What is the hardest country to invade?
- Thread starter siahsargus
- Start date
I'm putting my vote in for the US. Why? Sheer military power, coupled with a massive civilian militia, a country built largely on and around military revolution from a foreign ruler, where citizens are taught to be instinctively distrustful of the government. In many cases, civilians are as well trained if not better so than many in the military. It's also a very large country, relatively speaking, where the most logical invasion routes involve significant naval forces, many of which would be destroyed before even arriving to the country. The significantly varied natural terrain, ranging from mountains that would be nearly impossible to cross while resistance was holding them (and allowing a resistance force of a couple hundred to hold off thousands) to deserts just as difficult to cross and so on, would make progressing across the country as much of a problem as actually getting there, and a population distribution that would mean conquering the entire country in order to have control, not just a single area that has 75% of the population in it.
Russia seems to be a popular candidate, and, while it's true they've held off and repelled attacks from militaries that they should have lost to, that is often more because the invading militaries had incredibly stupid timing than because the Russians did a good job. A properly timed invasion would be able to roll right through to Moscow in nearly no time, and once the invasion force gets there they essentially control all of Russia, since most of the population is based in the Western portion of the country. Siberia essentially rules itself anyway, even now. Same deal with Canada; take the population centers along the southern border of the country and you essentially control the entire country. Not the case with the States; you have to take the South, West, and East before you control most of the population, and even then there's enough people in the middle and north of the country to give you hell.
China is different, but they have more opportunities for invasion; come at them from the sea, from the north, south, or west. South-west you'd have some issues crossing the mountains, but most other areas offer routes that can be invaded through. Their population largely consists of farmers that don't have military experience nor are trained with weaponry, and that's where the difference in America comes in. China may have the ability to mobilize a large military, but their people would be untrained and unfamiliar with the weapons they're being given; essentially they'd be cannon fodder. American civilians have training, and quite a few of them have been preparing for the moment where they'd have to defend their country from foreign invaders their entire lives (even I come up with scenarios like that and ways to hold out when I get bored). Add to that that, despite China's numerical superiority, America has a rather extreme technological advantage, which can make all the difference. All in all, it would be a large, technologically inferior, untrained military versus a smaller, technologically superior, well trained military. History has shown us time and again that the latter case will win the war nine times out of ten at a minimum. Plus most of China's major population centers are on the East side of the country, again making the invasion need to cover less land and therefore not worry about spreading out too thin.
End result? I think America wins this one.
Russia seems to be a popular candidate, and, while it's true they've held off and repelled attacks from militaries that they should have lost to, that is often more because the invading militaries had incredibly stupid timing than because the Russians did a good job. A properly timed invasion would be able to roll right through to Moscow in nearly no time, and once the invasion force gets there they essentially control all of Russia, since most of the population is based in the Western portion of the country. Siberia essentially rules itself anyway, even now. Same deal with Canada; take the population centers along the southern border of the country and you essentially control the entire country. Not the case with the States; you have to take the South, West, and East before you control most of the population, and even then there's enough people in the middle and north of the country to give you hell.
China is different, but they have more opportunities for invasion; come at them from the sea, from the north, south, or west. South-west you'd have some issues crossing the mountains, but most other areas offer routes that can be invaded through. Their population largely consists of farmers that don't have military experience nor are trained with weaponry, and that's where the difference in America comes in. China may have the ability to mobilize a large military, but their people would be untrained and unfamiliar with the weapons they're being given; essentially they'd be cannon fodder. American civilians have training, and quite a few of them have been preparing for the moment where they'd have to defend their country from foreign invaders their entire lives (even I come up with scenarios like that and ways to hold out when I get bored). Add to that that, despite China's numerical superiority, America has a rather extreme technological advantage, which can make all the difference. All in all, it would be a large, technologically inferior, untrained military versus a smaller, technologically superior, well trained military. History has shown us time and again that the latter case will win the war nine times out of ten at a minimum. Plus most of China's major population centers are on the East side of the country, again making the invasion need to cover less land and therefore not worry about spreading out too thin.
End result? I think America wins this one.
Agreed. Rednecks that have used guns their whole lives have still yet to be trained to use them. What's more perplexing is trying to figure out how they hunt such a wide variety of animals and only use a 12 gauge. These are serious questions that need to be answered. I'll research this and get back to you.RT-Medic -with-shotgun said:
/sarcasm
OT: I really think Russia would be the most daunting county to invade. It's sheer size and climate would make most other countries hesitate to get involved in a serious conflict (without provocation). Same for the U.S. (minus the climate). Otherwise, there are some South American countries that would prove very difficult to overtake.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!Torrasque said:
WE AMERICANS LAUGH AT YOUR CONCEPT OF CARPET BOMBING THINGS WITH A NUMBER OF MISSIONS THAT ARE NOT IN THE TRIPLE OR QUADRUPLE DIGITS DEPENDING ON HOW MANY SPARE EXPLOSIVES WE HAVE LAYING AROUND!!!!
The number of bombs dropped on Vietnam was about 3.5 times greater than those dropped by all powers during world war two. Unfortunately for our win record we dropped most of them on empty jungle because the guys in charge were stupid and wouldn't let any bombs be dropped on North Vietnam. Yay for losing a war through incompetence!
