Instigator / Pro
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4285
In a 1v1 war, America would more likely beat North Korea
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
4
1309
rating
269
debates
40.71%
won
Description
War- A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.
1v1- One versus one.
(Conventional warfare, not nuclear.)
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you, Best.Korea, for accepting this debate.
Preamble
So I shall aim to prove that the U.S.’s chances of defeating North Korea are greater than North Korea’s chances of victory.
BOP
As I’m the one making the claim, I believe the burden is on me to demonstrate that the majority of possibilities favor the US’s success.
Contentions
l. America’s military tech vs North Korea’s
America’s resources and weaponry are more advanced, North Korea is more obsolete.
- In terms of ranking, America’s aircraft is considered superior to North Korea’s.
- The US’s tanks are also ranked higher than NK’s tanks.
North Korea has a huge supply of fighter-jets, but they’re decades behind, so they’re considered ancient by modern warfare standards.
Their planes are not designed to withstand attacks from superior aircraft. The US’s planes have more diversity in category, ranging from stealth and infiltration to durability and direct attacks. This makes North Korea’s planes ill-equipped because theirs can’t even travel very long without refueling, are easily detectable, and can be shot down with ease.
The project to develop modern tanks had been postponed, severely hindering any progress North Korea could have made and putting them behind the United States. Their tanks are considered aged and wornout.
All about the mileage.: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/weak-and-pathetic-north-korea’s-tanks-have-some-serious-problems-199092
ll. North Korea’s Air Force is underdeveloped.
North Korea "does not have the capacity to pay for enough fuel, cover maintenance costs or adequately train its pilots," according to a 2020 IISS report. Without enough fuel and therefore enough flight time, its pilots cannot learn or even maintain combat readiness, analysts say.
The high demands for costs have proven too much for North Korea. They simply can’t afford to pay for pilot training, newer aircraft, or even fuel.
lll. North Korea’s military is overpopulated.
Because of recruiting too many people and their funding towards developing nuclear projects, the costs and needs of the soldiers outgrew their current budget.
This has led to many of their own soldiers dying from starvation and famine becoming a common denominator which makes them unable to wage war.
Con
#2
1) There is a false idea of unsustainability
There is a lie that North Korea cannot sustain its troops or feed them. However, North Korea sustained the army of 7 million soldiers for decades. So yes, North Korea is capable of sending its 7 million soldiers to war and sustain them.
2) USA was defeated before
There is this idea that USA is invincible. However, USA lost the war in Afganistan and Vietnam. Same thing would happen if it invaded North Korea.
3) North Korea's devotion
Unlike the USA, North Korea would be fighting on its own soil. This would give increase in morale to its troops.
4) Its hard to kill 7 million soldiers
Even when you have thousands of bombers, killing 7 million soldiers is not possible.
5) Guerrilla tactical warfare would beat USA
The type of warfare where soldiers use hit and run tactics. This tactic has been proven to work against USA in Afganistan and Vietnam. USA would mostly be bombing civilians, because North Korean soldiers would be hidden in tunnels and forests.
6) USA's economy collapses
USA is currently in crisis, since it needs to deliver weapons to Ukraine too. US military production is limited, and increasing it would drive the price of goods up for civilians.
7) Americans dont want yet another endless war
It would take USA at least 20 years to kill 7 million troops in guerrila warfare. USA would be suffering heavy casualties too. The americans would protest against the war, and eventually would vote in a president who would end the war by retreating from North Korea. Same thing happened in Afganistan and Vietnam.
8) North Korean soldiers have far better weapons than those used by Talibans in Afganistan
While the USA was unable to beat the Afganistan, North Korea is even greater challenge to beat. With millions of light artillery, millions of portable rocket launchers used by North Korean troops, North Korea would rain hell on US tanks and infantry.
9) North Korea already proved its technological superiority over South Korea
We all remember that time when North Korea sent 5 drones to South Korea. South Korea fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition, but couldnt shoot down any of the drones.
The embarrasment doesnt end there. Despite South Korea saying it has great technology, South Korea keeps begging the US for protection against the North.
North Korea developed ICBMs while South Korea does not even have long range missiles, despite all the US help.
10) Conclusion
There is no working plan for USA to beat North Korea in a conventional warfare. There is also no proof it wouldnt be just another scenario from afganistan where US is forced to retreat. The only thing we know is that USA already failed to beat Talibans and Vietnam farmers. The resolution deals with "more likely", but everything points to US losing this war.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Troop numbers are meaningless if they can't be utilized, so the fact that North Korea outnumbers the US doesn't mean anything.
Yes, the US has lost battles before, but currently, America is one of the countries with the strongest Navy and Airforce.
2) USA was defeated beforeThere is this idea that USA is invincible. However, USA lost the war in Afganistan and Vietnam. Same thing would happen if it invaded North Korea.
This assumes that the U.S. would be the instigator. Even assuming this is true, North Korea would be able to defend themselves on their own territory and perhaps hold their own, but by the end of the war, America's victory is a certainty.
Meanwhile, if North Korea were to attempt to invade the U.S., it would be a suicide mission because America's defense is too advanced.
4) Its hard to kill 7 million soldiersEven when you have thousands of bombers, killing 7 million soldiers is not possible.
The U.S. doesn't have to kill 7 million soldiers. All the U.S. has to do is launch enough attacks that depower North Korea forcing them on the retreat. When majority of the troops are forced into hiding, they've already lost.
5) Guerrilla tactical warfare would beat USAThe type of warfare where soldiers use hit and run tactics. This tactic has been proven to work against USA in Afganistan and Vietnam. USA would mostly be bombing civilians, because North Korean soldiers would be hidden in tunnels and forests.
The US has evolved since its time in Vietnam.
Guerilla warfare is sometimes effective, but it is such a primitive way of warfare. The only chances guerilla warfare has an opportunity at being effective is if the U.S. were doing an invasion, but even then, this is no guarantee because the US's Ground Forces are also speculated to be better than North Korea's troops. And it would only take a few weeks for the US to dismantle the Airforce, Navy, and other defenses of North Korea, forcing North Korea to rely only on guerilla warfare which has proven to be unpredictable, even under the most ideal circumstances.
But if North Korea were the one to launch an invasion, not only would the United States defend against these attacks very aggressively, but it would immediately back-fire.
7) Americans dont want yet another endless warIt would take USA at least 20 years to kill 7 million troops in guerrila warfare. USA would be suffering heavy casualties too. The americans would protest against the war, and eventually would vote in a president who would end the war by retreating from North Korea. Same thing happened in Afganistan and Vietnam.
The US would certainly take a hit in a war between and North Korea, but this is irrelevant to the US's success.
America doesn't want to go to war with North Korea for several reasons.
- Innocent civilians would die.
- It would be too expensive.
- The war would leave the US vulnerable to future enemies.
The hesitance to go to war isn't based on the US's fear that NK will win, but that the everlasting war would take a toll on the US that it would be unable to battle against other enemies in the future.
5) Guerrilla tactical warfare would beat USAThe type of warfare where soldiers use hit and run tactics. This tactic has been proven to work against USA in Afganistan and Vietnam. USA would mostly be bombing civilians, because North Korean soldiers would be hidden in tunnels and forests.
It is possible that the guerilla warfare might prove to be challenging, but the US's foot soldiers would be backed with the full military might of the Airforce and the Navy, making a defeat by the hands of North Korea impossible.
6) USA's economy collapsesUSA is currently in crisis, since it needs to deliver weapons to Ukraine too. US military production is limited, and increasing it would drive the price of goods up for civilians.
This is only a temporary setback for the US, but for North Korea, the problem is not only worse but long-term.
North Korea can't afford food rations for its soldiers, so they are suffering from a famine. They can't afford to upgrade their weaponry, so they spend too much on buying an abundance of low-quality tech that sets them back decades. North Korea can't even afford to train their pilots or pay for enough fuel, so their Airforce is WAY behind.
9) North Korea already proved its technological superiority over South KoreaWe all remember that time when North Korea sent 5 drones to South Korea. South Korea fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition, but couldnt shoot down any of the drones.The embarrasment doesnt end there. Despite South Korea saying it has great technology, South Korea keeps begging the US for protection against the North.North Korea developed ICBMs while South Korea does not even have long range missiles, despite all the US help.
