What is the hardest country to invade?

Recommended Videos

Subbies

New member
Dec 11, 2010
296
0
0
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
 

T5seconds

New member
Sep 12, 2009
461
0
0
Toasty Virus said:
Longest: Antartica because theres nobody there
Wrong, shortest invasion because nobody is there. Who would you take it from? Build on oil sites and you own the teritory
 

ACM_Shadow

New member
Aug 6, 2009
114
0
0
Im an Aussie so my views may be biased

Well i would say costliest would be Australia or New Zealand (basically any island country a substantial distance from the major continents [yes, not including Indonesia & PnG area as all transport would be stolen if they tried to refuel :p ])
Bloodiest and longest i would say USA with their gun laws, population and sheer size of the country.
and the initial invasion would be terrible due to the US defense tech thrown at you.

Russia and China would probably be close seconds, China because of population, urban layout (snipers anyone?) and Russia due to the terrain/weather (Russians with home field advantage... ouch) and also due to the fact that Russia is HUGE!!!

edit: any country with extremes ie:desert, jungle, artic, mountainous will be a real B*&ch to invade, add that to the fact that Australia + Russia are so spread out(population+cities), and due to the infinite hiding possibilities in the various areas (both have forests, both have mountains, both have extreme environments). I would conclude that Aus+Russia would be the hardest to actually invade, subdue the citizens and control. Also if they invaded Australia our wildlife would probably be able to kill off some of them.

Also, a 1cm large spider able to make a web that can stop mice, and the female is deadly
Australian Red-back Spider
Only female red-backs are considered dangerous. They are about one centimetre in diameter, black with a red marking on their abdomen, and build very strong, large silk webs capable of catching mice and lizards. Red-backs are extremely versatile, preferring building sites and areas of human habitation.


dont say this wouldnt creep you out.
(my mate has a huntsman as big as his hand that likes to come inside and scare him every few days, and even though they are not dangerous it is scary, also i have common garden spiders around 5 cm in diameter that descend to ground level during the night and will gladly use you as a post for their webs or a landing point ie: not deadly but freaks you out when they appear 20 cm from your face)

(finally would be able to use my plan to slingshot trained snakes and spiders into populated areas)
 

Comieman

New member
Jul 25, 2010
120
0
0
Well since invader can't go 100% Air Force...
Costliest: Russia, there is a history of guerrilla fighting, especially in WW2.
Bloodiest: Russia. Most of times somebody tried to invade Russia, Russians won by outnumbering them. Except Mongols
Longest: Russia, because General Winter is still on Russia's side.

Difficult: Russia. General Winter + guerrilla fighting + inbred hatred of people invading + mountains / Siberia + pretty much most males capable of fighting will be drafted.
 

godevit

New member
Nov 21, 2008
220
0
0
Interesting to see people underestimating the U.S considering that most of the western world is leeching on the U.S army for defense.
 

Troublesome Lagomorph

The Deadliest Bunny
May 26, 2009
27,258
0
0
Either Russia or the US. Russia's got advanced weapons, rednecks, good defenses, badass military...
Russia has one hell of a brutal winter, having a good supply route to your troops is a pain in the ass and the Russians wrestle with bears on a daily basis.

Well, not the last one, but they might as well...
Maybe China. North Korea would most likely throw people at them for support, too. Why does it chart? Cost. Cost for ammo. You have a lot of troops to fight... definitely bloodiest, too.

If I had to choose only one: USA.
 

Narron66

New member
Oct 9, 2010
5
0
0
Russia. There has been no army across history that has been able to conquer it and pin it down, Napoleon tried with almost half a million and he returned with 27,000. And, unlike many countries Russia has people who promise not just to die for their country but to kill for it. Russia also has Bear Calvary
 

Ninjat_126

New member
Nov 19, 2010
775
0
0
Russia has the climate and population. Everyone would freeze.

USA has the guns and bombs. Everyone would get shot.

China has the population. It would take forever.

Australia has the climates and wildlife. Plus lots of green/brown hiding places for resistance fighters.
 

StarCecil

New member
Feb 28, 2010
503
0
0
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.
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.

It would be an eternal war.

During the Cold War, both the US and the USSR came to the conclusion that trying to invade the other's territory was a bad idea because it was simply too much land to try to take and hold. But if they had limitless troops then it wouldn't matter.

Mountains? Unlimited helicopters to transport the unlimited troops.

Oceans? Unlimited vessels to secure the seas.

Flat plains? Unlimited paratroopers to drop.

You need a more finite, realistic mashup. Something like could the US invade Russia (possibly, see land problem above, but also the vast difference in military strengths) or the UK vs France (depends how quickly the French can draft a declaration of surrender).
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
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.
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.

America lost Vietnam because they weren't trying to win.

The only way to "win" would be to invade and occupy the North but the Communist bloc would not tolerate that and the entire force of China would invade North Vietnam just like in Korea. Then the only way to soundly beat China would be to attack mainland China. Then you're quickly on your way to a Global War, World War 3, with everyone throwing nuclear bombs everywhere.

They were just there because they could not stand by and have another country be invaded by communist and get assimilated into a dictatorial regime using military force. They just wanted to defend South Vietnam and have no plans to de-communist the North. But for the next decade they just had to sit there taking hit after hit from all sides unable to counter-attack without "escalating the conflict" as they said.

They were just trying to not-lose.

When politically expedient, America can do very well on their own or with just a few allies.

The general unpopularity of the Vietnam war seems to be based on fundamental misunderstandings, like that Vietnam was one communist country that America invaded and tried to drive the communists out of.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
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.
But look at China's coastal vulnerability?

China has been invaded and occupied many times by countries with powerful navies that are able to take the ports. China is quite mountainous, it is hard to move troops around quickly within borders, so a Naval force can optimally position themselves around for invasion. Controlling the seas controls China.

Then there is the vulnerability of Manchuria, Japan occupied and assimilated that part for China for 15 years and it was not ended till the Soviet Union invaded and then Japan formally surrendered (to the United States).

Before that China was all but colonised by industrial powers by the turn of the 20th century.

But every army that has invaded Russia has been all but destroyed and beaten back bloody and broken.
 

Angus565

New member
Mar 21, 2009
633
0
0
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.
You know what they say, "One does not simply walk into Switzerland."
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
Australia, because it can only be entered through Indonesia/Siam! :D

More seriously, it's probably the US or Russia. China's citizenry can't own firearms, and a huge number of them are dissatisfied with their government (a lot more dissatisfied than Americans are). Play your cards right, and they might not even fight back. Though, they do have a nationalist crowd that'll fight to the death.

US fields the world's most expensive military, with lots of nice tech, and it's a pretty damn big military too. Russia's got the shitty climate and the bear cavalry.


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
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.
 

scar_47

New member
Sep 25, 2010
319
0
0
Right now thd US we have arguably the best equipped and trained military thats why were a Super Power, honestly haven't you people seen red dawn. Now Stalinist Russia would take the cake if it were still around for the myriad of reasons others have pointed out luckily or not depending on your view Russia has changed a lot theres far fewer military personel and rampant curruption the people are also a lot less blindly following than before Russia isn't what it once was. As to those that point to US defeats yeah we've had some thats what happens when your fighting a gurilla force with conventional tactics every country has "lost" a war at some point its easy after a while to say screw it its getting to many of our men killed and costing to much money.