/Nato/ prospective members edition

>It would take weeks for Murrica to get heavy equipment across the atlantic

You mean the mountains of equipment that's already sitting across Europe?

>>31853080
Same here. Sweden repping, BTW.

When it comes to mobilizing... I think that the Russians wouldn't actually invade a NATO country. They might gain some in the short term, but if they don't go nuclear, they wouldn't win an offensive war.

>>31853099
This too.

>>31853116
Well, I pretty sure if Russians invaded Finland Sweden will automatically step in. And vise versa.
And don't forget that Petersburg is in range of finnish artillery.

>>31853080
Russia won't be so stupid and go nuclear, if anything we are going to have a very exhausting land war in western Russia and the Levante while the US will try to go over the Pacific until they realize how long the way is from there to reach anything important.
All this leading in a WW1 like tie and this time probably without one side willing to give up.
When Hillary forces the NATO in a war with Russia at least I won't be a drafted rating.

>>31853099
Is there any still? I know the US maintained those POMCUS depots all across West Germany but I can't imagine they're still there.

>>31853263
Well, go nuclear is not necessary full scale nuclear exchange. Tactical nukes exist for a reason.

>>31853331
>implying tactical nukes won't provoke strategics

>>31853099

Even the major powers of Europe are in a pretty sad state militarily. Russia has conducted several large scale excercises that test their ability to conduct large scale mobility warfare. The aim with a recent such excercise, Kavkaz-2016, was being able to deploy 65000 troops anywhere in a 3000 km radius within 72 hours.

Such capability has athropied within Europe during the last three decades.