This isn't a discussion about the hypothetical battle between South Korea, this deals with a 1v1 between the US and North Korea.
8) North Korean soldiers have far better weapons than those used by Talibans in AfganistanWhile the USA was unable to beat the Afganistan, North Korea is even greater challenge to beat. With millions of light artillery, millions of portable rocket launchers used by North Korean troops, North Korea would rain hell on US tanks and infantry.
Just because NK > Taliban and Taliban > US doesn't mean that NK could beat the US.
Because for one, the logic is more akin to Rock, Paper, and Scissors. I believe you understand where I'm going with this analogy.
Secondly, the circumstances of conventional warfare between the United States and North Korea is vastly different than what happened between the US and Afghanistan.
The Afghanistan war involved counterinsurgency, not conventional warfare. So America's loss could be attributed to a variety of reasons rather than incompetence.
If the US deployed enough ground services like tanks, they would not only kill many soldiers but they would completely vaporize any machinery that North Korea were to use to defend themselves. The factors of war would certainly take more of a toll on North Korea because the funding into military projects would also certainly leave their soldiers starved and unable to fight for very long without nourishment.
The Airforce bombing their territory would also destroy a lot of their major hiding spots, forcing them to take the fight underground. But the US has the ability to infiltrate, so this would certainly prove to be a disaster for NK.
Con
#4
1) Debate win condition
In order to win, my opponent has to prove that USA would destroy North Korea in a conventional war if a war was to happen. I will say that USA would retreat due to public pressure, and North Korea would not be destroyed.
2) My opponent's arguments dont prove his position
2-1) My opponent has conceded the argument "USA would fail to beat North Korea. USA would withdraw from North Korea due to public pressure.". We have already seen same scenario happen when USA was fighting countries that are much weaker than North Korea.
2-1-1) My opponent confirmed this in his own words: "America doesn't want to go to war with North Korea for several reasons. Innocent civilians would die. It would be too expensive. The war would leave the US vulnerable to future enemies.
The hesitance to go to war isn't based on the US's fear that NK will win, but that the everlasting war would take a toll on the US that it would be unable to battle against other enemies in the future."
2-1-2) My opponent admits that in the event of war, public pressure would be great and USA would suffer heavy loses. USA would be forced to make peace with North Korea and retreat. The claim "America would more likely beat North Korea" is proven false.
2-2) My opponent says: "Yes, the US has lost battles before, but currently, America is one of the countries with the strongest Navy and Airforce.".
"USA has lost battles before" is true. USA was defeated by Vietnam and Afganistan. In both cases, USA had the strongest navy and airforce, but it didnt cause the USA to win. USA loses to guerrilla warfare even in modern days.
2-3) My opponent says: "This assumes that the U.S. would be the instigator. Even assuming this is true, North Korea would be able to defend themselves on their own territory and perhaps hold their own, but by the end of the war, America's victory is a certainty.".
Is a false statement.
We have already seen examples of US defeat against much smaller armies.
USA would obviously be the invader, since North Korea cannot possibly transport troops to USA, but USA can transport some troops to North Korea.
The topic demands that USA is invader, since USA must more likely beat North Korea for the topic to be true. It cannot beat North Korea without invading North Korea.
2-4) My opponent says: "Meanwhile, if North Korea were to attempt to invade the U.S., it would be a suicide mission because America's defense is too advanced.".
Is a statement that confirms North Korea wouldnt be an invader. North Korea has no interest in committing suicide. North Korea would fight a war on its own territory.
2-5) My opponent says: "The U.S. doesn't have to kill 7 million soldiers. All the U.S. has to do is launch enough attacks that depower North Korea forcing them on the retreat."
Is a false statement. USA would have to kill 7 million soldiers and more, in order to beat North Korea.
North Korea would continue to exist as long as any part of its territory is under the control of North Koreans loyal to their leader.
If retreat means being beaten, then North Korea would beat US since it would be the USA that would retreat in the end.
After the USA retreats, North Korea would again establish its power. So USA would not beat North Korea.
2-6) My opponent says: "When majority of the troops are forced into hiding, they've already lost.".
Is a false statement.
