I can see it in history books now.....

"Well WW3 all started when nations started bickering about a fight on a video game forum in February of 2014. Little did we know Obama, Putin and various other leaders actually frequented the forums and got in on the debate...Things escalated quickly"

If you want to know how much money each of the NATO countries spends you should look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_members#Military_expenditures.

Another point is psychological. NA isn't as prepared as EU countries in this point (that had more wars inside their borders), let alone Russians. Iwo Jima proved that.

Depends who's invading who. The invader always has a disadvantage because the general population is against you, and you have to keep supplying material and people from your home base. I think Viet Nam, and to some extent Korea proved that a population motiviated to kick you out is worth a great deal for the home military. And the Atlantic is a mighty big body of water to cross with the home team just pot shotting your ships with missiles without having to get into Naval war until the invaders get close to the coast, in which case land based support will augment the home side's Navy.

Of course crossing from Russia to Alaska (or vice -a- versa is much easier. I think Europe would have an easier time of it, because there's less distance to cover before the invading force reaches anywhere important. Whereas North Americans forces have a shitload of pretty empty Russia to cross before it can start laying siege to the important cities of Europe. But in both cases a gradual retreat with home side supply lines getting shorter, and invader supply lines getting longer, and harder to defend from flanking hit and run attacks, makes it very hard to achieve a winning position.

So at the end of the day both continents are too big and difficult to invade and hold.

The U.S. has already won this war. Why do you think no one does shit about us having spies on their countries. They can only bitch and then put their tail between their legs when the US gets mad at them.

Not going to get into this argument in depth now, and I'm just replying to note to come back to this thread later...
But before I leave, I would seriously stop and consider the sheer force of the United States military power, it's the one thing we still exceed in, and do so by a LARGE margin in comparison to the rest of the world.

Well if you judge things by how much each country spend, then the US would win by a landslide. They alone spend more than the 12 following countries on a top 13 list combined on their military.

If America couldn't win in the many 3rd world countries it bullied then what chance does it have on Europe?

Europe has 700 million people, America has 300 million. So you are already outnumbered there.
We have some of the best run armies. Britain, Germany, Turkey and Russia.

The only thing America has is better military technology but time and time again this hasn't been what has won wars, at least not guaranteed to anyway.

It's the will to fight that win wars.

Unless America used nukes on us, i don't think they would win. But with Britain, France and Russia also having them that's unlikely too.

This is an interesting thread but an unlikely scenario I hope

by conventional warfare, do you mean swords and sheilds? archers banned?

I just call the US, America so i got confused.