I think that china is the winner too but you must consider that in a military, manpower is not everything. Modern wars are fought by weapon systems such as tanks and fighter planes, not overwhelming waves of soldiers.

China will be the superpower of the 21st century because of its' economy. an economy is by far the most important aspect of a superpower because a larger economy allows for the country to spend more on its' defense and to make rivals depend ant on products from that country. China has 1.6 times the purchasing power of America which will allow it to buy more products from other countries. China's GDP is growing 4 times faster than the GDP of America meaning that it will soon catch up to and surpass the U.S. in economy. China exports to the U.S. 4 times more than the U.S. exports to China. Many American businesses rely on cheap components from China. This means that China could stop the inflow of these products if it wanted to and put America in a dilemma.

Robots can harm an economy because robots replace human jobs which causes unemployment. China has 3 times less robots per worker per than America meaning that China is far less likely to encounter this economic disaster.

The Chinese military is catching up to the U.S. military in many aspects. China's military expenditure is catching up to America and will probably catch up within the 21st century which will allow it to produce more weapons. China's large economy will produce weapons for cheaper prices than Americas' smaller economy allowing china to produce more weapons.

America will most likely remain the superpower of the first half 21st century because it has a larger weapon stockpile and has not been hit yet by the rob tic economic crisis. china will overtake the U.S. in the second HF of the 21st century because their economy will remain intact ND their military expenditure will catch up.

It was about 1.5 trillion dollars which is absolutely insane. We literally could have bought 750,000 f16s or the price of the f35 program.

Without the nuclear bombs, the war against Japan might have dragged on into the cold war and the money devoted to the war effort would not go into cold war research and leave America far behind the Soviets.

Japan and America would have both lost many more people (many civilians do to collateral damage) if the bomb was not dropped and the war continued. The Japanese are known for not surrendering and the only reason that they did surrender was because they realized that they could not fight a country with nuclear power. Without demonstrating nuclear power, the Japanese would have fought on believing that they could eventually win somehow and the extended war would result in many more casualties than the bomb drops.

There is a reason actually. North Korea may feel threatened and that a war is about to happen anyway and start a war because of it.

It is not a declaration of war that would create a war, but a small aggression that could make North Korea respond with military force. These small aggression's have happened many times before and one might eventually start a war.

Because they might feel threatened and think that a war will start anyway.

Just because these several small aggression's have not caused a war yet, that doesn't mean that they won't.

This is also flawed because the 2 year members are almost always aligned with NATO.

I doubt that even the entire American missile inventory could neutralize North Korea and they are surface to air MISSILES, not anti air guns.

Actually, the bombs ended the war. It is very disappointing that people can't get simple facts like that right.

So you're saying that the war would just magically stop?!

The bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. The bombs resulted in about 226,000 casualties while an invasion of Japan was likely to cost 1.7-4 million American casualties and as many as 28 million Japanese casualties. The numbers clearly show that the bombing resulted in far less casualties than an invasion would have making it the only good choice. An invasion may have also involved the Russians pushing further into Japan and the end of World War 2 and beginning of the cold war could result in Japan Being divided between the Soviets and America just like Korea, Germany, and Vietnam.https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/the-atomic-bomb-was-necessary-to-force-a-prompt-japanese-surrender

So 28 million casualties due to civilians being forced to fight U.S. forces is acceptable while 226,000 from the bombings is not? I should also add that it was not millions killed by the bombings but 226,000. The invasion of Japan could have costed as much as 28 million Japanese casualties and an estimated 1.7-4 million American casualties while the bombings costed 226,000 Japanese casualties and 0 American casualties. It is apparent that there was really no good choice other than the bombings. The bombings were horrible but they were the option that resulted in the least casualties on either side.

But just because they haven't led to a war yet, doesn't mean they won't start a war this time.

Even the entire American missile inventory would probably not be enough to destroy all of the artillery systems, surface to air missile systems, and missile silos along the Korean border. These missiles would also not be launched all at once and after the first North Korean vehicle is destroyed, they would immediately begin the attack on South Korea and Japan. In fact, the the North Koreans would probably begin the barrage even before the first missile hits because they would detect the missiles on radar.

The only aircraft capable of destroying kn 06 surface to air missile sites are the b1 bomber, and f22 and f35 fighters. None of these aircraft have been proven against enemy forces that have advanced defenses (they have only been used against terrorists). The standard 4th generation aircraft such as f15s and f16s are not fit to attack the kn 06 surface to air missile systems.

Neither of us want to go to war, but a small mistake could still make North Korea feel seriously threatened and attack South Korea or Japan.

It is not North Korea attacking mainland America that is the threat, it is the fact that a war starting would put Japan and South Korea in grave danger.

Why does a situation like this happening in 1994 and a war not starting mean that we can't just have bad luck and have a war this time?

Well at least you are not just restating what that bbc article said.

It seems that the majority of the people that believe North Korea is not a threat are all basically copying that bbc article that a lot of you have in your links. You all say that "The North Korean government's main goal is survival." You people also repeat that the U.S. almost went to war with North Korea in 1994.

North Korea would obviously loose the war but they would probably cause massive destruction to South Korea and Japan before they lost. Attacking North Korea would be like attacking a rattlesnake. The human would win but not before the rattlesnake caused large amounts of damage to the human.