> When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war.

The "War on Terror" started in 2001 and is an ongoing clusterfuck. As the "War on Terror" hasn't concluded, the last war that the US won was Kosovo in 1999.

I think Adventured overestimates US' superiority.

I suggest you read on North Korean military equipment, supplies and operational readiness.

It is all about the details:

They have the largest submarine force in the world; but every one of them is an outdated diesel-electric.

They have a couple hundred fighter airplanes, but their trained pilots get 10-20 hours of practice every year.

And so on...

They aren't capable of a prolonged attack as they don't have enough food( literally ). At best they can defend for a long time and cause a lot of collateral damage with chemical weapons and short range nukes, which is enough to keep their enemies away.

> They have the largest submarine force in the world; but every one of them is an outdated diesel-electric.

What's wrong with diesel-electric submaries. Here's US superiority vs diesel-electric subs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121...

No, you're just completely missing his point.

Winning a war is indeed easy for the US if it's willing to go all out. It's just not willing to go all out.

> It's just not willing to go all out.

Then applying logic, it can't win the war.

If the question is: could the US win a war against North Korea?

The answer is: yes, obviously, and the price would be very high in terms of either US soldiers, or North Korean civilians, or both.

The US chooses not to engage in that war, precisely because it already knows the cost equation. Millions would die.

No, I attempted to be very, very specific in what I was claiming.

The US could win the "War on Terror" any time: kill vast quantities of people, as many as it takes, and or whatever it takes (up to and including destroying their culture, wiping out their identity; see: Tibet, or Japan, or what ancient empires did). That's how people were typically truly defeated historically. Whether we're talking about Alexander, the Romans, the Mongols, Nazi Germany, the USSR, etc. One of the few exceptions would be the British Empire, they did a lot less sheer mass murdering.

It is not a question of if the US can win, it's a question of: what is the US willing to do to win.

You can name the number of countries that could stop the US from bombing them perpetually, on one hand. I'm not over-estimating US superiority, I'm proclaiming that the US isn't willing to use any and all tactics to win.