Brazil vs Britain at war!
Who would win?
No NATO intervention!
Israel
>>55855912
It's vietnam all over again. Cross the ocean to invade another country ? Brazil has no military power compared to britain but brazil has a large territory that would become yet another guerrila war that would cost britains a fuck ton of money for nothing.
/thread
Britain has nukes.
But they wouldn't be able to effectively occupy it, for the difficulty in transatlantic amphibious invasions, the size of the country, the natural obstacles, and gorilla warfare.
>>55856249
The US didn't go total war on Vietnam.
If Britain went total war on Brazil they would win in a week.
Argentina
>>55856386
If you say so m8. But we do have plenty of pigs to slaughter and throw at the modern brits to deny them heaven :^)
>>55856323
Yeah brits would stand no chance against the gorillas of Brazil
>>55855912
brazilian off duty cops will WRECK the britkek army in a couple days
>>55856249
>BRAZIL STRONK HUEHEUHUE
AHAHAHAHA, ok little monkey you would get utterly destroyed
>>55855912
I think monkeys are stronger than mudslimes desu senpai
>>55855912
>cut down amazon forest completely
>oxigen levels drop
>temperature rises
>ice caps melt
>UK sinks
brazil wins
I have such a good aim that I can shoot between that horrible tooth gap they have.
>>55856323
The only areas worth occupying are in the southeast.
Ignoring the northeast and northwest is a viable strategy.
Brazil would win but holy fuck would they recieve a lot of damage
come at me, bro
Are Brazilians manlets?
>>55856664
Shut the fuck up little nigger, or we will open Itaipu and drown all you mixed aborigenes/italians ( niggers of Europe)
>>55856159
Israel always wins
>>55856664
UK would still be around
Denmark would be fucked though.
>>55856594
That's not nice, anon. Would the brit come over here to fuck our prostitutes and shemales while losing the war like how you did back in vietnam?
:^)
>>55856503
We eat dead pigs for breakfast and our PM likes to skullfuck them.
I think we would win, then mixrace the hell out of britsoldiers wifes. they will love some monkey cock.
>>55856323
BrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBrBr
HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEEUHEUHEUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHEUHEUHEUHEUEHUEHUEHUEHEUHEUHEUHEUHEUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHEUHEUEUEHUHEUEHUEHUEHUEHEUEHUEHUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>55856503
>Implying subhuman migrants would fight for the country they are leeching off of
It's Rome 2.0
>>55855912
brazil wouldn't stand a chance.
>>55856759
there are range of forested mountains just behind Rio de Janeiro (city) and Santos.
And amphibious attacks on urban areas is extremely complicated.
I'm going to assume Brazil goes on the offensive here, and seeing as they don't really have the budget or manpower to invade Britain, who has the world's second best navy (Ours is best), Brazil is stuck.
Britain doesn't really have to ability to invade and hold Brazil either, though, and Brazilians can use the strategy of shooting British 5 times a day while they're too busy praying to Mecca.
Stalemate. No one can really win.
>>55857017
I've always wondered this, does the average joe in the UK refer to the PM as the "pig fucker"? I thought it was all a big joke by his opponents
>>55856323
>>55856436
Britain have been deafening their shitty island island for over 1000 years! not even Russia or USA could take it
>>55857047
>muslim brits are imigrants
hahaha the most common name for babys now in britain is mohammed. they are a muslim shithole at this point.
>>55857017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725724/How-Muhammad-popular-baby-boys-England-Wales-doesn-t-official-list-ways-spell-it.html
You guys must like hell or something.
>>55857210
to be fair every muslim is called mohammed
>>55857270
What the fuck are you
>>55857270
w-who are you?
>>55857314
>>55857427
Britains baby
What would the aim be?
If the UK tried to invade and conquer Brazil? We'd fail, we don't have a large enough military to hold it.
If we just wanted to blow the fuck out of them and destroy their infrastructure/military? Easy victory. As small as our military may sadly be now, it's still vastly superior in every regard to the Brazilians, other than numbers.
There really wouldn't be any winners. Both sides would have nothing to gain, and it'd just be a waste of everybody's time, money and lives for no discernible reason.
>blue circles with red dots are britsh territory
>>55857270
All Brazil needs to do is disguise its entire army as Arab refugees, and they'll be able to invade and take over the British Isles in a single night
>>55857696
/thread imo
>>55857695
What happened to Mark?
>>55857314
OLD jersey
All British Islands in the South Atlantic are near the Argentinian coast. That doesnt surprises me at all.
>>55857696
>no discernible reason
Bunda
>>55857163
All UK has to do is drop a couple of ships and bomb their important cities and it's over for Brazil.
>>55855912
I hope you.
