Sure I agree. This is realistic thinking, but we are in unrealistic thread bro.

Look at the Chinese - Russian border, notice that there are plenty of US troops in Japan and South Korea. Now u see that vs USA they have to work together. Kazakhstan and Mongolia are basically Russian ally. 

Whoever is the fastest to send off nuclear weapons would win. So Sonic, clearly.

Russians got more nuclear.. no, no. This thread is destroyed now. No facts, no numbers just bla bla bla

This sums up the entire thread.

Removing nuclear warfare from the picture makes the USA the CLEAR victor.

Using ICBMs with convential warheads Russia would do some damage to US Military bases and civilians, but this damage would be negligible in the scheme of things.  Beyond those ICBMs the entire 'Continent of Europe' as described in the OP has zero force projection capabilities outside of the French Carrier Charles De Gaulle, it would be sunk quite quickly by any one of dozens of highly advanced US submarines or carriers.  

The US would not have the weight of numbers to permanently occupy Russia and Europe even with Mexico and Canada assisting, but if they really wanted too they could return them to the Stone Age no problems.

In reality of course, nuclear weapons would fly in both directions and it would all be over very quickly.

I hope your history teacher didn't teach you that this was all a US-solo effort...

And what good is it going to do them?

How are they going to get to North America?  No ship bigger than a liferaft is going to get close to the US continental fortress.  The Europeans have a tiny but sophisticate Navy.  The Russians have a large but decrepite Navy.  

The US has an enormous and highly sophisticated Navy.  Some people have indicated that it will have to be split into two, Pacific and Atlantic.  But the US has already done this - half of its Navy could take on the combined navies of any other 5 countries on the planet and win comfortably.  That may change one day as China ramps up its military, and the UK looks to rebuild its carriers - but right now it would be carnage, Russia and the Europeans would be slaughtered.

although formally at war on the axis powers since 1941, the US millitary to the war was really just limited to japan. by then the chinese had fought the japanese to a stalemate. the only reason the US even joined the war was because Japan attacked them first. the united states had done everything up to that point to stay out of the conflict and on the europe front all they did was send materials and provide limited war assets. then by 1944  germany was severely weakened from 5 years of war and was being pushed back by soviet forces. it was the perfect time to strike since everyone knew that the war was already won. it required a minimal of logistics since the Uk was still fighting and so had a base of operations for the US to use. not only that but american troops in western europe only accunted for about half as both Uk and canadian soldiers also participated (yet you never hear about that) the two sides in this was that suffered to most casualties was with out a doubt Russia and germany. US role was merely to shorten the war by forcing germany to divide its reinforcements to two fronts. do not be disilusional about their role. hitler would have lost undoubtedly and it isnt even certain that japan would have won since the UK armies in india hadnt yet intervened to help china. something that would definitely have happened if it felt that its territorial interest were at risk. furthermore australia and new zealand hadnt been included in a full scale mainland war but was still limited to island clashes. to summarize... europe owes its freedom primarily to over 1 milion russian lives while china owes its freedom to themselves and you, but also a poor decision from the japanese to fight fully fight on two fronts at once over oil.

America would still win, even with roughly half of our population actively rooting and hoping for our defeat (liberals and democrats that is).

but excluding, a citizen militia seems dumb, but it would just mean America would win by even larger margins.

Men are even more wussified in Europe than they are in America, but liberals are doing their best to make sure we are catching up.

We're talking non nuclear?

US would win pretty handily by itself do to FAR superior naval forces.   It has like twice the Aircraft carriers a combined europe would have, let alone other naval forces.

European forces really never get a chance to land on US Soil.

Including Nuclear? Who knows, it's a gambit.

Only real chance for the EU would be if it was a surprise attack by the EU on the US and they took over the US bases in Europe with their equipment.

As for economic factors... you'd expect Europe to have an advantage.  But the whole Europeon Union barely equals the US, and Mexico and Canada outpace Russia and the non Europeon states.   So North America actualy ends up with a war matieral, technological, economic and expierence advantage.

Really this just shows how absurdly overkill the US Army is.

I'm a huge WW2 buff. Was the US involvement in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, etc not important? The Atlantic convoys? US support in Europe was massively important. Sorry I don't think the European theater would have been won by the Allies without US involvement.

@dyremose , forgot to quote.