They go into hiding to do suprise attacks and cause heavy casualties to the USA which would lead to US withdrawal from North Korea and North Korea would survive.
2-7) My opponent says: "The US has evolved since its time in Vietnam.
Guerilla warfare is sometimes effective, but it is such a primitive way of warfare. The only chances guerilla warfare has an opportunity at being effective is if the U.S. were doing an invasion, but even then, this is no guarantee because the US's Ground Forces are also speculated to be better than North Korea's troops. And it would only take a few weeks for the US to dismantle the Airforce, Navy, and other defenses of North Korea, forcing North Korea to rely only on guerilla warfare which has proven to be unpredictable, even under the most ideal circumstances.".
Is a false statement. USA has obviously not evolved since Vietnam. The recent defeat in Afganistan proves that USA is vunerable to guerrilla warfare. USA troops were better trained and equipped than the Talibans. USA lost.
North Korea has plenty of forests suitable for guerrilla warfare. It also has many tunnels that protect from bombing.
2-8) My opponent says: "It is possible that the guerilla warfare might prove to be challenging, but the US's foot soldiers would be backed with the full military might of the Airforce and the Navy, making a defeat by the hands of North Korea impossible."
Is a false statement.
US troops were forced to withdraw from Afganistan, despite having the strongest airforce and despite the Talibans not even having air force.
My opponent is trying to move the topic to "North Korea wouldnt beat USA". However, the North Korea does not have to beat the USA to prove your position on topic to be false. North Korea needs just to not be beaten.
2-9) My opponent says: "North Korea can't afford food rations for its soldiers, so they are suffering from a famine. They can't afford to upgrade their weaponry, so they spend too much on buying an abundance of low-quality tech that sets them back decades. North Korea can't even afford to train their pilots or pay for enough fuel, so their Airforce is WAY behind.".
Is a false statement.
Currently, North Korea is feeding 7 million troops. If it didnt feed its troops, it wouldnt have troops. The talks of famine are nonsense, since you dont know how much food North Korea has for troops. You cannot possibly know if the impact of famine on troops is great or small. There is nothing which says that malnourished troops cannot pull the trigger, and there is nothing that says what percentage of troops are malnourished.
During the war, military resorts to hunting wild life for food. There is plenty of wild life in North Korea. If the US were to bomb North Korean farms, then North Korea would also be getting food supplies from China.
The invasion of South Korea is also an option.
One could say that Talibans had low quality weapons, but it didnt stop them from beating US. Low quality weapons wont stop North Korea from fighting a war and causing USA to withdraw.
2-10) My opponent says: "Just because NK > Taliban and Taliban > US doesn't mean that NK could beat the US. Because for one, the logic is more akin to Rock, Paper, and Scissors. I believe you understand where I'm going with this analogy.".
Is a false statement. There is nothing that suggests "rock paper scissors" logic. In fact, the scenario for US would be exactly the same. They would be fighting against guerrilla warfare.
2-11) My opponent says: "The Afghanistan war involved counterinsurgency, not conventional warfare. So America's loss could be attributed to a variety of reasons rather than incompetence.".
Is a false statement.
"Counterinsurgency" is a name to describe a type of guerrilla warfare, which means same tactics can be used by North Korea.
Since guerrilla warfare is part of conventional warfare, and since North Korea has lots of area suitable for guerrilla warfare, it points to US defeat like in Afganistan.
2-12) My opponent says: "If the US deployed enough ground services like tanks, they would not only kill many soldiers but they would completely vaporize any machinery that North Korea were to use to defend themselves. The factors of war would certainly take more of a toll on North Korea because the funding into military projects would also certainly leave their soldiers starved and unable to fight for very long without nourishment.".
Is a false statement.
North Korean infantry has plenty of anti-tank weapons, so the USA deploying lots of tanks would be a disaster for the USA.
North Korean military is capable of capturing food from South Korea, from wild life, and even get food supplies from China.
3) Pressure to make peace would be too high. The war would end with USA's withdrawal.
To beat North Korea, USA would need to kill at least 7 million North Korean soldiers. USA would not beat North Korea.
3-1) USA would be bombed
We have excluded nuclear weapons, so USA is safe from nuclear strikes.
