Korea's lack of resources it would take years and perhaps decades to rebuild while China now fights the entire war. As for the conflict against China, If the Chinese troops start to invade the Korean Peninsula then that would draw a much larger response from Japan and the US. The US would not launch an all out invasion of China's coast like you said, but if enough US military were deployed into the Korean War then they could push Chinese forces all the way back to the Yalu River (river that is the border between China and Korea) and then that is where the stalemate will occur. China is a lot like North Korea where they have a large army but a technologically inferior one to the West, most reports forecast that China will not have a modern military for another ten years until 2020. So China would be able to repel any offensive made by my countries, however I feel that because their military is slightly less advanced they will not be able to completely hold Koreahttp://wareye.com...http://www.dailytech.com...http://chinadigitaltimes.net...http://www.reuters.com...As for the trade thing, it is not known if that will be the ultimate defense JUST for China. It would definitely prevent the US from deploying a large amount of troops against China because there are still many factors to take into account. If China entered the war they may be slashing their own trade to America and that could be harmful so they too might not provide all out support for North Korea. The trade defense works for both countries and if America wants to get back on their feet while China wants to continue to grow then it is possible that both countries would refrain from an all out attack against each other over the Korean Peninsula.... This trade deal may preserve China from being attacked but the animosity of South Korea against North Korea, along with Japans animosity against North Korea and China, would be enough to at least drive Chinese support back towards the Yalu River. China would not be overrun, but North Korea surely would be and only then would some kind of peace treaty be made. China would still be largely preserved but North Korea would lie in ruin. As for the Russia argument, we agree Russia would be expanding into Eastern Russia, but again the US would not immediately respond because 1) They are preoccupied with the Korean conflict, and 2) Russia poses no threat to American assets yet. If Russia to push dangerously close to any American allies (Germany, Italy, maybe Sweden) then America may prepare for a counter offensive. We've done this before in WWII except it was the other way around. We fought Germany and Japan at the same time but in reality we focused on bringing down Hitler first before we concentrated on beating Japan. This conflict would be the same way where the Korean conflict would be settled first and then once settled focus could be shifted against the UK and Russia. The US is against anyone being occupied by an invading nation, but the US does prioritize and will respond by trying to end one conflict (Korea) faster if it allows them to deal with other escalating conflicts. The US would not go all-in on both war fronts but they could still be able to put up a good fight on both sides because of American troops located in many places overseas...Russia has a large GDP (if 1/33 of the US GDP is considered large) but resource rich Russia drives their economy by exporting these resources to other nations. If they were to start using these resources to power their weak military and not their economy then Russia would only be able to be a devastating force for a very short time. Russia's economy is 80% resource exportation. And guess who buys most of these resources, EUROPE :Ohttp://www.economywatch.com...So if Russia were to start building a massive more advanced military to enter WWIII they would be doing quite some damage to their economy in the process since they are now fighting against the countries that gave Russia 80% of its trade income. Russia already has an underfunded military and if they were to expand it at the cost of their own economy they could end up like North Korea's military. Formidable in numbers but that would be it...As for the UK vs Germany, if Russia were to invade Germany and win they would not be able to do so by just flying into it with (a poorly supplied and built) air force and overrun the country just like that. They would have to move thousands of tanks and troops over land to Germany, and many countries lie in the way of doing that. I see what you mean about other countries since this is a World War. I admit that since Russia would be invading eastern Europe many countries would resist, meaning they would be on my side. Since I (rather unfairly) listed some that could (emphasis on could) end up joining my side because of a Russian invasion, lets make a deal to make it even. You can name as many countries as you want to join your side if,1) You can provide evidence that these countries would join your side for a good reason 2) We call it a tie in the Korean conflict We both agree at this point that North Korea would be overrun, but that China is of large enough power and advancement to resist any all-out invasion and occupation. Also a majority of this debate (and the last debate) has been about the Korean conflict so I think this would be good since we could now focus on other aspects of this warIf you agree to the deal above, here is what I will concede to make it fair,1) I will severely limit the number of troops the US could deploy to the European conflicts. After all the Korean conflict came first and that is the one the US would be the most involved with, so to be fair I am willing to not use steep American intervention as a reason why my side would win. 2) I will wait until the next round to bring in other countries to my side, and only after you have introduced countries to your side. This gives you the chance to pick any countries you want and then after you select your countries I will choose mine so that we can keep this debate relatively fair.3) I will drop Japanese and Korean influence but you may retain China. If we come to a settlement on the Korean conflict then Japan and South Korea would become irrelevant to the other conflicts, however because China is large enough I think it would be fair to allow you to still use them in your arguments regarding Europe. If you decline the deal (which is perfectly fine) Then I will continue arguing about how the US + South Korea + Japan would wage war against China and offer evidence showing that China may suffer considerable damage in a prolonged conflict. Meanwhile I will try to offer other evidence of what would happen in other conflicts, but not in as much detail as I (or some of the voters) would like. If you accept then you could use round 4 to start bringing in more countries to your side while continuing the Russia debate.