Hardest country to invade? The one that doesn't exist in reality maybe! Or alien and/or robotic forces...
As for real-world current states? What the others before me have said: either the big G20 countries (with Russia, China, the USA, India, and the EU countries as hardest to invade using blitzkrieg tactics), or insignificant remote countries that almost nobody cares for (and thus are unlikely to get attacked), apart from the nearest more powerful country that uses them as a satellite.
But seriously, the hardest country to invade may also be the one that you have inaccurate, wrong or insignificant intelligence about.
Then again, only the most paranoid (and thus likely the most guilty-in-their-own-eyes for acting as world masters with unlimited violence quota and domination over other countries) states can afford good intelligence agencies, and in smaller states such state agencies are primarily used for private reasons, e.g. to support the political-mafia-economic interests of the ruling class (a.k.a. the status quo) and thus always act against the public benefit (the common good) of the general (citizen) population.
The Vatican is also a nice candidate, but apart from its 'political neutrality', it's only other benefits are its enormous religious influence (propaganda), its historical significance, and the (secret) knowledge and artefact treasures hidden there.
Also, the geographic terrain and sociocultural, socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors play a major role in considering if a country is hard to invade.
As for real-world current states? What the others before me have said: either the big G20 countries (with Russia, China, the USA, India, and the EU countries as hardest to invade using blitzkrieg tactics), or insignificant remote countries that almost nobody cares for (and thus are unlikely to get attacked), apart from the nearest more powerful country that uses them as a satellite.
But seriously, the hardest country to invade may also be the one that you have inaccurate, wrong or insignificant intelligence about.
Then again, only the most paranoid (and thus likely the most guilty-in-their-own-eyes for acting as world masters with unlimited violence quota and domination over other countries) states can afford good intelligence agencies, and in smaller states such state agencies are primarily used for private reasons, e.g. to support the political-mafia-economic interests of the ruling class (a.k.a. the status quo) and thus always act against the public benefit (the common good) of the general (citizen) population.
The Vatican is also a nice candidate, but apart from its 'political neutrality', it's only other benefits are its enormous religious influence (propaganda), its historical significance, and the (secret) knowledge and artefact treasures hidden there.
Also, the geographic terrain and sociocultural, socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors play a major role in considering if a country is hard to invade.
Err...okay...how is geography patriotic?JacobShaftoe said:
Geographically speaking, the US is harder to invade than China due to the presence of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, poor infrastructure to carry an invasion through Canada from Alaska into the mainland United States, and the defensible nature of the US/Mexican border. China has numerous frontiers with possible and historic enemies that they've fought multiple wars with through the centuries. India, Russia, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all of them have been enemies to China, and all of them share contiguous borders. Canada and Mexico have fought wars against America, but Canada only did so under The United Kingdom, and Mexico did once. These aren't nations we've fought multiple wars against, and not nations which our military is intended to defend against.
And how is Military history for a country 'patriotic talk'?
The Chinese Military, while lacking in 'technical' potential aggressors, still regards Russia, Taiwan, Korea, India and even Japan as potential threats that need to be guarded against (A disadvantage in STAVKA thining as well). The US army doesn't train for the possible invasion by the Canadian Hordes, they're geared for overseas warfare. China's military has to face the possibility -in their minds at least- of fighting Russia, India, and Japan at the same time, while Taiwan causes issues for them on the high seas. America's military is geared towards overseas deployments to assist allies in Europe, Asia or the Middle East, not a domestic fight.
If you wanna call simple Geography, historical and military doctrine, and the fact that China lacks America's principle defensive lines 'patriotic talk', go ahead. But the fact is China's possible invaders have much easier routes into their country overland and much shorter overseas distances to cover. America's potential enemies face the logistical issues of crossing oceans before waging a forced coastal invasion, or crossing Canadian tundra or Mexican deserts (not to mention dealing with the locals who might not be pleased with someone overrunning their nation to get to the damn gringos). Home ground is an edge to anyone, but Logistics is the key, and Logistically, America is a nightmare compared to China.
Australia's populated areas, capital included, would be fairly easy to invade by sea, and the rest is just flat desert that any army could cross so long as they had a decent supply line. The question is why would you want to when there's the opportunity for a coastal invasion against target cities on the Indian Ocean, as stated before?JacobShaftoe said:
The country that is hardes to completily conquer is.... (drumroll please)
The Aerican Empire! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerican_Empire]
Sure, it's earthly possesions are easily conquered, but I think it'll be harder to take down their land on mars and pluto.
(micronations FTW!)
The Aerican Empire! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerican_Empire]
Sure, it's earthly possesions are easily conquered, but I think it'll be harder to take down their land on mars and pluto.
(micronations FTW!)
No, not really.JacobShaftoe said:
Australia's isolated, yes, but your population is overwhelmingly urban and located along those coastlines. The center of your country, an area equivalent to much of the United States, is more or less empty desert. America's population is widely distributed, urban, yes, but that population is across the entirety of the country. Major Industrial centers, resource generating regions, and agricultural zones are in the center of the country, along with being at the coastlines, an Invader must cover the entirety of the country to capture all major population centers and key positions.
