What is the hardest country to invade?

[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.

People, especially civilians, tend to look after themselves. So long as it wasn't a door-to-door gankfest, people would most likely submit to their new overlords so long as burgers and cable were restored asap. Oh, and most untrained people don't shoot to kill even when they are soldiers. And more often than not even trained people freeze up when they see guns pointed at them. Hell, even the Russians who knew their guys would shoot them for running still ran from the germans, and got shot. None of them thought to shoot the guys who promised to shoot them. Armed conflict, despite what pop psychologists may want you to believe, is not easy to prepare for by playing computer games.

Oh, and as for your NRA sloganeering, I live in a country where they did take the guns, after we won gold in the largest mass murder ever event. Still no sign of UN takeovers, or spiraling gun crime as yet. I've personally seen 1 (one) handgun in the hands of a drug dealer, once. And he was arrested two days later, with his unloaded gun. Damn those scary outlaws.

If the RA applied it's arguements to drug policy, I might think them credible.

Thank you for assuming i'm an idiotic mindless drone because my country's flag has fifty stars on it like everyone else on the internet has assumed since i got here -_-

I am MY OWN PERSON, thanks. I don't pander to what the NRA believes just because the NRA says it. I believe it's true, so i repeat it.

The eighty percent statistic i added referred to the accuracy of shots fired by trained soldiers, who should know precisely how to hit their targets - it was to account for the number of shots that miss because, subconsciously, humans don't want to kill each other.

The NRA was founded for one purpose: the second amendment. I realize it's difficult to remember sometimes, but that means that the only statements that the NRA officially makes are to do with the second amendment and gun rights. Whether or not they view drugs as something that the same logic should be applied to isn't relevant to their organization's purpose, so you're never going to hear an opinion on it.

I have little faith in my government's ability to get anything really meaningful done. Show me that the USA government can actually do something competently, that taking away guns will stop people from getting their hands on them if they want them, and that getting rid of guns will improve life for people in one of the best places to live in the world, and i MIGHT lend your argument some credibility beyond 'bleeding heart'.

 

[rutger5000]

History teaches us that Russia is the hardest to invade. It is simpely unreasonable to assume that any forgeing force wouldn't be pushed back during winter. Before winter you can just apply scorched earth. Still an effective tactic even today. Russia could be invaded though, it would take a long time 10 - 20 years perhaps. Attack during summer and retreat when the first snowflake drops, then repeat and make sure they lose more then you. That or you could very slowly start colonizing it, that would only take longer though.

 

[snave]

It's a tough call. In event of a non-nuclear war, probably somewhere in East Asia, like South Korea to tell the truth, provided the aggressor is not the US themselves.

Why? Large local army, mandatory military service and MASSIVE numbers of US troops stationed in the vicinity. Seriously. I mean, it would be difficult for any nation other than North Korea to actually make a headway on the South. And the North only has that chance because it has pre-installed dug-in artillery aimed at and in range of the capital region of Seoul/Incheon/Suwon. Beyond that, they're hopeless. Other forces basically don't stand a chance unless they outnumber the combined local and US forces, plus the US forces stationed in Japan and Guam. Essentially, the battlefield would extend beyond the peninsula to a greater allied region. Again, this is pending on who the hypothetical aggressor is.

In event of full blown nuclear war, sheer size and distance between major centres suddenly would mean so, so much more. Of course, there are not too many nations capable of such aggression, and one fewer if we continue the assumption that the US is not the aggressor.

I somewhat doubt the world will see such a large scale war again because for now in a post-nuclear world, the risks associated with an all out declaration of war to the declaring nation/s are just too great. It'd be pretty much suicidal. Rather, I feel skirmishes and terror attacks behind the shield of civilians will likely dominate any large scale wars of the future.

 

[aba1]

Honestly I am glad my country isnt even considered means our goverment is spending our money on more important things. I wouldnt want to live in a country on the edge of going to war at all times.

 

[The Stonker]

United kingdom: We have no been invaded since 1066. Now why would you reset the "Day's since been invaded" machine? That would be mean. /Hope sympathy pulls through.

*cough* World war 2 the battle for Britain. *cough*

But the hardest country of ALL time to invade is definetly Russia, while in second place would be Antartica.
Damn those penguins.

Still doesn't count as an invasion. No German troops landed in the UK apart from shot-down pilots, and those don't count. There's a reason we're known as the unsinkable aircraft carrier.

But that was their strategy all along! Rain hellfire and then take over the country by bombarding the men out of their planes!
It just couldn't go wrong!
Oh wait it did.

 

[Tizzmarelda]

The uk. As soon as any invading army got to Liverpool every vehicle would be up on bricks within seconds

That and we're bullet proof and can breath fire. Thats what happens when you dump toxic waste into the mersey, you get a city of super-human teenage alcoholics and thieves .

 

[Kadoodle]

Israel.

Look at the 6-day war. They fought against 3 surrounding countries simultaneously with the odds stacked against them and won. In only 6 days.


That or Russia, for obvious reasons.

 

[StBishop]

Local threats. Assume Risk rules, ie. the states can only be attacked by Canada, Mexico and Russia (Unless they conceed Alaska), whereas Ireland can only be attacked by GB and France.

risk is THAT imbalanced??

RISK only allows you to attack adjacent "territories" where the united states are divided into about 3 territories and europe about 4 Canada get's split into about 3 as well from memory. It's mostly just the continents of the world divided into roughly equal sized "territories" and some countries.

Great Britain and Ireland are made into one "territory" even though there's about 5 countries there seeing as Ireland is divided into Northern Ireland which is part of the UK and the Republic or Ireland. Whereas Australia is divided into 2 territories. In fact I think New Zealand is part of "Eastern Australia".

It's not really about balance or imbalance.

I was more trying to say, "Assume that countries can only attack their immediate neighbours and assume that it's allowed for countries to attack across bodies of water within reason."

 

[Overseer76]

The Vatican. It's so small you'd never get our whole army within its borders.

 

[Squilookle]

There's some battle during World War 2 between invading German forces and Russian troops where, in one battle, Russia threw about a million soldiers in there all at once, not counting the vast amount of tanks and other support. They won based on both sheer numbers, and because you do not fuck with a pissed off Russian!

Unless you're Finnish. Even the Russians know not to piss off the Finns.

 

[DanDanikov]

I think a lot of people have missed the intent of the OP. Specifically, that we're judging based on quality of tech, territory, force composition, experience and training, but not size nor production capability.

The reason the US and China are global superpowers are, in part, due to high populations and strong economies. Qualitatively, the US military actually isn't all that advanced in many aspects and has lagged behind, but this is somewhat compensated by sheer quantity.

The nuclear option is kinda binary. Nuclear powers have an instant advantage, hence why I'd be inclined to exclude non-nuclear countries from this competition, but not consider nuclear warfare as part of the problem.

Russia is far more prone to invasion with modern military forces trained and equipped for extreme climates, although this might affect the force composition (reservist may be less well trained for extremes, and thus less effective). It's definitely part of the question, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it based on that quality alone. Not all of Russia is Siberia, nor is it always winter.

Israel is definitely a country I'd consider, however their nuclear policy pushes them off the table, in my books.

 

[NightRavenGSA]

well historically I'd have to say Afghanistan, nobody has invaded AND held it without being forced to withdraw, so I'd say to successfully invade and hold it long enough to eliminate any major resistance would take best in show.

but if we're strictly talking about sweeping through the entire country and disregard actually holding the country I think during the cold war Russia would have been the worst on all fronts, now.... i'd say China

mind you this is all from an American perspective, obeying all the rules and regs we hold dear, providing basic freedoms we think we fight for, and abiding by all treaties we have signed. however if we chose to act in total disregard to laws and human rights it might be different but I like to think we're better than that

 

[airlife101]

United kingdom: We have no been invaded since 1066. Now why would you reset the "Day's since been invaded" machine? That would be mean. /Hope sympathy pulls through.

