siahsargus said:
I was thinking about it, and I was wondering out of all non-fictional countries, which would be the hardest to invade? I personally can't decide, after reading multiple articles on the varying strength of different armies and navies.
In order to make sure the invasions are fair, all hypothetical armies have an unlimited supply of 3rd and 4th Generation fighter and bomber Jets, An unlimited Supply of Infantry with any rifle, shotgun, pistol, or otherwise with moderate cost and developed before 1980. The tanks, trucks, and transports are similarly unlimited, and may be any make or model. There must be a realistic distribution of force in your army (EG your army may not be entirely Special Forces or fighter jets, but may be entirely something mundane, like Light Tanks).
I actually have several sub categories.
Costliest invasion (Measure of money lost from destroyed equipment)
Bloodiest invasion (Most casualties - casualties may be from the environment)
Longest Invasion (Invasion that takes the most hypothetical time)
And the "best in show" category: Most difficult invasion.
I wanted to prevent a single line response by making multiple categories. Please fill all the categories.
Russia.
So many have tried, with everything in their favour, yet so many have failed.
The United States would be a close second. Why second place? Canada. With Canada as a truly reliable ally then harder to beat than Russia but Canada at the same time could screw over the US royally with a vast vulnerable northern Border with s many supply, communication and utilities shared between them.
Realistically, Canada and America would stick together. But that is two countries together hard to invade.
Hmm, Britain.
Is Britain that hard to invade? We are an island but our almost 1000 years without a successful invasion has depended almost entirely on our Navy. Japan you could see as a Mirror image of the British Isles, and it was demonstrated how vulnerable an island can be to a larger aggressor with established continental ports.
Japan got cut off and bombed into oblivion and with no room to move, even ruling out Atomic Bombs the invasion of Japan by most simulations would have been a success. In fact the mining and anti-shipping campaign was so effective Japan would have descended into abject famine by the end of 1945 and by 1946 couldn't have resisted any invasion.
As great as it is to be a small island surrounded by sea, it also leaves you extremely vulnerable to blockade and aerial bombardment.
See Russia has several things a small island like Japan or UK can't have:
-vast areas to sacrifice for time
-being far in from the sea, summers are scorching and winters are Arctic, invaders suffer more than the locals.
-Much more natural resources inland to exploit
-easier to trade/supply with a large land border. Land borders are hard to close, seas can be blockaded by submarines, sea-mines, while ship-convoys are easier to destroy from the air than train/truck convoys
PS: China would be on this list but the country is just too mountainous, it is too hard to move troops and resources around. Japan and other western powers did effectively invade and occupy China and would have done so indefinitely had the situation not changed with World War 2. Also it has a large coastal vulnerability, when superior naval forces dominate the seas all of China gets dominated.
Russia has many pivotal ports and coastal region, but not any that are either easily taken or are of such a great loss to lose.
