Can I get a Vietnam anybody? Took France and us more than 10 years to get positively nowhere.
Other than that, Russia or China.
Other than that, Russia or China.
What is the hardest country to invade?
- Thread starter siahsargus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Would it be difficult to get your army... *looks both ways* .... out of the closet?TheBear17 said:
Oh my! lets not invade Narnia for fear of losing our troops to the closet, we already have enough anger about people in closets like Tom CruiseTheBear17 said:
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.Plazmatic said:
If one is going to argue that the U.S. is the hardest due to some kind of technological superiority, why not look at the country that they couldn't successfully invade, Vietnam.
Russia has history on it's side, so I'd go with them.
Britain would be very defensible. DPRK would be very costly and bloody.
Invading Canada wouldn't count, as we'd just extend the invading army an invitation for a BBQ dinner, not BYOB either.
I'd like to throw Iceland into the mix. IF, and a big if there, it had a reputable standing army, it would be a major pain to invade, what with all the glaciers and puffins.
Russia has history on it's side, so I'd go with them.
Britain would be very defensible. DPRK would be very costly and bloody.
Invading Canada wouldn't count, as we'd just extend the invading army an invitation for a BBQ dinner, not BYOB either.
I'd like to throw Iceland into the mix. IF, and a big if there, it had a reputable standing army, it would be a major pain to invade, what with all the glaciers and puffins.
Lets throw in a couple other retards like Rob Schneider in there too, I think we'll win the war easily if we throw society's dip shits in thereTheBear17 said:
Japan too proved extremely adaptable, the "blitz spirit" is not something unique to Britain, every nation that suffered sustained aerial bombardment did not have the predicted utter-collapse of society. But the bombardment of Japan did severely sap the country's ability to wage war, you should see their late-war production weapons. They look like junk, that's because their manufacturing capability was so compromised they were made with junk with poor tools and little time or resources.Raddra said:
Realise that Britain didn't really experience the worst that Strategic bombing had to offer. Germany didn't even have a heavy 4-engine bomber, the Luftwaffe though of themselves as a tactical element, an extension of the army for invading. They din't have an effective strategic bombing plan. But the allied campaigns against Germany (Dresden) and Japan (Tokyo) showed how strategic bombing could systematically destroy a country.
As for surviving a naval blockade, food maybe, but Petroleum fuel? Gas? Steel? Aluminium? Rubber?
Most of our petroleum is far offshore in essentially indefensible location. Any navy could fuck that operation right up. Not like Russia or America's well integrated oil and gas fields.
Having enough food to be self-sustaining isn't the same as enough food to fight a war, where you need a lot of redundancies of supply. Remember that armies need MEN, that means taking men out of the field reducing production capacity at the same time mouths that need to be fed more often. Females can only take up so much slack.
Small island nations NEED overseas trade, even if they can "manage" on their own there is no denying they are worse off than a large nation like Russia or America.
Being "plucky" can only get you so far. Remember, no one is expecting surrender, just desperation and weakness from blockade and bombardment. That is what makes an invasion possible and so likely to succeed, also including factors like more invasion angles.
Britain's ace in the hole was (and should always be) The Royal Navy.
It is vitally important that the Royal Navy keeps sea lanes open and harass all enemy operations to land troops. Without a powerful navy, then our watery border is more of a curse than a defence.
Ah, while your argument is valid, it does not necessarily apply to the question at hand. While no country has ever truly HELD Afghanistan, your post proves that many, many countries have invaded it and have met with nominal success...Duskwaith said:
I think many threads have established that INVADING a country and actually OCCUPYING a country are two very different matters...
Seeing as the only way other countries can even be compared to america is because they have more people, but you stipulated each army has infinite people.
Well, then America is most advanced and has a large country with the best carrier layout in the world. You honestly couldn't invade them because they'd have a carrier or two attacking you within 24 hours of declaring war.
Well, then America is most advanced and has a large country with the best carrier layout in the world. You honestly couldn't invade them because they'd have a carrier or two attacking you within 24 hours of declaring war.
Costliest: My little homeland because of our insanely high budget and also because of the NRA
Bloodiest: Russia
Hardest: Gonna have to go with Switzerland
Longest: Brazil would be a real ***** to occupy because of the size and how spread out the population is not to mention the jungle is a nasty place to try and invade.
Whoops looks like his buddies are off having fun with their MIRV SSBN missiles that could level China's production capabilities and military strength in about 15 minutes. There will not be a World War 3 between any superpowers as they are now because anyone who attempts a full scale conventional invasion of a nuclear armed superpower is going to assure the complete and total destruction of all parties involved.
Bloodiest: Russia
Hardest: Gonna have to go with Switzerland
Longest: Brazil would be a real ***** to occupy because of the size and how spread out the population is not to mention the jungle is a nasty place to try and invade.
Sorry to break it to you but in a state of total war we would probably declare all debt owned by China to be null and void negating any financial advantage they would have over us. I would also like to introduce you to Mr. Ohio and his 17 friends.AssassinFisH said:
Whoops looks like his buddies are off having fun with their MIRV SSBN missiles that could level China's production capabilities and military strength in about 15 minutes. There will not be a World War 3 between any superpowers as they are now because anyone who attempts a full scale conventional invasion of a nuclear armed superpower is going to assure the complete and total destruction of all parties involved.
I shouldn't have to point this out but there is a slight difference between invading a tiny country that none of your citizens really give enough of a shit about to support your invasion and defending your own country against an outside aggressor fielding a conventional force that the US military has specialized in fighting against for about 70 years.Derlwyn said:
Costliest : Us/Russia/china
Bloodiest : Vietnam, Nkorea
Longest : Afgan/Vietnam
Hardest : Malta, China, Britain
Costliest cause of dum nukes
Bloodiest due to guerilla and boobytraps, Population is armed.
longest because they are content with caves and farms and fields and dont need modern comforts.
Malta because its a island fort pretty much and is tested already in war. China is huge. Britain has been in many wars and is a island.
Bloodiest : Vietnam, Nkorea
Longest : Afgan/Vietnam
Hardest : Malta, China, Britain
Costliest cause of dum nukes
Bloodiest due to guerilla and boobytraps, Population is armed.
longest because they are content with caves and farms and fields and dont need modern comforts.
Malta because its a island fort pretty much and is tested already in war. China is huge. Britain has been in many wars and is a island.
I know it's a cliche, but Russia or China. Think about it, with Russia you've got the cold, the terran, the sheer size of the place, they've also had a very long history of turning back invasions.
With China, you again have massive size, but you've also got well over a billion people to deal with, and well, think of all the shit that gets manufactured in China. Yeah we'd lose all that for years. So yeah either one of those two countries.
With China, you again have massive size, but you've also got well over a billion people to deal with, and well, think of all the shit that gets manufactured in China. Yeah we'd lose all that for years. So yeah either one of those two countries.
The ordinary citizens won't have to do anything, the logistics problem alone (mentioned above) would be enough.[/quote]WolfThomas said:
Hmm .. what exactly are they trying to do? Squat on every square kilometre? Don't be ridiculous. Everywhere in Australia worth attacking is centrally located. If the enemy wanted to conquer downtown Burke they're more than welcome to, but they won't. Because most of Australia is tactically useless to an invader, and wouldn't support a guerilla force either. Sure, large chunks are agriculturally and industrially useful, but last I checked farms and mines don't have standing armies.
An enemy would just sail straight into Sydney harbour and Melbourne simultaneously, and then march from both sides to Canberra. The infrastructure of Australia is set up such that those 'logistics' issues are minimised already. It's a 3hr drive to Canberra from Sydney (the 'logistical nightmare' you're talking about isn't needed when you can walk it in a few days) You could knock out most resistance within an *afternoon*, and essentially pacify the vast majority of the population within 1 week. C'mon mate, almost 40% of the population live in the immediate vicinity of Sydney and Melbourne.
The places Australian troops would excel (the Great Dividing Range, and the Outback) are not gonna be targets. Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, and then Brisbane as a mop-up operation. Done. Down Under under the thumb.
But America didn't even TRY to invade North Vietnam.Derlwyn said:
The aim of that war was to defend the North from invading the South. If America invaded North Vietnam then China would immediately invade and try to drive the Americans back, just like Korea. America didn't want to go that far, they just didn't want communism spreading endlessly by military force.
The dilemma was clear even to Kennedy, they'd gotten involved in a war that demand their either sit their passively taking hit after hit, or leave and "lose" a war that wasn't even theirs.