What is the hardest country to invade?

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

The uk. As soon as any invading army got to Liverpool every vehicle would be up on bricks within seconds

This and Stowford, Slough, East West and South London, Kent, Manchester, Leeds, Newport, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff and any other towns or cities above the northern divide for sure.

 

[Warforger]

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.

Erm then none would be the longest, because if you have an unlimited amount of troops what's stopping you from like say forming a big daisy chain of soldiers from one border to another? Or something of the like, or put like 10 mil soldiers in each village? Then have like billions of air recon watching the country side?

Otherwise costliest- Russia
Bloodiest- China

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I would say United States because of all the people with guns, including the gangs and crazy rednecks. Not to mention the entire US military.

Gangs/Rednecks =/= US Military

I think we can see a trend.

 

[Synyster]

From a Strategic stand point, I think Australia would be fairly hard to invade, however definitely not the hardest

 

[Timedraven 117]

United kingdom: We have no been invaded since 1066. Now why would you reset the "Day's since been invaded" machine? That would be mean. /Hope sympathy pulls through.

no since 1944 about you were invaded by german spies and bombs.

OT: costliest: America/russia/china
Deadliest: above
Longest: America/russia
most difficult: america (most techi/gun toting/largest modern army any beachhead will be filled with civii resistance groups and military divisions)

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

The United States or Canada. You wouldn't be able to fight one without the other coming to their defense, so it's pointless to differentiate here. A successful invasion would require a number of supplies rivaling Operation Barbarossa. Then you would have to move them across an ocean.

The US pours such obscene amounts of money into its military, and it struggles to maintain order in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that money is the only way the US can exert that force. You might as well try invading the moon.

 

[BNguyen]

Costliest: any nation with large urban areas or cities would cover this field but this would also have to include a large territory, so Russia, China, and the United States would field this, small nations could put up a good fight, but with so little territory to cover and surround would make it a small fight
Bloodiest: it all depends on the will of the people populating the area and who is attacking and why, Russia may have a strong history of dealing bloody vengence on its attackers but that was only the case due to its attackers being preoccupied on another front
so it is possible for Russia to hold this field if its sense of nationality is truly as strong as recent games have displayed
Longest:technically any country that contains a large urban sprawl would be difficult to clear out which is probably why the Iraq situation is taking so long, it gets hard to find guerilla fighters - so for this category, any Western European nation, Japan, China, or the U.S.

 

[JB1528]

There are so many things wrong with what you said:

1: The USA has a population of over 300 million, not 140 million.
2: The USA has the most technoligically advanced/largest navy in the world. And considering the fact that the only way to invade the US would be a coastal invasion, the Chinese would get blown out the water before the could even hit the coast
3: Numbers mean nothing against a technologically superior/better trained force look through history and you see countless times where a numerically superior army lost to a better trained/better equipped army.
4: Thanks to economic interdepedancy China's and the USA's economy rely on each other to prosper, if China chose the "choke" the US economy their economy would suffer too.
5: China the aggressors in WW3? Do you even know how modern politics work?

1: But not the largest army- which is what matters. Also- remember the US also has the highest obesity rate, etc- sure 300 million, how many are useful in an invasion situation? Not many. Remember Chine has one billion people- or about three times the US population. In terms of "invasion resistance"- when the US was still hyoung in 1814, the British sort of invaded. In practice, they marched from Canada, got to Washington, set fire to the Capitol building (causing it to be painted white to hide the scorch marks- hence "White House") and then left- with barely a shot fired. Basically, because every American that was in a position to resist chose not to.

2: Incording the chief of naval operations Gary Roughead, the US navy is reliant on international partnerships- i.e. allies. On thier own- he doesn't think the navy is as strong as you think it is.

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.

1: Numbers honestly mean little in modern warfare, entire battalions can be wiped out by a few squadrons of stealth bombers. Yes China has numbers but it doesn't have the technology or training to stand up to the average US soldier. Also do you know how hard it is to feed and supply a large army? There have been dozens of times in history where a large army destroyed itself through attrition and desertion because the army was too big to survive on its low supply line.

Also the modern US is severely different from its 1814 counterpart, the american culture idolizes armed resistance and the gun itself. Resistance from local militias (There are literally tens of thousands of armed militias actively operating in the USA right now) would be extremely fierce let alone resistance from the national military itself.

2: Do some research on the US navy the next 13 largest navies combined is still smaller that the US (Mostly American) Navy. Super Carriers and Nuclear subs would completely obliterate any invasion force before it even saw the American coastline.

3: Vietnam wasn't lost because of poor training or the absence of allies (which isn't true) it was lost because of politics, the US didn't invade Cambodia or North Vietnam, so the NVA always had a safe place to rearm and regroup. A military invading the US wouldn't have that luxury...

Also let's look at the casualty numbers between Vietnam and the US
USA KIA: 70,000
NVA KIA: 1,100,000

US casualties didn't lose the vietnam war, politics did.

 

[Loner Jo Jo]

Wait, are we talking invade as in to technically invade, put men on the ground fighting and winning or are we saying merely to wage war? There is a difference.

Given the term invade, I would go with an island nation like Britain or Japan. No one has managed to actual land on their shores (well, the mainland at least) for thousands of years.

 

[Rex Fallout]

I'd say that the United States, Russia, or China would be the hardest. Split those up however you want to for first second and third.

 

[gigastrike]

I don't think people realize just how rural and mountainous most of China is. Even if they lost the heartland, they could wreck with guerilla warfare. Not to mention their sheer manpower.

 

[Life_Is_A_Mess]

Obligatory...

Oh yes, and Finland.
Click this URL and read point #5.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html

 

[sgtslacker]

Canada Obviously anyone stupid enough to attack one of the most liked Countries in the world that has a army that technologically at least is near on par with the USA, and Canada has the best allies of all time. That's right I'm talking to you.

I only want to protect western Canada though. I'm not a big fan of Quebec.

Is it possible for us to somehow just remove Quebec? Because I enjoy all the countries west and east of Quebec, just not Quebec. LOL

 

[Nouw]

Snip

Snip

China has over 1 billion people by the way. Not that even half of them would fight...

 

[Synyster]

Obligatory...

Oh yes, and Finland.
Click this URL and read point #5.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html

Haha WOW!

 

[Vishnu Namboodiripad]

everyone knows the hardest is north korea.

75 percent of their population are secretly aliens that will shoot us with highly advanced space guns with space lazers and space shields while riding on space ships, space cars, space trains, space segways ans space tractors.

you think they're crazy but that's just an act. They're just waiting to strike with they're advance space stuff.

 

[coolkirb]

USA, in terms of military spending and firepower they cant be beat, though their soldiors arnt as well trained as those of other countries so if everone was on the ground they might lose