NATO has a budget of more than $1,000,000,000,000 (Trillion)

As well as the most advanced military equipment and weaponry in the world. It also has thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at Russia and China and their partners. The West will inevitably win World War 3, and freedom and democracy will be prevalent throughout the planet from then on, ensuring that humanity lives long and prospers.

Attached: North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_(orthographic_projection).svg.png (2048x2048, 837.09K)

>The West will inevitably win World War 3, and freedom and democracy will be prevalent throughout

>what was afghanistan
>what was iraq
>what was cuba
>what was vietnam

>NATO NATO NATO!
NATO NATO NATO!

Attached: NATO NATO NATO!.jpg (720x540, 50.96K)

I have an arsenal and government training, your move blue helmet apes. We

75 percent is the US.

NATO plans on using those nukes? NATO members have the most to lose in a nuclear war

Attached: 8373738836.jpg (1136x852, 200.98K)

No one wins WW3. Stop being retarded.

>The West will inevitably win World War 3
ahahahahah
the nukes and all the delivery methods that Russia has negates your trillion dollar budget
all of the long-range precision missile that Russia uses, 2 of witch and especially 1 cannot be stopped and can all have nuclear warheads of all kinds of yields
and this is without touching ICBMs
so how do you, fucker, are going to win WW3 when these missiles and the whole Russia's nuclear triad are going to turn the US and co. into a nuclear wasteland?

>NATO members have the most to lose in a nuclear war
>shows NYC getting nuked
I presume pic not related then

>IT'S TOO BIG TO FAIL!
where have i heard this?

But OP if Russia continues to block all the world’s wheat shipments how will breadtube continue to exist?

The alliance is unbalanced, the original agreement was for every nation to spend 2% of their gdp per year on their military and yet only 10 countries have followed through with the agreement and the top 2 are spending almost 4%.

Attached: Natogdp.png (828x1438, 153.12K)

>Implying same doesn't happen to whoever tries that
Just stop it already. It's called MAD for a reason. You don't get to use them and see its effect.

It's easy, the US all by itself dwarfs Russia in population and it uses similar nuclear weapons and missiles. 100 million amerimutts dying is a roadblock, but ultimately manageable. 100 million slavshits dying is the end of Russia as we know it. You are doomed to lose, and our masters, the Chosen People, will reign supreme over what's left of the planet.

Attached: Israel.png (1357x628, 40.75K)

I dont see ww3

when everyone grew on western media, movies and whatever not

even if nukes used in the next war I think it will be only few places around 50


nukes arent as distructive as one thinks

In both Afghanistan and Iraq the west won the actual war incredibly quick. NATO is very efficient at removing foreign governments.

The place it all falls apart is the resulting occupation and rebuilding phase, but in a ww3 scenario that really isn't a concern.

>around 50
Rare.
And 50 is a lot. We could manage 10. We're in trouble at 50.

Most advanced military and yada yada still cant handle the Taliban , fuck off mutt...

corruption malaka

yes only 50 of your biggest cities turned into radioactive rubble
not nearly as destructive as one might think
also
RARE
A
R
E

Please do it Ivan
Glass Commiefornication!

And a giant infiltration of (mostly german) jews playing both side, so it’s useless and a waste of gibs.

>100 million amerimutts dying is a roadblock

If America loses 1/3 of its population and productivity it’s over.

>>what was afghanistan
>>what was iraq
>>what was cuba
>>what was vietnam

US keeping the door open until L/libertarians got in and started the slow process of meaningfi ul change.

Plus making clear we can always come back and have nice toys, so they trade with US...

... (except Cuba, which is still making up its mind--no military interest)...

You don't really understand democracy and how battles are fought, do you, bubba?