However, North Korea still operates the fleet of over 100 ICBMs that can be used for conventional bombing. Since ICBMs is not easily intercepted, it would likely hit the USA.
3-2) Numbers dont favor USA
Even if USA was to kill 1000 North Korean soldiers every day, it would take the USA 20 years to kill 7 million soldiers.
However, USA would not be fighting against 7 million soldiers.
7 million soldiers is what North Korea has during peace time.
During war, that number would double. Every man, woman and child capable of holding a gun would go to war to liberate their country from US aggression.
3-3) North Koreans fight with devotion to the leader
The Talibans have defeated the US.
North Koreans are devoted to their leader as much as the Talibans are devoted to theirs.
North Koreans dont surrender in difficulties. They are used to difficulties.
3-4) USA and allies would suffer heavy casualties
The only way for USA to beat North Korea in a war is if North Korea is destroyed.
My opponent might say: "USA doesnt need to destroy North Korea". However, the short description says "destroy" being the only clue as to what "beat" means.
North Korea would rain hell on USA and its allies. South Korea and Japan would be obliterated, causing economical breakdown in the USA.
USA would be forced to withdraw to prevent further damage to its allies.
USA would lost much more than North Korea, and North Korea would not be beaten since USA cant kill +7 million soldiers with conventional weapons.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you, Con.
Definitions
Destroy - To damage something, esp. in a violent way, so that it can no longer be used or no longer exists.
Winning Conditions
I don’t have to prove that the U.S. would beat NK, only that it is more likely. If I demonstrate certainty beyond reasonable doubt, then that’s just a bonus.
Rebuttals
2-1) My opponent has conceded the argument "USA would fail to beat North Korea. USA would withdraw from North Korea due to public pressure.". We have already seen same scenario happen when USA was fighting countries that are much weaker than North Korea.
It’s important to remember that the resolution deals in conventional warfare. The U.S. losing to the Taliban was because they weren’t fighting against conventional military forces, but insurgent operations.
It’s highly unlikely that the U.S. would even need to retreat in the circumstances of a conventional warfare.
We have already seen examples of US defeat against much smaller armies.USA would obviously be the invader, since North Korea cannot possibly transport troops to USA, but USA can transport some troops to North Korea.The topic demands that USA is invader, since USA must more likely beat North Korea for the topic to be true. It cannot beat North Korea without invading North Korea.
Not necessarily. The resolution makes no claims as to who the instigator is, but as it deals in 1v1 and conventional warfare. The assumption is that the feuding is mutual.
If North Korea is unable to assemble troops to launch attacks on the US, then that’s one loss for North Korea.
The Stakes are significantly higher for North Korea.
As NK lacks the weaponry and ability to initiate an attack on the U.S., a fight even on their own terrain spells disaster for their country.
The abundance of forests cannot accomodate for the needs of 7 million troops and military rations are in short supply. When costs go into feeding troops, they are cut from other places.
Ways The U.S. could beat North Korea
- Plan and prepare a response for any potential attacks NK might use.
- Send aircraft to drop bombs on Korean military bases and forests, burning most of them down and forcing the Guerilla soldiers to take the fight underground.
- Send tanks and American military personnel to cover and guard over the conquered territories, so the Korean troops do not recover this yielded ground.
- Be willing to use force if they attempt to regain control over their bases and proceed to wait them out, as they run out of food.
- Launch a surprise attack by sending America’s Ground Troops to scour the hiding spots of the Korean soldiers.
The fact that North Korean military outnumbers the U.S. military doesn’t mean anything because NK’s troops are unable to be mobilized. And it just means more mouths to feed, more soldiers to train, and more weapon supplies to be made readily available.
Extend all previous arguments and sources.
Con
#6
1-1) My opponent says: "I don’t have to prove that the U.S. would beat NK, only that it is more likely.".
Is correct.
Go ahead and prove to us that it is more likely.
1-2) My opponent says: "It’s important to remember that the resolution deals in conventional warfare. The U.S. losing to the Taliban was because they weren’t fighting against conventional military forces, but insurgent operations."
Is a correct claim. This is basically a concession. USA cannot beat North Korea in a conventional warfare because North Korea will use the same tactics as the Talibans. Nothing in the description says that North Korea must fight only a conventional warfare, or that North Korea must fight a conventional warfare for a long time. North Korea can fight a conventional warfare for couple of days, then switch to guerrilla warfare. Even if North Korea is defeated in conventional warfare, resolution would not be proven true. North Korea would still exist and would still fight a guerrilla warfare, proving the resolution false. Nothing in the resolution says how long should conventional warfare last. It can last a few days. If the conventional warfare ends without the destruction of North Korea, the topic is proven false.
1-3) My opponent says: "Definitions
Destroy - To damage something, esp. in a violent way, so that it can no longer be used or no longer exists.".
So the only way for USA to beat North Korea is if North Korea no longer existed after the conventional warfare.
After the conventional warfare, North Korea wont be destroyed but will switch to guerrilla warfare. Thus, this proves that USA cannot destroy North Korea in conventional warfare. Conventional warfare will end without the destruction of North Korea.
1-4) My opponent says: "If North Korea is unable to assemble troops to launch attacks on the US, then that’s one loss for North Korea.".
Is false.
In order to prove the topic correct, North Korea must be beaten. So "unable to assemble troops for invasion on US" does not prove the topic correct.
1-5) My opponent says: "The abundance of forests cannot accomodate for the needs of 7 million troops and military rations are in short supply".
Is a false statement.
We have already established that North Korea would be getting food supplies from China. Plus, the amount of forests in North Korea is more than enough for 7 million soldiers to hide in.
1-6) My opponent says: "Plan and prepare a response for any potential attacks NK might use. Send aircraft to drop bombs on Korean military bases and forests, burning most of them down and forcing the Guerilla soldiers to take the fight underground. Send tanks and American military personnel to cover and guard over the conquered territories, so the Korean troops do not recover this yielded ground. Be willing to use force if they attempt to regain control over their bases and proceed to wait them out, as they run out of food. Launch a surprise attack by sending America’s Ground Troops to scour the hiding spots of the Korean soldiers".
"USA will more likely beat North Korea" is false. This plan is not only unrealistic, but was attempted in Vietnam and Afganistan. It failed.
1-7) My opponent says: "The fact that North Korean military outnumbers the U.S. military doesn’t mean anything because NK’s troops are unable to be mobilized. And it just means more mouths to feed, more soldiers to train, and more weapon supplies to be made readily available.".
Is a false statement. My opponent did not explain why North Korean troops would be unable to be mobilized or hide in a local forest.
North Korea already has 7 million trained soldiers, so no training them is needed. Weapon supplies is where North Korea has the advantage, since it has weapon supplies to sustain guerrilla warfare.
Food would come from China and wild life.
2) Conclusion
There is no indication that USA would more likely destroy North Korea in a conventional warfare.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thank you, Con for the debate.
Overview
- Proven that America has one of the strongest Navies and Airforces in the world.
- Proven that America has evolved since its time in Vietnam.
- Proven that the circumstances with the Taliban was counterinsurgency, not conventional warfare.
- Demonstrated that North Korea is unable to launch invasions.
- Proved that North Korea has too many soldiers, obsolete weaponry, and not enough money to afford food or training, even with the aid of China.
- Demonstrated how America could beat North Korea.
Extend all arguments and sources.
I have proven that majority of the possibilities favor the U.S.’s success over NK.
Vote Pro.
Con
#8
Thank you for the debate.
This debate was about conventional war. Conventional war wouldnt happen in real world, since nukes are a thing. But this debate assumed no nukes, so I went with that.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro could have won this far more quickly with a simple mention of blockades and a source on how much food NK needs to import. Similarly, he should have used cons claim that NK would fire ICBMs are the USA to counter the claim of the populace opposing the war. A bigger mistake was scope creep about what would happen with out her countries.
All that said, it was crystal clear that in most scenarios the USA would dominate. NK cannot even transport troops, so would lose automatically if they’re the aggressor. Their Air Force would be wiped out swiftly if the USA is the aggressor, forcing them to go underground; which would of course be an annoyance but would not assure the survival of the current regime. I could not understand why con was claiming every last soldier must die for victory to be attained; by such a standard Germany would have never been defeated.
Thanks for the vote!
I think you can accept it now, but let me know if you can’t.