Wrong, shortest invasion because nobody is there. Who would you take it from? Build on oil sites and you own the teritoryToasty Virus said:Longest: Antartica because theres nobody there
This set of parameters ruins it entirely. If you have completely unlimited resources than it doesn't matter. You WILL win whatever battle you enter into, especially if you have unlimited access to modern weaponry, simply because all the factors that go into invading a country can be disregarded.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.
America had loads of allies in that war, most importantly the Vietnamese, of South Vietnam. As well as Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, South Korea and supported by bases in Japan. I'm flattered that you consider Britain the only ally worth counting but they wouldn't even have been much use with all their power on the other side of the world.CiB42 said:3: Yes, but the US army hasn't won a war without allies since the 1790's. Vietnam? Loss. This "better equipped and better trained" force has never won a fight without friends.
But look at China's coastal vulnerability?Wabblefish said:Well going by the definition of an invasion I think it would be China.
The country is fairly massive and has so much infantry and people, it would be so difficult.
Also Russia is so big.
And America has such great defense.
Also Australia is reasonably big and is really isolated and far away, although it definitely wouldn't be as hard as the big boys up there ^ its still harder than taking over England or France, those countries are small and they don't have the greatest military and defense tech in the world compared to countries such as America, China and etc.
You know what they say, "One does not simply walk into Switzerland."emissary666 said:Do you know what the Swiss military does? It guards Switzerland, that is the only thing it does. They have mountain bunkers overlooking the border, they have a mandatory military service, they are surrounded by mountains. Even though no one owes them anything, historical neutrality means that attacking them makes you the bad guy. Also, a lot of powerful people are going to be upset about a threat to their money.
Afghanistan is actually hella easy to invade...just godawful to occupy. Then again, most nations are tough to occupy, unless you can appease the population.Subbies said:Afganistan. History backs me up on this one: the russians tried and failef, and so far we re still stuck there with no real progress