*cough* World war 2 the battle for Britain. *cough*

But the hardest country of ALL time to invade is definetly Russia, while in second place would be Antartica.
Damn those penguins.

Aye, the Battle for Britain was the last time in which a foreign army attempted to invade our proud British shores. And thanks to "The Few", Operation Sealion was thwarted. :3

 

[Plazmatic]

The US definitley

Most technologically superior military: USA
Most money spent on National defense: USA
Only way of invasion without involving other nations being a costly coastal attack: USA
Filled with gun-toting nationalist rednecks all waiting for a fight: USA

Seriously the USA would not only be only of the hardest countries to invade, but with over 300 million citizens and an estimated 45% of those citizens who own firearms, your in for a hell of a fight.

Not to mention the 250 million plus owned firearms in the united states, not just the people who own them.

Fun fact, those are the registered firearms civilians have. Criminals have guns too, and some older firearms don't have to be registered in the USA.

actually its 420 million estimate from registered, I got the number wrong, regardless, there are millions more than even that.

 

[airlife101]

The US definitley

Most technologically superior military: USA
Most money spent on National defense: USA
Only way of invasion without involving other nations being a costly coastal attack: USA
Filled with gun-toting nationalist rednecks all waiting for a fight: USA

Seriously the USA would not only be only of the hardest countries to invade, but with over 300 million citizens and an estimated 45% of those citizens who own firearms, your in for a hell of a fight.

Not to mention the 250 million plus owned firearms in the united states, not just the people who own them.

Fun fact, those are the registered firearms civilians have. Criminals have guns too, and some older firearms don't have to be registered in the USA.

actually its 420 million estimate from registered, I got the number wrong, regardless, there are millions more than even that.

So that's around 1.5 guns per American then? I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be proud...

 

[Kitteh]

Simple choice my dear laddie! Japan, with or without surrounding islands, would take many warships to break through to Honshu, and once you get there good luck defeating the same guys who fought to the death and still had hold-outs until the 70s. Not to mention how bumpy the landscape is.

 

[vietfighter]

Surprised Switzerland does not even get a passing mention.

-Everyone is part of a trained defense force, so much so that there was a joke about their awesomeness during WW2 AMONG NAZIS.

-Ground invasion is difficult, for the only way into Switzerland is several passes, which have a notorious history as lopsided massacres in favor of whoever had initial control of the passes. One could try to train all of a nation's troops in extreme mountain climbing, but what about tanks? Air defense is pretty tight, and getting logistical supplies into paratrooper units into a hostile switzerland is a horrible nightmare.

So yeah...I would put my money on the defense of Switzerland above any other country. everywhere else, some territory would be captured. hell, even in World war II, the Nazis managed to get to the outskirts of Moscow.

 

[Plazmatic]

The US definitley

Most technologically superior military: USA
Most money spent on National defense: USA
Only way of invasion without involving other nations being a costly coastal attack: USA
Filled with gun-toting nationalist rednecks all waiting for a fight: USA

Seriously the USA would not only be only of the hardest countries to invade, but with over 300 million citizens and an estimated 45% of those citizens who own firearms, your in for a hell of a fight.

Not to mention the 250 million plus owned firearms in the united states, not just the people who own them.

Fun fact, those are the registered firearms civilians have. Criminals have guns too, and some older firearms don't have to be registered in the USA.

actually its 420 million estimate from registered, I got the number wrong, regardless, there are millions more than even that.

So that's around 1.5 guns per American then? I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be proud...

is that supposed to be some insult on Americans? because its frankly falling flat on both ways

 

[airlife101]

is that supposed to be some insult on Americans? because its frankly falling flat on both ways

Not really, was just a generic statement. I don't get a kick out of being xenophobic. :|