NATO, minus U.S.A., vs. Russia with nukes.

[RandomPoster]

NATO, not counting the U.S.A. who is staying out of this scenario, has about 500 nuclear weapons to Russia's approximately 6,000. Let's say Russia launched half of their nuclear weapons in order to leave enough in reserve for other threats. Obviously, in an anything goes war, Russia's nuclear weapons would devastate the European Union. How much damage could the European Union do if they said screw it, let's do as much damage as we can and launched the nukes they have and launched as many conventional bombing attacks as they could before they went down? Would it be a more or less complete mutual destruction or would Russia survive?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

NATO, not counting the U.S.A. who is staying out of this scenario, has about 500 nuclear weapons to Russia's approximately 6,000. Let's say Russia launched half of their nuclear weapons in order to leave enough in reserve for other threats. Obviously, in an anything goes war, Russia's nuclear weapons would devastate the European Union. How much damage could the European Union do if they said screw it, let's do as much damage as we can and launched the nukes they have and launched as many conventional bombing attacks as they could before they went down? Would it be a more or less complete mutual destruction or would Russia survive?

500 Nukes on the populous areas of Russia would bring Russia to it's knees. Most of Russia is either lightly inhabited or uninhabited. Russia can't win a Nuclear War EVER. Europe would fare much better even if it were hit with 3000 nukes. I think the difference would be that Europe would be thrown back to just before the Industrial Revolution while Russia will be thrown back to just before the stone age.

 

[HenryBHough]

Without America Europe would have a vestigial military led by several competing committees. They'd debate ending the war by imposing taxes on the enemy for at least 2 years before realizing they were already dead.