Which side would win in a war?

Which side would win in a war?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

europeans would win...

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

Yeah, it will be pretty easy to defeat Eurabia

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.

whichever side the jews support
so blue

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.

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.

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.

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

With those allies euro easy

Red, but like 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

>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

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.

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

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

You're talking about 70 years ago

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

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

Literally this. Especially considering 4 Asian countries have nukes

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

>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.

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

Joshua says there would be no winner.

>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

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.

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).

>This

>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

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.

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

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

But then Germany fucks it all up and Blue wins

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

>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

>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.

>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?

>UK being on the Red Side
Uh No

literally Jews

>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.

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.

(((they))) would

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

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.

>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.

...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 + ?)
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.

no they wouldn't...

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

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.

>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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

New zealand wins

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

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

Wew.

>Japan
Shamefur

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

Anyone who believes Europe would defeat the Americas is fucking delusional

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

>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.

both sides fight for the kikes in this case.

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.

You might want to rethink that statement.

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.

>manpower
>conventional warfare

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.

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

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

>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.

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.

Finland alone could beat blue

this
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.

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