I can go down the list of possible nations, and talk about a lot of the favorites, but truth be told, you have to look at Military factors (numbers, training, technology), Economic factors (Industrial Base, Resource Access, Numbers of Workforce), Geographic Factors (Landmass, area, climate, terrain), and Population Factors (Number of population, disposition, mindset, social issues). It's just logic that you can have a country with a High population, large land area, and good military (China) and weigh it against it's resources, domestic factors, and natural enemies and come up with a less than stellar equation.
For instance:
Australia has a small population and a minuscule military, it's population is mainly urban, a large portion of it's land area is inhospitable and unsettled, and it's moderately isolated with neighbors who it hasn't had an adversarial past. It wouldn't be easy to invade, but it would be easy to conquer.
China has a large population, large military, economy dependent on trade, natural and historical enemies on every border, a population of extremely diverse economic level, and a political system which does not rule with the consent of the governed (to the point where military force is needed to maintain civil authority in some regions). It would be easy to invade, difficult to conquer.
America has a large population, a very large and capable military, possesses large amounts of domestic resources, a populace that is mostly united (we don't get along, but we don't have civil war in the streets or armed uprisings), no natural enemies on our borders, and possess formidable natural barriers. It would be extremely difficult to invade, and extremely difficult to conquer.
The Untied Kingdom, possesses a superb navy to play to it's main economic and defensive strength, it possesses a moderate population that's urbanized and industrialized, it has a decent Army, but it's dependent on oceanic trade for the majority of it's resources. It would be difficult to invade and Conquer.
Russia...ah Russia. Surrounded by historical enemies, an economy based on Oil exports, a military who has historically only preformed to it's best when it's been attacked, but otherwise is currently weak. It has a massive land area to defend, it's main industrial regions are located to the west of the Urals, and it's main resource areas are concentrated in the far east of Siberia. Easy to invade, moderately difficult to Conquer.
You can look at regions with advantages like the Untied States, but you need to remember that those other countries lack the population disposition, the military resources and the economic resources of the US, along with the Geographical advantages.
Listen, this is just my opinion and my reasons why, and I get the feeling that my reasoning won't be enough to convince you otherwise, but that doesn't really matter to either of us. I'm just shocked that this hasn't turned into an overt 'fuck you and your fucking country, and your ideas for good measure' conversation.
A question like this is fairly hard to answer (especially with the average person's knowledge on defense systems) but interesting topic...
You must factor in all the alliances between countries unless we're disregarding that. That being said, I would say USA or the UK because when you mess with one, you mess with the other and they're two of the largest super-powers on the planet. Alliances aside though,
Costliest: USA has thrown tremendous amount of money on National Security to the point even us locals think it's fairly ridiculous seeing as the last time we had a MAJOR battle on American soil was the civil war.... Yes, invasion of Alaska in WWII, but it wasn't major.
Bloodiest: I agree with earlier posts in saying China could just throw masses at your troops. At some point, you would wear down.
Longest: Russia only for the sheer size of that country. It would take a very long time to go threw their massive amounts of troops over that size of land. Years, I would estimate.
You must factor in all the alliances between countries unless we're disregarding that. That being said, I would say USA or the UK because when you mess with one, you mess with the other and they're two of the largest super-powers on the planet. Alliances aside though,
Costliest: USA has thrown tremendous amount of money on National Security to the point even us locals think it's fairly ridiculous seeing as the last time we had a MAJOR battle on American soil was the civil war.... Yes, invasion of Alaska in WWII, but it wasn't major.
Bloodiest: I agree with earlier posts in saying China could just throw masses at your troops. At some point, you would wear down.
Longest: Russia only for the sheer size of that country. It would take a very long time to go threw their massive amounts of troops over that size of land. Years, I would estimate.
Yes, the US is very arrogant, but how exactly does celebrating the day of our country's independence justify this? If you would have picked something like "American Exceptionalism" I would have went right along with you. Or was it a joke? Sorry if it is, I tend to not detect sarcasm through the printed word unless it is very clear.William Ossiss said:
The unexpected victor: Switzerland (And I'm not the only one here with that opinion)
Here's why: Compulsory military service, and soldiers are required to keep their own weapons and equipment at home. In addition, their military is nearly a quarter of a million strong, which means that they have 13 soldiers per square mile. There is also suspicion that all bridges and tunnels are rigged with explosives, which is one possible reason why Germany respected the Swiss neutrality during WWII.
Here's a short piece on the Swiss Armed Forces: http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/euro2008/culture/swiss-armed-forces.html
And a link to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Here's why: Compulsory military service, and soldiers are required to keep their own weapons and equipment at home. In addition, their military is nearly a quarter of a million strong, which means that they have 13 soldiers per square mile. There is also suspicion that all bridges and tunnels are rigged with explosives, which is one possible reason why Germany respected the Swiss neutrality during WWII.
Here's a short piece on the Swiss Armed Forces: http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/euro2008/culture/swiss-armed-forces.html
And a link to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland