Fellow Eurobros, I know it's unlikely, but if it came to this which front would you rather fight at?

Tough question, defend my homeland from the historic genociders trying to finish the job and end up drone bombing senile old men glued onto mules to form human wave cavalry charges is my ancestral duty. Then again the option to sit around in the beautiful france countryside and wait in a bush near the fake mcdonalds for americans.
Since its the north of France, I gotta say eastern fronts work from home is more attractive.

I'm a manufacturing engineer specialized in machining exotic alloys and complex parts, even though I have changed career a few years ago I have experience in manufacturing complex military parts.
So I would probably be in a factory trying to produce as much military equipment as possible.
- Kind of same, I would get send back to H&K most likely

Don't forget the two fronts the US would be fighting across the Atlantic.
\ Maybe 3 if those with interests in the Pacific get involved.

The one with warm weather.

You've already got my region of England highlighted, so there I suppose! I could work from home xD

If your a civilian you want to be on the US front, if your a soldier you want to be on the Russian front.
- It seems most people get it, but I don't - Care to explain?
  
  Americans are better at following the laws of war, but are also more efficient at waging war.

Well, since my whole country is already coloured Red, i'm guessing there's not a lot of choice.
- Had to check if Dutch or Russian
  
  Well, technically, there's a small part of Limburg that remains free, but since we don't really consider that area part of the country, it still counts.

What would Russia want with Vosges I wonder. To answer your question, probably Belgium. At least I can contemplate death with a good beer sliding down my oesophagus.

I’m disabled so I can’t fight.
But if I could, I would want to be on the Jura, holding up the Advance that seems to be nearing Basel, Switzerland.
I did after all train as an alpine soldier durning my military training. So I think I’d enjoy mountaineous terrain the most.
- It really bugs me that I'm "in the same boat", actually.
  Like, if they needed a guy to just man a watchtower or something I'd volunteer the shit out of that. I'm pretty powerless when it comes to other things though.

Britain needs to ramp up their navy again! BRITANIA RULE THE WAVES ONCE MORE!
- Wake up the Dutch and Spanish too
  
  Oh no, we were too loud and woke up Belgium too. Quick Congo, run and hide!
  
  It’s time Portugal to rise once more
  
  The dutch have different problems rn and the spaniards i belief given up on their dreams of a spanish ruled sea.
  (Fun fact that i just HAVE TO tell. I got to see the original battle plan maps from the spanish armadas battle against the english near Portsmouth, in the Portsmouth Naval Museum in 2023. They take them out to display under special light only every 50 or 80 or so decades the historian there told me. It was soo cool!!! And i had a real big autism hyperfocus with adhd hyperactive moment!!! To think i almost didnt go there if my boyfriend didnt take me!)

I guess US. More likely to get blown up, but at least the weather is nicer.

This map forgets that the US have direct access to bases in NATO countries.
Trump could just send troops in the open to the bases, and then turn around on the local forces.
US taking over NATO countries will not be a Normandie style sea landing, they would break out of our own bases having disabled them first.
- And they have a kill switch for a lot of NATO tech
- People coming up with scenarios like that forget that the US would have huge supply lines to keep those bases going while the other country is literally right there. And it is not as if you would need to besiege a modern military base for months to starve them out.
  
  While it's inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn't pretend like the bases wouldn't be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it's not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
  Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
  The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.
  There's no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there's also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.
- The EU has 500+ million population. Do you you think that the few thousands of american troops in Europe can fight against that? Even if the EU had no military, it would be an impossible fight. And the EU has a lot of military, vastly outnumbering american military stationed in Europe.
  
  You're years out of date
  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240711-1
  Are you from the future?
  
  What?
  Population means very little when we have to fight tanks, boats, planes and missiles.
  We have few military weapons outside of military bases, the US only needs to take control of a few bases to cripple us

Romanians be like: at the beginning or at the end of the war?

Are they fighting each other or just hitting all of Europe in a pincer movement?
- Why not both?
  
  Full Molotov Von Ribbentrop.

Heaven, hell, valhalla or wherever. but I won't be fighting a human war

I read it as “fellow embryos” at first

keep fuckin around somebody's gonna set off a nuke

Russia can't defeat the US in conventional warfare, but is much-more-comparable from a nuclear aspect. So Russia has a significant incentive to use nuclear weapons.
I'd guess that the US probably has a shot at actually getting a first strike off versus Russia. So the US has a significant incentive to use nuclear weapons.
Anyone intending to make serious use of nuclear weapons has very little reason to hold back if they expect a high likelihood of the other side responding massively. So they've got a significant incentive to go all-in.
I think that there's a pretty good probability that a major war between Russia and the US of the "only one of us is walking away from this" sort goes very nuclear very quickly.
- If Russia or the US launch nuclear weapons, over 90% of the world population will die over the following 10 years. However, global warming would be solved.
  
  Nuclear winter solves global warming
  
  https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Winter
  Even using the most conservative numbers here, an all-out exchange between the US and Russia would produce a nuclear winter that would at most resemble the one that Robock and Toon predict for a regional nuclear conflict, although it would likely end much sooner given empirical data about stratospheric soot lifetimes. Some of the errors are long-running, most notably assumptions about the amount of soot that will persist in the atmosphere, while others seem to have crept in more recently, contributing to a strange stability of their soot estimates in the face of cuts to the nuclear arsenal. All of this suggests that their work is driven more by an anti-nuclear agenda than the highest standards of science. While a large nuclear war would undoubtedly have some climatic impact, all available data suggests it would be dwarfed by the direct (and very bad) impacts of the nuclear war itself.
- Russia's entire military budget is somewhere in the same order of magnitude of what the US spends just on maintaining its nuclear arsenal, so no, they are not comparable there either.