World War III Part 2

1- I never talked about Russia and North Korea has a much larger army, air force, and ground force than South Korea, the other points are correct. 2-I will first say that Kim Sung II is already dead, so it would be what I said earlier. So I will argue with you about Kim Sung II being already dead and dying again. Anyways, the point is China would help North Korea when it was about to be overwhelmed but not destroyed, so China would basically help them and beat them down. Also in the Korean War, the Chinese only fought back to the original border and suddenly left (not beat down). See the Comment's Sources (One of the Non-Wiki Ones). Most likely, China will push them all back because China's military is the largest in the world and can easily bring many troops to North Korea and beat South Korea, Japan, and USA down to South Korea's north parts while USA is deploying more troops. I'm sorry about such short argument because I have been very busy. The point is China would also lend North Korea some of it's more advanced weapons if in a war because of being in a war together as I stated in my 1st argument. China however would still be able to beat USA, Japan, and South Korea back to at least somewhere into the middle of Gangwon. I will say that by that time Japan and USA would have deployed much more troops so I believe that probably they could beat China back to the top of Gangwon which while North Korea will recover and be able to be strong in power in numbers and it will be an even battle because : a country being the main cause of the war with so many numbers with non-advanced weapons though nuclear a country with the most numbers with very advanced weapons and nearby and nuclear = the main defendant with advanced weapons though less than half of the troops compared to the main cause small amount of troops nearby with many more coming and advanced weapons while nuclear many troops nearby with advanced weapons. I think they are even and if you disagree, it is okay but here comes Russia. The trade thing is that maybe you misunderstood me. I meant USA would not deploy troops to go directly against China even though it would weaken their base. 2- Russia would be expanding in Europe so USA would send troops there too right? USA would go against Russia if Russia was in Europe. I am sorry about SB-400 thing because it is hard to be in a resort and think about why Russia would go against South Korea. Anyways, USA troops would spread thin if you were fighting in so many places including Europe so less troops would go to South Korea. USA is all about "freedom" so they would fight for countries in Europe against Russia so even though Russia would not be directly against South Korea they would spreading USA's resources thin (plus because of so many other wars assuming they are not finished) and USA would not have a lot of troops going to South Korea and Russia has the 11th largest GDP in the world so they do have many resources. 3- UK vs. Germany would most likely not be the case. UK would be on Russia's side while Germany would be one of the countries Russia would try to conquer. "That's why it's WWIII!" Most likely Russia would also use many resources with UK and beat down Germany even though Germany is harder than most. Plus did you notice that you have at least 10 different European countries adding to your side. I ask you to tell me all the countries against Russia and UK and we can settle things by maybe adding a few more countries to make it even. Let's say it's even on my scale because the war is far from over.