Which side would win Jow Forums?

based tasmanian inbred

And India is part of Nato

Argelia is a French protectorate, Venezuela Bolivia Argentina and Cuba could join the Brics and Colombia Peru Chile the US
>And India is part of Nato
is not, the only non European / American country is Turkey

>is not, the only non European / American country is Turkey
Oh shit, you're right

>india on the same side of pakistan
lmao
fuck no
alot of nations that aren't nato are nato aligned (phillipines, thailand, south korea, japan, israel, etc)

Fixed the map

Attached: 9a023c7a-2d4e-4b3e-b077-5bf468dfe144.png (6460x3480, 1.83M)

Obviously if the nukes start flying nobody wins. But in a conventional war it would be blue and it’s not close.

The side with the 'muricans in it

make Afghanistan either red or mixed, mixed due to some afghans being loyal to u.s puppet government and the Taliban being more aligned to the local nations
red also because the government would crumble almost instantly since u.s wouldn't focus any more forces there
mongolia should also be red
all of SEA would be blue they hate chinese influence as it is
alot of east african nations would go red but im a retard who doesn't know who is in debt to the ch*nkoids

So first world vs. 3rd world

Pretty fucking obviously NATO wins

>Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Montenegro, India
>First world
Pick one

not so close
u.s has to cover the western hemisphere and reorganize a shitload of bases and forces before it sends reinforcements to the E.U and SEA
the E.U would need time to mobilize its forces and in the process would lose quite a bit of ground
Blue also may be flat out stronger but its populations are full of pussies who will try to make their governments quit even if they are winning (see Vietnam, Iraq war 1&2, Afghan invasion)

Ignore the outliers and show me a single civilized country within the red zone

oman, arabia, tunis, parts of china

>Muslims and china
>civilized
Pick one

The populations just don’t want to participate in foreign imperialist wars. When was is on the doorstep, no civilization fights harder or more ruthlessly than the West

SINO BVLLS ruled the mongol empire and colonised you, cry about it finnoid

We sell to both sides

>implying France won't try to vent their insecurities into trying to cap your amazon
>leading to trump to Monroe doctrine macrons tight, petite boipucci into the dirt

hands off mutts

Attached: map.png (6460x3480, 1.44M)

fu

Attached: 1567075792332.png (6460x3480, 1.44M)

>tunisia
>nothing changes
blissful

>isreal blows out the whole middle east and north africa
>china can't even defeat taiwan, let alone the rest of asia
>uk could easily do russia with a little help from france
Then there only remains brazil, south africa and some shitter countries, which, again, get easily destroyed by what blue country you choose. Nato is simply that much more powerful even without the US.

India and Pakistan on same side. Lol

Russia alone can take out all of the blue in conventional warfare lmao

Don't care. I just want to kill chinkoid and gookoid

The Brics alliance easily win, the only threat in NATO is the USA.

Blue wins by a landslide with or without nukes.
And in this scenario, nukes would absolutely be involved.

Attached: havingagigglem8.jpg (1280x720, 253K)

>Brics
>doesn't include the "i" country

retard

Lmao you wish
With nukes we win due to sheer amount of antinuke countermeasures such as bunkers and shit. Without nukes we will win because blue people are pussies, their armies are filled with pedophiles and transgenders and they have broomsticks instead of guns. Also the most powerful blue country aka united States of shartia is now losing even to sandniggers and back then they lost to jungle people they're incapable of war. You guys have absolutely no chance against Russian technology and fighting spirit combined with Chink and Indian resources.

Attached: 1543537084220.jpg (720x960, 113K)

based and vodka pilled. keep shitposting the good fight ivan

China = just incite civil unrest starting with Hong Kong, and blast the coastal cities to smithereens. The rest of the country is just empty where whatever remains of their people and army would retreat. The mistake would be to follow them, once the coastline has been reduced to ashes, they no longer have any projection capabilities though.
You know what's easy to do, though ? Form a quick alliance of all those ASEAN nations whom China is currently crushing and threatening to do the dirty job for us - Japan, Korea, Malaysia, hell even India would band together to make swift work on mainland Chinese.

India = don't make me laugh. Brits & French colonized when it was already a juggernaut, things have barely changed since then. US/UK/FR forces would make quick work of whatever navy the have and for the reste you end up once again with a nation with no projection force.

Now, for the real heavyweight of the group = Russia. Admittedly you're a tough cookie to break, but in an all-out nuke warfare, I think you underestimate greatly how NATO's resources are significantly more than your country whose GDP is that of Italy's.
One nuke on Moscow, one on St Petersburgh, now what Ivan ? Of course Poland & Ukraine woulod see bitter fighting on their soils, but all of Europe + American forces would force you to do what you do best : hide & retreat into that frozen desert of yours where this time we would let you freeze your balls of instead of chasing you. You'd even get sandwich'd by Japan on the other side.
I am of course not counting Brazil or the Muslim world, Western Powers + Israel would be way too happy to have a good reason to glass them all so that they stop fucking with us once and for all.

NATO without US still has more Power Projection better army and more budget than all the Brics together, ofc all the BRICS have more man power and more nukes because Rusia

Saudis are US allies though : ^)

Lmao
US alone could take on China and Russia and win

>One nuke on Moscow, one on St Petersburgh, now what Ivan ?
Whole of NATO evaporized, 80% of moscow and petersburg population survive due to availability of shelters. Russian military crosses the wasteland in radiation protected tanks and kills every single remaining European. Game over try again?

I mean what is the non-nuclear victory conditions for that, crush their fleets and kick out any occupying armies? What about limited nuclear exchange on military targets or no home soil?

Pretty much
And the US is located in a position where you need to crush their navy before you can actually attack, and realistically no one can crush the US navy as of now. Not even Russia and China together, heck, probably Russia, Entirety of Europe, and China together wouldnt win against US Navy

I think the European NATO Navy is half the size of the American, Russian Chinese and Indians are a fucking joke, China and India are investing money in that now and maybe in 20 years they could compete with Europe, but not now.

>Whole of NATO evaporized
How so ? You have two cities we need to nuke and no, Ivan, people don't have the time to rush to a bunker in the event of a bomb falling on them, it's 90% of population of both countries instantly erased and area can't be inhabited for decades. Maybe three cities if we add something like Vladivostok since in our scenario China is also an enemy.
While for you, you have to nuke more than what, ten or fifteen cities to win over NATO ?
You'd have to be able to nuke Berlin, London, Paris, New York, Washington, Toronto and Tokyo at the very fucking least to even begin to start on an even foot as us. There's no match here. Without nukes, I don't deny it would be a different story, but here this changes everything.

Precisely
Claiming that the Russkies or the Chinks could ever land an invasion force on US home soil is like claiming that Belgium could realistically take on the UK or France

>India is part of Nato
If you actually look, they're not. Nobody from the Middle East or SEA is actually part of NATO.

You guys do understand that NATO was originally formed as a bloc of countries pledging their militaries to one combined effort to hold the Soviets back and curtail the spread of Da Commies after the Berlin Airlift, right?

Anyone too far south or too far east is more likely to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence than the American one, so they were not allowed in for obvious reasons - you don't want your potential enemies voting in your pseudo-parliament.

You have to look at the map in 1950s terms to understand why NATO is set up the way it is - we have a different organization for world policing, called the UN.

>cold war cliche

Are you literally retarded?

US lost to zips you didn't fare much better in Afganistan, insurgents are hard to fight.

Ivan please, half of your arsenal is even more outdated than EU nations, you GDP is way smaller than EU's and your population way smaller too.
You'd have a clear advantage at the start of the war but unless you managed to blitz whole of EU before the big western nations got their shit together you'd be pushed right back to Siberia.
Not to mention it's a long way from Moscow to Central EU and your supply lines would be sabotaged to shit by angry population.

>All the faggots ITT speaking of war as if they were experts
Jow Forums truly is the low IQ board

>Of course Poland & Ukraine woulod see bitter fighting on their soils, but all of Europe + American forces would force you to do what you do best

Why should Poland be wasted in war again and turned from country with better infrastructure and society than shitty France to third world shithole again? So the french negroes could watch our butchery while eating fries? You guys are definitely too arrogant and disorganized to succeed and Poland doesnt need to be ruled by the West's foreign agents forever

Yeah can we make this a WW3 vet only thread get out Zoomers

That's more like it

Which side would win Jow Forums?

Attached: 2000_AD_Superpowers_Map.png (1425x636, 15K)

Look in a mirror.

>Why should Poland be wasted in war again
Trust me, I wouldn't wish that for your country at all. But in the event of EU/Russian war, I don't see how it could be avoided.

Attached: spottheretard.png (720x594, 721K)

You need to have functional armies and balls first to take a part in real full scale war. The EU is just a bunch of disarmed countries having conflicting interests while you talk about it as some kind united military bloc.

We are talking hypothetical here.
In a war like the one OP posted, the US would swiftly organize EU command chain and Europe would happily cooperate.
There's no need to cooperate when forming an Alliance to fuck Irak up, and yet we did it all the same, imagine what would happen in a *real* war.

>In a war like the one OP posted, the US would swiftly organize EU command chain and Europe would happily cooperate.

I doubt it happens and if you want wars, go organize them on your own territories, not on ours. Polish people wont be dying again, so bandits from Kremlin, Paris and Washington could sign peace treaties over our dead bodies

You say that but I think the Polish gov is far more pragmatic about being steamrolled, nuked into dust or being used poorly like a Belgium back door and without nukes there's very little retaliatory action you could take after getting sammiched.

Thats why we will get nukes to make you and ruskies create shitloads of mountain divisions and lead your offensives through Slovakia and Hungary instead.

>brics and muslim alliance
5 countries that hate Muslims allied with Muslims. Doesn't make sense for geopolitical reasons either.

Romania is better than all of those other shitholes you mentioned though

russia has an economy the size of italy

You forgot to include Venezuela

Nukes are your best bet for keeping the kids of your lawn, the 'if I don't have nukes people wont nuke me' philosophy is bullshit but at the same time (at least for Australia) if we got nukes our neighbors would get them too and we're most likely to use them on each other.

I agree with the sentiment, but if we obtained nukes I don't think our neighbours would feel threatened by us. New Zealand, Indonesia and the Pacific Islands are going to know they're not who we are worried about. They would be more concerned that we feel so threatened by China that we feel the need to develop nuclear weapons, and may question whether they need to do the same.

Well if sentiment changes in Indo I could see them developing nukes. Very populous country, scared of China, previously expansionist (Malaysia, PNG, Australia conflict), why not?

Based

Maybe if Indonesia develops them we will consider it too. Nuclear weapons would be cheaper than trying to build a conventional military that's large enough to deter any Asian power.