Who would win head on in a war? Just Russia and America, no

>baby's first thread on /int/

the rest of the world

Russia cuz they'd send children to battle.

If you see winning as one army beating another then America. If you see winning as gaining something from the war then nobody would win.

>>73353579
I've been here since 2007 ching chong and was one of the first lurkers on /int/

fuck off back to hong kong

File: 1490130029601.png (60KB, 1182x1771px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1182x1771px

>>73353556

>>73353752
that pic is racist

>>73357288
At least you aren't the Irish.
Then you wouldn't even have a powerful country. You'd just be potato(not)eating potatofaced no butt useless mongrels.

>>73353579
I seen you before, you Faggot. Get the fuck out of my board and country

>>73353752
Pretty sure first waves was penal battalion.

>>73353556
Jews

File: 15726841_240406579727575_3039383694119738126_n.png (194KB, 339x339px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 339x339px

War is way too complex for no allies to be involved.

See; illuminati.

WHO WANTS TO MAKE HISTORY BOI'S

>>73353556
Both have enough nukes to rekt the other country

>>73353556
Tune in next week for the next episode of WW3

Ignoring nukes russia would probably be on the defense. Russia doesnt have the naval superiority needed to attack the us mainland. Russias larger ground army would probably beat any invasion attempt if no other country helps. If its a war involving nato the situation becomes different. Us troops can attack by land and would have air bases nearby. They would probably gain some ground but suffer heavy casualties especially when trying to take cities. Us troops would stretch very thin trying to hold land wich makes them vulnerable to counter attacks and partisan activity. Then again in a real scenario russia would nuke any incursion into the motherland.