What is the hardest country to invade?

[Raesvelg]

United States, hands down, every category.

First, in order to invade the United States, you have extremely limited options. You either have to be Canada or Mexico if you're looking to mount an invasion over land. If you're taking the more likely attempt of a seaborne invasion, you have to get past the United States Navy.

The US Navy could probably take on every other navy on the face of the planet simultaneously and win. They have supercarriers. A lot of them. 11, to be precise, which is one more carrier than the rest of the world combined. Tonnage-wise, it's a bit more stilted; every other carrier in the world combined weighs in at around 300,000 tons. Or roughly equivalent to the weight of 3 Nimitz-class carriers. Leaving another 700,000 tons of floating airfield that the rest of the world cannot match.

Then, assuming you actually get past the Navy, you have to take on the most powerful land warfare machine currently extant in the world today, on its home turf. Where the arguable weaknesses of tanks like the Abrams (high fuel requirements, and resulting difficulties in maintaining supply lines) are somewhat less significant than they are in foreign operations.

And then, assuming you somehow manage to succeed there, you have a heavily armed population with a national mythology of resisting foreign aggression. Civilian-owned firearms could put a gun in the hands of just about every man and woman old enough to shoot one.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Madagascar. They are always ready.

If we're talking about armies rather than bacteria, I'm gonna have to vote for Afghanistan. Is it ten years now?

 

[Wintermute_]

USA, all around (depending on who's doing the invading).
Nation with the most powerful and well equipped military, to the point of excess, in the world. Sure we'd have to draw back all the troops abroad, but whatever. The only way to invade America it to attack by land or sea. In both cases, you have to cross an ocean to get to the USA first, and the invading force would be detected way before that, and then probably a sizable portion of the invading force could be blown up while its transports are inbound, whether it be by missile or aircraft or Sea blockade.
Plus, how would you keep that army supplied over such massive distances? That is one exposed supply line. you would drop your troops off and then they are own their own, little hope for support in quick response.
Also, look at the size of the USA. WHile it could be considered a huge front to defend, how could you stop the armed forces, each states National Guard, every civilian armed with whatever they have, and do this across a continent. It would be the longest and probably most expensive invasion to accomplish. In terms of bloodiest, I'm not sure. we're pretty patriotic in the USA. Not going down without one hell of a fight.

 

[Nouw]

I think the USA, China and Russia would all be very hard to invade.

The US - Because even if you somehow manage to beat their insanely well equiped and well funded military, you then have to deal with their many citizens who are sporting guns and who have been waiting for the king of England to invade them for a while now.

China - Because they have a huge army and have a billion+ people who would be more than happy to defend the place.

Russia - Well, we've seen how well that goes. People have been invading Russia for thousands of years. It hasnt really worked. They just fall back and let winter take care of them.

And as for the most logistically challenging - Australia.
You invade anywhere in Australia, and it's a bloody long walk to the next populated area. Plus it gets really, REALLY hot down here. We wouldnt be able to hold out for all that long. (One American air craft carrier usually has more planes than we have in our entire arsenal.) But it would be a difficult invasion, and holding the country would be challenging. Your army would have to be spread out over great distances just to keep a hold of the major areas.
Plus, the US and the UK and NZ would come to our aid. Not because they like us, but because we're a western country in South East Asia. And having an ally in this region is good for them.

Fixed that for 'ya ;D

 

[Shock and Awe]

Either Russia, Switzerland, or the US.

The US because of the fact there are two giant ass oceans between you and your target.

Switzerland because its nothing but mountains with the most defense based military in the world.

Russia because its fucking Russia.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Full disclosure: I'm American.

At one point during WW2, Russian soldiers averaged one rifle per three men. Unarmed men were told to charge and retrieve the rifles of fallen soldiers. If they did not obey, or they retreated from the fighting, they were shot by their commanding officers.

The answer to all four questions is Russia.

 

[Harlief]

New Zealand, I say this because a) You'd have to try really hard to find a reason, and b) You'd have to find the motivation to invade. I love NZ but globally nobody gives enough of a crap to invade us.

 

[floppylobster]

Vulnerable to nukes? In order to reduce out population by over 2/3rds you nuke a few cities, sure, but do you understand things like "Conquest"? Pointless to invade a nuked australia, and besides, all those left are scattered over a shitload of land in the middle of nowhere. It's called THE bush cuz there's only one out there. Good luck finding it!

But really you don't need total conquest to invade and occupy. France had plenty of free citizens and the resistance but the country was still occupado. The major cities are pretty much all you need to take. Nuke the cities, let the resistance hide in the outback, occupy Canberra and take all the mineral mines. Sucks to live in Canberra but you've got all the important parts that make up the country. You think anyone is going to miss Perth?

I'm going to say the moon. Who knows how bullets will work up there. And green cheese is a hell of a thing to get out of your boots.

But what about Japan? It takes eight years of total war, two nukes and the fire bombing of all her major cities for Japan to even consider surrender.

But really deep down I know America will never surrender. So I guess they win.

 

[Gavmando]

I think the USA, China and Russia would all be very hard to invade.

The US - Because even if you somehow manage to beat their insanely well equiped and well funded military, you then have to deal with their many citizens who are sporting guns and who have been waiting for the king of England to invade them for a while now.

China - Because they have a huge army and have a billion+ people who would be more than happy to defend the place.

Russia - Well, we've seen how well that goes. People have been invading Russia for thousands of years. It hasnt really worked. They just fall back and let winter take care of them.

