Which side would win in a war?

>>129656960
europeans would win...

Depends which way Asia swings, they're the deciding factor if u ask me

>>129657205
Yeah, it will be pretty easy to defeat Eurabia

>>129656960
No one. Welcome to thermal nuclear war.

Guilt Trip Europe into letting in more Immigrants. Sit back and do nothing. Watch all of Europe burn. March upon a defeated foe and plant flags everywhere.

>>129656960
whichever side the jews support
so blue

>>129657313
sure jamal sure...

Blue would win even if it was only the us just because of the massive military, even if they had equal military, blue would win because red would have too much anti-war population.

>>129656960
Brazil and Mexico could defeat Russia fairly easily. That leaves the USA to nuke the rest of Europe into oblivion.

Not even a red China would make this scenario competitive.

>>129657548
lmao, in an imaginary scenario, if all Europe massive joined, tecno, army, total cooperation, remilitarization process of Germany, Uk, France, Spain, Poland, Russia,Portugal, Sweden,Greece, Italy, etc.. and plus Russia, no one in the world would stand a chance and you know it, usa could even join with china.

>>129657399
If you haven't noticed, we have a shitskin problem of our own.

>>129656960
With those allies euro easy

>>129656960
Red, but like >>129657548 said, red would fight against itself in the main players kek.

Yet if that were not too happen, before a basement general arrives to give a definitive answer after throughly comparing the capabilities of both, I'll go with RED.

>>129656960
Depends if Russia still has the Soviet-era "automatic-nuke-everything" Dead Hand that they supposedly had. If so, they win, even if they lose. Basically, if Moscow falls, the world ends. So, team red.

>>129657845
EU GDP: 17 trillion
US GDP: 18 trillion
Europe GDP: 19 trillion
North America GDP: 21 trillion
Combined N+S America GDP: 25 trillion

When you add in the fact that the US already has a massively larger standing force, it's not even close. Europe wouldn't have a chance of fielding a fleet to control the seas and would be bombed to shit.

>>129658236
you're missng the point, you are looking into a weak eurozone today, that not even cares about military, but in a war scenario, im not even talking if Germany,Uk,France, and the rest of europe went far-right nationalist, the scenario would change so easy, just look how ns germany, almost alone did against half of the world, and you're missing also Russia.

>>129656960
America has a gun for every man, woman, and child. We won't be losing any mainland territory. It'd be a Cold War 2.0 situation, or global nuclear war

>>129658617
>you're missng the point, you are looking into a weak eurozone today, that not even cares about military, but in a war scenario, im not even talking if Germany,Uk,France, and the rest of europe went far-right nationalist, the scenario would change so easy
GDP is GDP. If anything the American side is better off, if the US really tried it could industrialize South America hard. Europe is far more equal in terms of GDP per capita, investments that brought east Europe up to the level of Germany wouldn't see as sharp a benefit.

>ns germany, almost alone did against half of the world
Germany salvaged pretty much the entire military stockpile of France, Czechslovakia and Poland for free, ontop of starting a war when the rest of the world was in a depression and the Soviets had just killed most of their officers. They still pretty much lost just to Russia. The Axis never had a hope of contesting control of the Americas. Couldn't even beat the fucking UK, lol.

SLIDE
SAGE IN ALL FIELDS

>>129659166
yes, cause america had to be allied with russia, uk, france, poland.. to beat ns germany, and now you really believe you would beat all of them together, LMAO
any europid military is more homogeneous than your's (break into mexicans, blks and wuites) in a mid term you would see the difference.

>Couldn't even beat the fucking UK, lol.

Britain was not alone (had all the commonwhealth) and usa, germany was almost alone.

>>129656960
You have to take Africa, China, and India, too. We get Australia and Japan.

>>129656960

Stalemate from start to finish.

Blue would dominate the sea, but would have an extremely hard time invading red territory. Same would be true for reds if they had control of the seas.

Both states would be ideal counters to one another, fueling arms and technological development at an unprecedented pace. Though I'd prefer to see the UK on the blue side of things

>>129658617
You're talking about 70 years ago

>>129656960
America would probably first nuke itself and then blame Russia. So... no one?

>>129656960
Everyone will destroy themselves because of the radiation and the earth wont have any type of "clean resources" so the whole world will die in agony

>>129657295
Literally this. Especially considering 4 Asian countries have nukes

>>129659793
this, assuming no nukes, USA alone controls the sea, but any major war beyond that would be cost many lives, ruin economies, and kill morale

>>129659630
>yes, cause america had to be allied with russia, uk, france, poland.. to beat ns germany, and now you really believe you would beat all of them together, LMAO
The fact that the US was allied with them doesn't mean it had to be. Germany was effectively beaten 1v1 by Russia.

>Britain was not alone (had all the commonwhealth) and usa, germany was almost alone.
The commonwealth had virtually no navy deployed to protect the UK and the USA didn't join for years. In fact the UK's navy was dispersed all across the pacific/Indian/Mediterranean and Germany still couldn't invade even with Italy's help.

>>129657907
At least their is hope for the converting to FREEDOM, they are already close to western values. Islam is hopeless.

File: wopr.jpg (61KB, 478x351px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 478x351px

Joshua says there would be no winner.

>>129660413
>The fact that the US was allied with them doesn't mean it had to be

yea sure,Usa would win against Germany without Russia and Uk and dozens other allies, from australia, to canada etc.. and in this scenario usa would beat them all together LEL

>Germany was effectively beaten 1v1 by Russia.

No it wasn´t, Russia received million of bullets, tanks, supplies of all types from the usa, and Germany had the cooperation of other nations, like romania and finland. The point was that, Germany, was fighting in many fronts, against all the other biggest power's, from france to uk, russia and usa..

>The commonwealth had virtually no navy deployed to protect the UK and the USA didn't join for years.

Thousands of commonwealth soldiers went to help the uk, no nececssatly with navy (canada had it) but inside Raf in airplanes logistics, supply etc..

Eurabia, we would have an inside mole, commiefornia and canada, so. SA is full of niggers, the US aswell... piece of cake

>>129656960
Easily blue, they gather millions of coked up central/South Americans to exert massive pressure on the front lines while the US uses its superior technology and training to flank and destroy. US would have naval and sea supremacy within a weak, millions of pillaging brown Americans would lay havoc to the unarmed European populace.

>>129656960
Militar satellites are an important factor. There're some that are able to fry every electronic device in the area (I think I don't need to explain what would happen in a situation like this).

>>129657340
>This

>>129661159
>yea sure,Usa would win against Germany without Russia and Uk and dozens other allies, from australia, to canada etc.. and in this scenario usa would beat them all together LEL
Against all of that? Would probably be a draw. Keep in mind that the USA represented over 50% of the world's GDP in WW2.

>No it wasn´t, Russia received million of bullets, tanks, supplies of all types from the usa, and Germany had the cooperation of other nations, like romania and finland. The point was that, Germany, was fighting in many fronts, against all the other biggest power's, from france to uk, russia and usa..
Russia had already started winning the war and beating Germany back before the USA was even in the war and well before there was any other important fronts. The USA made it a bit quicker and less bloody on the Eastern front, but anyone knowledgeable about the Eastern front agrees that Russia would probably have won in any instance that didn't involve Japan making peace with China in order to invade them.

>Thousands of commonwealth soldiers went to help the uk, no nececssatly with navy (canada had it) but inside Raf in airplanes logistics, supply etc..
A fairly irrelevant number compared to the actual UK's strength. Point is that Germany was only strong by looting the armies of France/Czechoslovakia/Poland

File: 1487465416023.png (276KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1280x720px

>>129656960
No one.
If we take nukes into account then everyone dies.
If we don't then neither side can invade the other.
That is considering no one else joins the war.

File: TRUMP_MEXICAN_FOOD.jpg (201KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 800x533px

>>129656960
blue and red should team up to fuck the shit out gray

>>129656960
Red would take a huge lead and be on the cusp of victory.

But then Germany fucks it all up and Blue wins

>>129662183
No because there will not be one side that enters the at the end game and take al the credits

>>129657817

>Brazil and Mexico could defeat Russia fairly easily.

don't count on us bro

our stocks of ammunition would last literally 1 hour in a war, we use 45 year old rifles and we got a single ww2 aircraft carrier that we bought from the french and spends more days in repair than in service these times

>>129663049
>our stocks of ammunition would last literally 1 hour in a war, we use 45 year old rifles and we got a single ww2 aircraft carrier that we bought from the french and spends more days in repair than in service these times

That's a pretty good description of Russia, actually.

File: IMG_1671.png (382KB, 687x687px)

382KB, 687x687px

>2011
>be France and inglin
>see gadaffi fighting rebels
>long story short they want him gone
>literally 10% the pop of either nation and also in civil war
>timeforregimechange.jpg
>attempt to send planes in
>oh shit won't work
>he's marching on Benghazi
>USA! We need you to shoot the planes of this bad goy!
>mama hill-dawg and Barry soetoro use their local planes and fleet
>gadaffi's head rolling in the streets mere months later

Such is the tale of all European-led offensives since NATO formed. Regardless of whether the Is actually succeeded or not, Europe has become overly dependent on our aid.

Europe can increase their military spending all they want, but they can't buy themselves a new military culture and increase the quality of each individual soldier, or convince people to even enlist. Pic related.

The rest of the americas will give the US the manpower reserves it needs to occupy the vast lands in Europe, which is where virtually the entire land war would take place if nukes didn't kill everyone. If nukes magically disappear it would end in either an American victory or s stalemate considering Europeans have no hope of invading the Western Hemisphere.

Why even include south or centricial America?

>>129656960
>UK being on the Red Side
Uh No

>>129656960
literally Jews

>>129663049
>le 1 hour of ammo meme
I bet you also voted for Dilma.

We all know we could survive for at least 2 hours no problem.

>>129659793
If we felt like it we could probably pick off some important islands, but yeah invading the continent would be an exercise in futility if the population hates us.

Considering no nukes,
if Europe could field an equally sized army then it would just stalemate.
If they couldnt the US would win since europe would never be able to invade by sea.

>>129656960
(((they))) would

>>129665547
Could maybe make it 3 if you'd confiscate supplies from your favela gangbangers.

>>129665547
bullshit,4 hours is the best our nation can do in a war economy before we lose all money to produce ammo because the politicians stole it.

>>129656960
>Which side would win in a war?
Russia has way more nukes than we do. Doesn't help that Shillary sold them almost a quarter of our uranium.

File: spending.jpg (158KB, 960x684px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 960x684px

>>129657845

Europe + russia's natural recourses.
Easy win.

If Russia could destroy America, it would be a win for white people.

America is the one pushing all this multicultural shit on the world.

>B-but muh Israel and ze Jueden

They do it through the strong arm of America. Chop it off and so goes their might.

With America gone, I expect nations like Germany, and all of Europe really, to do a complete 180 on their multicultural fiasco.

>>129656960
there is only one country worth a damn on the blue side. But their tech is probably more advanced than entire red side.

No nukes: Europe + Russia
Nukes: Stalemate or Americas

American populations and institutions are too distributed while European populations are too concentrated around their capital cities.

Washington DC, Brasilia, Ottawa, etc. aren't worth shit without their political apparatuses. The real economic, military, cultural strength comes from elsewhere. Not so for Moscow, London, Paris.

>>129667446
>we spend more on our military than ishmael
>our armed forces are still ww2 tier.
i have no pic and i want to scream.

>>129667662
true. America was the one pushing decolonization.
Without America we wouldve had jakarta and java still.
Especially with today'd technology.
A country of a few million controlling entire indonesia, the third most populated country on earth

Russia would win, no doubt.

The U.S is worried more about where we can put our genitalia.

>>129667709

Nukes are actually the strong aspect of Russia. Their nukes are allegedly more powerful than ours.

America is distributed like you say, but you don't need total destruction to win. You can cut the head off the snake, and America has definite areas of concentrated power you could target.

Again, if America were gone, this would be a win for whites. The rest of the world is doing multiculturalism to placate to America. Without it, I could see the rest of the world doing a complete 180 on multiculturalism.

No one everyone would die

File: israels-iron-dome.jpg (32KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x400px

>>129667446
Spending doesn't mean shit by itself. Financial resources are just an abstract claim on real resources

Imagine if a huge African country spent 50% of its (((GDP))) on military. Congo, Nigeria, Ethiopia's armies would still be shit.

Saudi Arabia spends more than Israel in that pic. I wonder which country would do better if they went all-out against Yemen (or Syria + Egypt + ?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Israel is the lowest in that list yet has undisclosed nukes...enough to beat the next 7 countries above it (put together).

A rich army is not necessarily a good army.

we would win based purely on our superior lebensraum. we also have hundreds of millions of black and brown people to use as cannon fodder and just as many whites. europe has no chance.

>>129657205
no they wouldn't...

>>129667709
Disagree, Washington is very centralized, Pentagon, Treasury, Federal Reserve, Justice Department, The Capitol and of course the White House

Cut off Washington, and America is like a headless chicken

>>129657907
The difference is that our shitskins are mostly half white and primarily christian, the niggers are a problem sure, but we kind of brought it upon our selves not deporting them back to Africa after we freed them.

>>129668335
>A rich army is not necessarily a good army.

this should be painfully obvious given the US's inability to beat vietnamese rice farmers or arab sheep rapists

the US has fallen into the same trap nazi germany did, in thinking that the military with the most expensive toys wins. Fortunately, thanks to nukes, we've managed to avoid conflict with an actual nation, because our military is designed to sustain a bloated defense industry, not actually fight wars

>>129656960
in any case, nukes or no nukes this is a pretty good match up

I'm all for Team Grey in this scenario. Much much manpower.

>>129656960
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Russia is a paper tiger. the rest of nato hasn't spent real military money in forever.
The only experienced active military in the group is England and they are smaller then 1/10th the size of America.
if this started tomorrow, aemrica hands down. Now it would be different if it followed 7 years of rearmament like what happened in ww2 or is asia joined in.

>>129656960
The United States Navy alone would prevent anything from ever leaving Europe. Combine with Canada and Latin America and it would be a slaughter.

Assuming no nukes of course.

>>129668335
>A rich army is not necessarily a good army.

Look at the gear the Israeli's used during the 6DW. American tanks, French aircraft.

Spending does mean shit. Israel had the benefit of having close ties with the West, while most other countries in the 6DW had ties with Russia and their shit gear. The U.S.'s military spending has put an entire proxy network in Southeast Asia. There's no doubt in my mind that the U.S. has EMP devices ready to blackout Russia or China should anything get tense. There is no other military in the world that is equivalent to the U.S.'s. Russia has old stock and China has no stock. Stop getting confused that by having nukes you somehow have military equivalence.

>>129656960

There's no point to this scenario. There's a reason why NATO exists and has been encroaching on Russian influence for so many years.

>>129657845
The US Alone still has a better navy than the entirety of Europe+Russia. Not to mention a far more advanced Airforce and Armor, or the geographic advantage. The US might not be able to win, but we certainly wouldn't lose.

>>129668652
The cold war created every contingency for a surprise sneak 'decapitation' nuke attack on Washington. If anything, the military would be MORE efficient after that.

>>129669315
>paper tiger
Update your handbook from the 2008 version, it's been nearly ten years, ever since then we've started putting effort into upgrading our army.

>>129669671
Idk, I can't really see the US military working on its own. Even Generals are trained to sit and wait for upper command.

I'd honestly feel so happy if Washington DC was gone. It would be like a blight had been lifted from the world.

>>129657340
New zealand wins

Red no contest, this scenario is unfair, it's basically USA vs 90% of the worlds developed countries

File: 1494602653358.jpg (30KB, 369x349px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 369x349px

>>129657451
>a country that was owned by Africa
>calling us Jamal

Wew.

>>129664603
>Japan
Shamefur

>>129656960
Hey fuck you, keep out of that blue shit, we're not fighting for fucking kikes.

>>129656960
Anyone who believes Europe would defeat the Americas is fucking delusional

>>129669488

To add nukes are becoming increasingly obsolete. At least ICBMs are. We just successfully tested systems to shoot down ICBMs. If that's what they're showing the public the real stuff is probably farther along and that's why the Russians and Chinese are butthurt about it

>>129672241
>If that's what they're showing the public the real stuff is probably farther along

I feel like what they did show is just for show.

Either way, I don't think the US can stop a nuclear volley.

>>129672055
both sides fight for the kikes in this case.

>>129656960
The New World would rape those faggots. Absolutely no fucking way they could maintain any sort of transatlantic logistics line or challenge us in the home land.

File: 1497303124679.png (19KB, 505x571px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 505x571px

>>129671750
You might want to rethink that statement.

File: execution.jpg (92KB, 743x605px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 743x605px

>>129656960
Frankly, the entire world could be fighting the United States and they would still never gets boots on our soil. So if it was the USA with all the manpower that Latin America provides, Europe and Russia wouldn't stand a chance.

>>129673304
>manpower
>conventional warfare

>>129657845
The Chinese and Indians would more than match you. The Americans would outnumber you by two hundred million people and the northern two countries in the alliance are technological juggernauts.

Not to mention that the United States is the only nation in the group capable of building significant, serious, naval power in appreciable numbers.

>>129656960
take us out of that, Brazil is a country of peace

File: tired.jpg (223KB, 526x877px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 526x877px

>>129673460
He was obviously talking about conventional warfare, "winning" a nuclear war makes no sense.

>>129673304
>all the manpower that Latin America provides
I'm wondering what Latin America could deliver. I know the US runs something like the School of the Americas for their military leaders, plus it would be interesting to use Cuba against Russia.

Pan-America would win without a doubt, Europe has never banded together entirely for any military cause, they'd fall to Russia and we'd wipe the floor with all of them, just like every other war we've been involved in.

File: vector.jpg (3MB, 5100x3800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5100x3800px

>>129657845
Europe and Russia don't have the naval or air power to establish naval or air superiority, and if you don't rule the seas and the skies then you can't even touch American soil, which means you'll be on the defensive the whole time while we bomb your bases, ports, infrastructure, radars, factories, and equipment. At which point we simply land our troops and fight a war of attrition on foot, a war which the low manpower of the Europeans and Russians can't afford to win.

File: 99sgIeIJmrw9l96AqV7Sdf7Ahsf07fS2d0BGk8hYUr8.jpg (43KB, 630x473px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 630x473px

>>129656960
Finland alone could beat blue

>>129657340
this
>>129670988
Nah, global thermonuclear war would probably do all kinds of unexpected things that would end up killing all life on the planet. Our atmosphere as we know it would not stand up to just suddenly having >1000 simultaneous 1MT+ explosions occurring all over it.

>>129673822
Sauce? If that's an anime, I'd actually watch that degenerate shit for once.

Red

Burgers would be spread too thin with all the deal weight

>>129664603
>UK 27%
you guys sure talk a lot and
>AUS 29%
not much better

File: redskull.gif (2MB, 659x609px)

2MB, 659x609px

>>129674221
And how would Red even touch American soil?

File: rapier_missile.jpg (185KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1200x900px

>>129656960

Depends who could secure the UK or Greenland first and ensure constant buildup to push onto the main continent from France or Canada maybe even the Falklands through Argentina who have literally no military while keeping the east fringe forces tied down unable to move in fear of being overrun. Falklands are pretty well defended, if you could bolster it with AA before America can para drop on it any landing attempt would be disastrous.

>>129674688
I'm still not liking the Idea we'd side with Red, pretty sure we'd pick Blue every time

This is easy. Assuming no nuclear war there is only one country that has power projection capabilities to move enough men and materials across the ocean, hold ground and resupply.

File: 1479214741427.jpg (202KB, 1059x857px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1059x857px

>>129673267

File: bunny.jpg (77KB, 684x1167px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 684x1167px

>>129674688
You might be able to take the Falklands and land an invasion force, but there's no way you'd be able to supply the troops from all the way across the Atlantic or Pacific while we're patrolling it with our navy and air force, and without a supply line that landing force is gonna be in a whole lotta trouble very quickly.

File: jap neutraliser .jpg (402KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1920x1080px

>>129656960
War would last a day, nukes and both sides pooped

>>129674821
You would. Should be western hemisphere plus anglosphere vs the commie-muslims

>>129674296
>numerical superiority
>american Cuckdom

Humans fight each other, cockroaches wins the war... Stupid humans!

>>129656960
I was going to say us but when I noticed you're including Greenland I don't think we have a chance

>>129657548
Cant even win against ragheads.

File: aesthetic.jpg (125KB, 1500x892px)

125KB, 1500x892px

>>129675346
>numerical superiority
Blue has numerical superiority

>>129675566
well answer me this batman

you have numerical superiority
OR
Are brazilians people

>>129675901
Are half of South Americans really people

File: drop.jpg (439KB, 1920x1080px)

439KB, 1920x1080px

>>129675901
Yes

File: 1497320300822.png (35KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1425x625px

I fixed you're map.

>>129675970
Is that Frontline?
(Brain not working)

>>129676063
>ireland
>not neutral

>>129656960
not the side who has 90% of its countries military supported and paid for by America thats who

>>129676063
>>129676279
Ireland is EU loyalist at this point. They'd be red.

>>129676486
never in our independence have we been in a war

This would heavily come down to resources, air power, and naval strength......I'd say the USA coalition.

PLOT TWIST, guy who added in a third section essentially made 1984. HAIL OCEANIA

File: RUBVlHn.jpg (124KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x1024px

America vs. Algerian Europe and Chechen Russia?

With nukes: Everybody dies

Without nukes: America alone could defeat the rest of the planet.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-would-the-us-military-last-in-a-war-against-the-rest-of-the-world-2016-3
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states

>>129677168
Run them through an archive

>http://businessinsider com/how-long-would-the-us-military-last-in-a-war-against-the-rest-of-the-world-2016-3
https://archive.is/6iZt7

File: FMJ.png (1MB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 707x1000px

>>129676107
Dropzone Commander

>>129676716
Here's the thing we have to remember. Our air force and navy far outmatches theirs, so they could never hope to land an invasion force on our soil. The best they can hope for is a white peace, and that's a bit of a stretch for them.

>>129677197
Fuck off bot, reported.

>>129657205
kek, guess you are one of the dumb fucks i meet everyday...

File: WW3.png (35KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1425x625px

>>129676063
Ive included some Over Seas territories and Removed Portugal cause they're our Oldest Allies

>>129677567
Why are you taking this joke so seriously you absolute mong?

>>129677662
Hey if you're gonna do Fiction might as well add detail

>>129677567

Switzerland would remain neutral and Nepal would be blue, probably along with India and Sri Lanka. Japan and South Korea would definitely be blue. Iran and Syria would be red.

Blue team can’t invade red, red team can’t invade blue, resulting in stalemate.

>>129677567

Also, the northernmost island that you've coloured purple is part of Russia.

>>129678057
Anything else?

>>129678057
>implying an illegally occupied territory is part of the country that is temporarily holding it

File: fQMJV1J.jpg (150KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1920x1080px

>>129678234
Get over it, you're never getting America back.

>>129675183
Please God, yes.

>>129678172

I think the Danes, the Norwegians and the Dutch would have severe misgivings about siding with red over blue but that's hard to express in colours.

East Timor would be blue, as would the Phillipines and Singapore. Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Brunei and Vietnam would all be purple.

>>129661961
José is right

>>129674821
You should side with Red.

Blue is what is strong arming all European countries to swallow the multicultural shit-pill. Join Red, Kill Blue.

>>129663859
Wat? I'm fairly certain Russia have humongous stocks of weapon and equipment spanning from Murmansk to Vladistok

File: USA! USA! USA!.jpg (815KB, 1540x1600px)

815KB, 1540x1600px

>>129678569
Who the hell would want it?

File: WW3.png (36KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1425x625px

>>129678633
Dont know if South Africa would join in

>>129678775
Sorry Sven, the russians have been selling all their weapons to Africa since the wall came down.

>>129656960
Americans have bases with nukes all over Europe. So probably USA and the others will win.

File: all_hail_britannia.jpg (440KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1280x720px

>>129656960
>>129676063

File: map.png (56KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1425x625px

Whom would get the spoils of war?

>>129657399
Yeah, says 56%

>>129678912

We could definitely rely on RSA. In fact, every current member of the Commonwealth of Nations would put itself in serious diplomatic jeopardy by going to war against the rest, or even staying neutral.

Also we're probably being extremely presumptuous about South America being such a blanket of blue, although I don't know much about the intricacies of their politics. Cuba and Venezuela would very easily go red, for example.

File: perfect borders for everyone.png (121KB, 1179x823px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1179x823px

Map thread?

File: world rankings.png (280KB, 5235x2483px)

280KB, 5235x2483px

>>129679794

I got one

>tfw dual citizen

no more brother wars!

>>129677168
invading other countries requires much more than raw power.
The US could defend against the rest of the world but not necessarily invade Europe or Asia.

Oceania vs Eurasia?

File: mapofcountries.png (531KB, 5235x2483px)

531KB, 5235x2483px

>>129679950
i love these

>>129656960
canada cant go to war with the united kingdom, it would be a constitutional crisis you retard

File: worldmap.png (2MB, 6460x3455px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6460x3455px

is this the map thread?