Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

In terms of land space? Russia is by far larger than U.S. U.S is third behind Canada when it comes to total area.

thats the point if the USA has more then enough nukes to blow russia twice, then the US has way more nukes the russa. but i believe that NATO even without the states is quite capable of standing its ground against russia. at least the countires to the west of germany...

Originally Posted by r.fox

thats the point if the USA has more then enough nukes to blow russia twice, then the US has way more nukes the russa. but i believe that NATO even without the states is quite capable of standing its ground against russia. at least the countires to the west of germany...

I am not sure but if I am correct, most of the Soviet's population was in the western parts of Russia. Whereas U.S population was spreaded out. If this is so, U.S would only need to bomb the west parts where most of their civilization was.

It is stated on most statistics that the Soviets/Russia had more nukes than U.S.

NATO would be fine against Russia as most of their equipment is outdated, which Russia is trying to change. The only thing I feel NATO would have a hard time on is Russia's vast air defence system, which would make it difficult for air superiority. If they can not negate this, then I feel Russia would be able to win. All in all, Russia's population isn't doing so good, so I don't believe they have the troops (unless they conscript those they captured) to do it.

I am not going to bring nukes into the equation as we all know no one wins a nuclear war.

yeah hopefuly a war with nukes dosn`t happen any time soon/at all. whoever wins a nuclear war- for the fruits of his victory is left with ashes in his mouth

NATO couldn't handle Yugoslavia/Serbia without the United States, how would they hope to deal with Russia? In the end it's a stalemate, the vast majority of both Russian and Non-US NATO forces are static defense forces. European nations lack the logistics capabilities to attack Russia because, quite frankly, nobody saw the need to be able to do so. The United States had to be able to rapidly move our armed forces vast distances because we're thousands of miles away from the potential warzone, the European members of NATO simply had to wait for the Soviets to attack and be able absorb the blow until the Americans could arrive in Europe in large numbers. As my company commander recently told me, "tactics are for amateurs, logistics is for professionals." But to actually address the question, I think NATO without the United States is stronger, but both dogs in this fight are ten feet away from one another on a four foot leash.

I say would Russia as they would be more single minded to achieve their objective, where as all the EU would do is talk and form committees to look into it. Now the French would want to run it, Belgium would want to provide all the arms for it, Germany would become neutral and not want to provide troops and so it would go on.