And as for the most logistically challenging - Australia.
You invade anywhere in Australia, and it's a bloody long walk to the next populated area. Plus it gets really, REALLY hot down here. We wouldnt be able to hold out for all that long. (One American air craft carrier usually has more planes than we have in our entire arsenal.) But it would be a difficult invasion, and holding the country would be challenging. Your army would have to be spread out over great distances just to keep a hold of the major areas.
Plus, the US and the UK and NZ would come to our aid. Not because they like us, but because we're a western country in South East Asia. And having an ally in this region is good for them.

Fixed that for 'ya ;D

Lol. Though you guys do practice desert warfare, the Rangipo desert doesnt really count. But I wouldnt want to go against you Kiwis in the mountains. You guys were born for that shit!

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't remember which Axis of Evil dictator said "I would never invade America with foot-soldiers, there'd be a citizen with a gun behind every blade of grass."

That being said, Atlantis. We don't even know where it is!

 

[Itsmyship]

Mordor.

 

[HalfTangible]

Assuming the invasion is only succesful if you completely take over the country... I'd say a tie between Russia and the USA.

Russia covers a massive area of the world, to such a degree that if you ever tried to invade, it would take months just to get from one end to the other. In addition, you'd be fighting in one of the coldest countries on the earth - your army would be more likely to freeze to death than win any battles. (I don't remember which world war this actually occured in, but you can look it up as an example)

America because of two major factors: the first, terrain. America's population and cities are actually spread pretty far over it's geography, except for the east coast where the population is largely clustered in small areas. In addition, it's two mountain ranges mean you have to either find a way to cross unfamiliar mountains twice, or carry out the invasion of central, east and west America separately. Second, most everybody in america owns a gun or has easy access to one. Invade america, and suddenly every single citizen is trying to kill you. Imperial guard philosophy made reality, folks: one million barely trained men with guns will still fire one million shots.

And one million misses/friendly fire incidents/massive failures/poor attempts to intimidate trained soldiers. At least the Vietcong had unity and sincere motivation. Hell, I shudder to think just how much of the US would turn guns on each other the moment order was threatened. And I shudder harder when I think about who they'd shoot.

I think you vastly underestimate Americans - almost all of us who own guns know how to use them. And if they're reponsible at all, they know not to aim guns at people they don't want to kill.

I used the imperial guard as an analogy, but it's a poor analogy in retrospect because the only similarity is quality over quantity mentality: the average citizen (who manages to live past the first few days) would engage in guerilla warfare. And since so many of us own guns, we'd be able to at least put some hurt into whoever decided to invade.

As a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate the point: Let's say everyone's aim is so bad that they can only hit a soldier with one bullet in each clip, and the others either miss or hit someone on their side. Let's further assume that each person has a gun with... eh, 7 shots. And it's a semi-automatic so that it takes three shots for the soldier to react and bring him down. This means that the three shots have a 1/7, 1/6, and 1/5 chance to hit each time. This means that there is a 107/210 chance to hit on one of those three shots (if i have my math/assumptions right - possibly not, i'm no good at statistics ) Let's say 4000 people rally in a single area of indeterminate size. That means 2038 shots hit. Factor in the fact that 80% of shots miss in war and assuming it's due to human nature, that's 407.

I realize this isn't how it would work in real life, but this is an estimation.

Moving on.

Correct me if i'm wrong: if somebody's home is being attacked, they've GOT motivation. If they're working with their neighbors, they've GOT unity. And they have the advantage of home terrain. Cuz, ya know. HOME.

On the guns: If order were threatened, it wouldn't matter if we had guns or not - we'd all go crazy. That's what humans do when their safe little lives are threatened: they go crazy. Angry mobs and riots don't start because someone was too polite at dinner. And if an outlaw wants a gun, he'll get it. Period. If you take guns, the only people you'll get them from are law-abiding, good citizens.

EDIT: Forgot one last factor.

 

[The Ouroboros of Red]

There are so many candidates for this, its difficult to say. Smaller, third world nations like Vietnam, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and North Korea have almost always proven to be impenetrable, with a few exceptions, such as the Mongols in Korea and Alexander the great in Afghanistan. However, it seems like Russia is one of the more likely nations, given that the Russian army could constantly retreat further into Siberia (Seriously, it's huge. It can fit the population of Europe, most of North America, and maybe more in it.) Let's not forget to mention the impossible environment that purveys throughout the country, that would, despite Russia's dwindling population, prevent mass movement of most unadjusted foreign armies for extended periods of time. The Siege of Leningrad lasted about 875 days, and even then, the invaders were unsuccessful. So I'd say that Russia seems to fit all of the criteria pretty well. They're a nation of toil and sacrifice, and most of all, they're masters of their terrain.

 

[scorptatious]

Quite possibly either the United States or Russia. Of course I'd imagine China being tough to invade as well.

 

[Void Droid]

Ireland would be tough for any country, but more due to our charm than any military resistance, here's a likely scenario:

- Invading army shows up.
- Runs into a few locals.
- Gets offered a beer.
- We all become friends.
- Team up and attack the British.

 

[CaptainKoala]

It also depends where you invading FROM, so lets say America.

Costliest: I have no idea, I'd say Russia for that.
Bloodiest: China, They have enough people to just throw the masses at your armies.
Longest: China again, or maybe Russia.
Longest: Antartica because theres nobody there

I would disagree with Bloodiest and Longest. I'd say America for both of those. The Second Amendment's a ***** when you want to invade. When you have millions of regular citizens willing to die for their country and give them the right to bear arms on top of that, and get enough of them in the right place, an invasion could be slowed to a near standstill.