How many nukes do you have?
jungle warfare? brazil takes it
slum warfare? brazil takes it
banana warfare? brazil
anything else is not brazil so it doesn't matter
>>55858229
>important cities
that'll take some time to figure out
>>55858229
Shut up Malvina culo roto or we´ll open Itaipu and drown all you aborigenes italian mix race shit. xD
>>55858204
noice
>>55858229
go back to the riot in Missouri
>>55858229
São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, BrasÃlia, Curitiba aren't coastal cities.
Of course they could nuke all of those, but then the purpose wouldn't be to dominate the country, it would be to annihilate it.
>>55858566
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk boa!
>>55855912
Uk would win very easily.
Start massive propaganda against Brazilian public, tell them that they are at risk of death unless they revolt against their "evil" government, this would cause their population to doubt their government; at the same time sanctions against Brazil will be put in place.
At this point we could either nuke their capitals and shoot down any attempt of retaliation; or we could long range missiles with large payloads to target key positions, for example military storage's, government buildings and so on.
Find their underground bunkers through intelligence, bunker bomb the fuck out of them all. Send SAS in and let them wipe up the key leaders of the Brazilian army and government, British army doesn't even have to land in Brazil to win.
Quality > Quantity
OR we could
We take the navy, we drive over to Brazil, we go in, take care of the Government - "I'm so sorry, Brazil" - then we grab Latino sloots, we go over to Americas place, hold up, have a cup of tea and wait for this whole thing to blow over.
>>55857171
>Britain, who has the world's second best navy
>no aircraft carriers
Z E R O
E
R
O
>Brazil
>VS anyone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN9C7ShPVQ8
>>55856386
>If Britain went total war on Brazil they would win in a week.
can you explain how?
they cant do shit in afghanistan
>>55858875
>tfw our military budget went to shit once the commies took over
But talking seriously right now, I think Brazil will only win a war against our fellow niggers like argentina, paraguay, uruguay,chile, etc...but one thing is true, it will not be so easy to the bri(a)ts like it was in falklands.
>>55858926
Because the US and Britain arent waging "total war" in the middle east. If we were, we'd have owned that land and made it a new territory 14 years ago.
>>55858875
that bofors AA gun is qt
>>55855912
Why would Brazil and Britain go to war? Why not Britain and uraguay?
>>55859445
UK doesnt have a strong military, i can bet Iran can beat them in a war now
without nukes of course
>>55855912
brazil
the limey faggots cant fight for shit, it would just be the brazilians fighting pakis.
Brazil can't go on the offensive, because it doesn't have shit in terms of military transportation. Neither does Britain. They have an impressive amount of gunships, but that's not worth shit if you can't drop enough troops to invade.
Seeing as most of Britain is plagued with faggy, skinny liberals, half of their fighting force would be weak as shit. Brazil would beat them while defending their turf.
Now, if, for some miraculous reason, Brazil was able to get troops into Britain, it'd be a slaughterfest. Why? BECAUSE NOBODY HAS ANY FUCKING GUNS THERE.
We would never go to war against Britain, both have nothing to gain from it. A more possible scenario its Britain and Brazil unite and take Argentina.
>>55857202
Why do they continue to stay on that godforsaken island? There's no natural resources to speak of, and their population density is insane. Not to mention it rains like every five minutes.
>>55860061
Why would that happen? Falklands?
Brazil wouldn't have to get involved.
>>55857815
kek
>>55860061
We alone could get Argentina out of the map.
>>55858229
How would they launch their bombers? They have no fucking aircraft carriers.
>>55860159
Who cares about Falklands, i just want to kill argies.
>>55859022
Thank god
>>55860378
Why do you people hate Argentinians so much?
>>55856664
kek holy shit, that was good, hermano
>>55860470
They are the big kekys of south america and they act cocky as fuck.
Also they are black.
>>55860470
cause muh football rivarly
>>55860470
It's banter. The only rivalry that exists between us is in football.
>>55859728
>BECAUSE NOBODY HAS ANY FUCKING GUNS THERE.
what are mortars and air strikes?
guns cant save you there
>>55860615
>>55860623
I dont know you guys but i hate every other south american country except Chile.
We must exterminate their population and build the Brazilian Empire again.
>>55855912
Why would the UK go to war with Brazil?
Does the UK even do anything with Brazil?
>>55860470
They act spoiled as fuck, but that´s pretty normal with people that have two daddies.
>>55857202
I'm sorry, I hope your people can hear again one day.
>>55860248
Hurry up while we still have a government that likes to disarm the military.
>>55860623
So kinda like why Bostonians hate New Yorkers?
>>55860879
Literally came here to ask the same thing.
>>55856804
>>55856386
Nice meme but we have more guns, jihadis, yellow fever mosquitoes (chemical weapon), poison darts (from the natives), Sucuris and trained panteras on our side.
>>55860879
It's only a matter of time before the global caliphate turns its eyes to South America.
>>55856249
Yeah, this.
Numbers don't mean everything in war.
The Brazilian guerillas would just hide in the jungle (hua hue hua hue) and snipe at the Brits. When the Brits leave a town, the Brazilians come in and establish order. When the Brits come back, the Brazilians just run away.
Nobody would support British takeover, so they'd be fighting this war for years and what would they gain from it? Fuck all. The people would vote to withdraw and they would withdraw.
>>55861062
gtfo canadafag. You know nothing of war.
>>55860470
its an old rivalry
I actually think people dont even give a shit anymore, only see arg hate in some internet forums
>>55860879
You could conquer dat ass
>>55855912
UK vs USA!
Who would win?
WITH NATO and EU intervention!
>>55855912
Everyone else to be honest.
>>55855912
How Britain wins every war. Destroy their navy, blockade them and wait it out.
>>55861221
i think it would take the entire world vs usa to actually destroy uncle sam
>>55857202
Second post and a serious one this time. One which will surely include a grammatical error you can poke fun at in return.
The OP was not specific, but in a total war the UK wins in any situation. What has the potential to hold you back in such a scenario is the same situation the USA faces, holding back with overly restrictive rules of engagement.
>>55855912
The brits have nukes, and no NATO intervention means no rules so the bongs win
>>55860879
To try to covent us to islam.
brazil hands down.
>>55861270
>the entire world vs usa to actually destroy uncle sam
uh no?
i think russia can do some damage to the USA
if they were so strong, they would conquer iraq without too much casualities
>>55861270
In a defensive situation without nuked we still wouldn't lose, we would give up swatches of coastal land for short periods but nothing more.
>>55861114
>estabilish order
>brazilian town
HUE, i bet my ass you have never been to my country. You dont know how shit is here, fuccboi.
You cant win aggainst Brazil. You either nuke this shit or you lose.
Just look at any game that we set our foots into, we are fucking monkeys..
Fucking gringos would get killed by our cartels, let alone our military.
We live in constant urban warfare, if you bring this shit into the streets you lose.
Also, every cop here is given military training and can carry rifles.
>>55857783
Why did NATO build military bases all around Brazil? Its like NATO is trying to declare war on Brazil
>>55861537
Nukes*
>>55861270
Seriously.
The US has so many factors that would make it impossible to conquer.
Guns behind every blade of grass.
Criminal Organizations would resist, and do shit-tons of damage to any attacking force.
We have the most versatile territory. We have deserts, dense forests, and frozen wastelands.
We have assloads of allies.
We have so much media, that it would be impossible to get any foreign propaganda to the forefront.
Not to mention we have the most advanced military in the world.
Basically if you tried to invade the US, you'd be dead in a heartbeat.
>>55861270
I'm not sure if that'll still be the case in 5 years time.
>>55861426
Damage any1 could do, i said completely destroy
Thing about Iraq is they were holding back, they had to fight terrorists that hid themselves in the population, and that without targetting the civilians, thats an hard situation for anyone
More of an intelligence problem than raw power
Its complete different with Nation vs Nation
>>55861735
>assloads of allies
Like who? I doubt any of your "allies" would actually do anything, maybe South Korea, UK and Canada but thats it.
>>55855912
Brazil I guess...
The british are just keks of US, without them they're nothing.
Also they're filled with keks that can't even handle with immigrants. It's possible that even their own citizens would be against the war, and a people divided...
Also you say no NATO, but it still include China and Russia, if yes the UK would be keked forever
Please come to Brazil
>>55861553
> we are fucking monkeys.
Maybe you, I'm not
>>55861426
>if they were so strong, they would conquer iraq without too much casualties
4,000 US soldiers dead
approximately 36,000 Iraqis dead.
What were you saying?
>>55861877
This. Russia would never allow such a important ally in strategic position, aka USA backyard to be destroyed by british.
>>55861989
Don't forget the million Iraqi civilians dead after we sparked a civil war in their country.
>>55862191
Well, thats more of a failure than a win
>>55861989
>>55861797
the only reason Russia and US dont go to war its because of nukes, without nukes they would have go to war long time ago
iraq military was shit at the time even a US general said this
they were poorly equiped and no much training
US just some carriers(that can be destroyed too) and expensive jets
>>55862578
That thing has a name, what is it? Mutual extermination condition, something like that
>>55855912
brits obviously. everyones talking about how britian would lose if the objective of the war was to occupy the whole country - nobody does that anymore....
destroying infrastructure and blockading their ports would put brazil back into the stone age. if they were there just for resources, they could easily control the areas they'd need to do that militarily and forever.
rest of the country can be a wasteland and/or administered by british appointed governors.
>>55857270
Is this even a country?
>>55859022
>mfw we are forced to spend GPD in military budget.
based pinochet
