Poll: Who wins

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Death wins. Death always wins.

  2. #82
    Warchief Lupinemancer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Somewhere between here and the sick, twisted world inside my head
    Posts
    2,210
    The Animals!

  3. #83
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by manboiler View Post
    Latinos don't have the Money to go to war as they've paid the americans for the wall....
    Mexico can pay on their own. Brazil is wealthy enough to do some saber rattling.

  4. #84

  5. #85
    Clearly united Africans
    World of Warcraft: Shadowblands
    Diablo Bore.

  6. #86
    The Lightbringer Nathreim's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    3,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Lei Shi View Post
    While we are at it:



    Of course we would reject the Eastern US's request to join us.
    "Part of Mexico or under Mexican Influence" Ha thats a joke Mexico cant even control itself. I dont know who this "Russian Professor" is but hes a fucking retard. No foreign nation could ever hope to control the American population.
    Last edited by Nathreim; 2016-06-06 at 06:53 PM.

  7. #87
    Deleted
    Latino Inquisition because nobody in their right mind would want to invade that cesspool.

  8. #88
    With Nuclear weapons, no one would "win". World War 3 would either be the end of Humanity / life as we know it or a major reset button.

  9. #89
    3 world war will win ZOMBIE NATION.

  10. #90
    Deleted
    Nobody would be able to win in the long run, even if we exclude nukes.

    If any of the major powers could actually take/invade any other block, they wouldn't be able to successfully occupy and assimilate it. Think Afghanistan, except this time there are around 100 times more local peasants, who has access to modern CAD machines, higher education and centuries of accumulated crafting experience, combined with modern infrastructure and hard cryptology.

    Imagine for arguments sake Russia actually winning a conventional land war against US + Canada on North American soil (through teleportation or whichever... ). Congratulations Mother Russia. You now have 350 mio. new - and just ever so slightly unhappy - subjects. Good luck keeping the lid on *that* pot indefinitely.

    Same thing for every major block actually 'winning' against any other adversary. They will live to really, *really* come to regret the decision to attack. Any conventional war will almost certainly be exceptionally bloody, yet in the end the outcome will be a stalemate and eventual withdrawal to somewhere around the current status quo.

  11. #91
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathreim View Post
    "Part of Mexico or under Mexican Influence" Ha thats a joke Mexico cant even control itself.
    Haha that's true, it's more likely to become a Confederacy under Texan leadership.

  12. #92

  13. #93
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by nyc81991 View Post
    With Nuclear weapons, no one would "win". World War 3 would either be the end of Humanity / life as we know it or a major reset button.
    No, Chile would be safe enough, as it's far away from any hostile interest, Namibia and South Africa got good chances at survival too.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Lei Shi View Post
    No, Chile would be safe enough, as it's far away from any hostile interest, Namibia and South Africa got good chances at survival too.
    Realistically speaking quite a many countries would be "safe". Countries with nukes would be too busy attacking other countries with nukes. Why would they bother with the ones that don't have them?

  15. #95
    it's the only war in human history where there's no true winners....assuming there's many humans left after it

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethas View Post
    If no nuclear missiles is used USSR easily. You whiney little girls called soldiers can't stand the power of russian bears for sure.
    I beg to differ


  17. #97
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Realistically speaking quite a many countries would be "safe". Countries with nukes would be too busy attacking other countries with nukes. Why would they bother with the ones that don't have them?
    Exactly .

  18. #98
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethas View Post
    If no nuclear missiles is used USSR easily.
    Neeh, still nobody. They'd take all of Eurasia easily enough, and then there'd be a huge fucking stalemate, because no way in hell can Russia/China successfully mount a land invasion on the US. So we'd go back to Cold War, but edgier and hotter, without the deterrent of nukes.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Lei Shi View Post
    No, Chile would be safe enough, as it's far away from any hostile interest, Namibia and South Africa got good chances at survival too.
    Even if those places didn't get directly Nuked, without the rest of the world things would never be same and much of the world would be uninhabitable for a long time. Thus it being at the very least a major reset for Humanity.

  20. #100
    Japan in Chinese Imperium? ISIS Empire? *dies of laughter*

    And WHY THE FUCK is Georgia in ISIS Empire to begin with? Modern punks...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •