most people seem to pick either the US or Russia. I'm inclined to say Russia, since it's much larger, and has weather that can defeat armies.
What is the hardest country to invade?
- Thread starter siahsargus
- Start date
I can't believe no one's said this yet...
Israel.
Their military has been proven in multiple combats (see: 6 Days War, Battle of Golan Heights)
Military service is MANDATORY for ever man and women who is a citizen.
Their main battle tank includes a mortar AND space for a squad of infantry.
They still have World War Two-era equipment stored and in working condition, ready for 2nd or 3rd line use.
You don't piss off the Jews. EVER.
Honorable Mention: Russia, China, USA, for everyone's previously stated reasons.
Israel.
Their military has been proven in multiple combats (see: 6 Days War, Battle of Golan Heights)
Military service is MANDATORY for ever man and women who is a citizen.
Their main battle tank includes a mortar AND space for a squad of infantry.
They still have World War Two-era equipment stored and in working condition, ready for 2nd or 3rd line use.
You don't piss off the Jews. EVER.
Honorable Mention: Russia, China, USA, for everyone's previously stated reasons.
Russia, just speaking from history.
I'm going to add China and the USA to that list due to resources, power and size
Also, the dear old UK because, despite a technicality that I myself have argued over with someone before, we haven't been invaded in almost 1000 years despite many, many attempts.
I'm going to add China and the USA to that list due to resources, power and size
Also, the dear old UK because, despite a technicality that I myself have argued over with someone before, we haven't been invaded in almost 1000 years despite many, many attempts.
Its not about winning its about putting up the best fight.Ben Simon said:
Israel is tough but its a little too easy to cut in half for it to stand up to a force as overwhelming as described in the OP. It can stand up to the armies of its neighbors and smash them because it is superior enough to do so but to fight an army equipped with tanks more along the lines of a western European tank they better have one hell of a defensive position. And honestly with the numbers described they would fold pretty fast. They would put up a good fight but they are outclassed.SteelPanther said:
Well Australia has one of the most urbanised populations in the world at 89%.uzo said:
The only countries with higher urban population are city-states like Singapore that shouldn't really count.
Australia is easy for an army to traverse, with consistent weather and flat terrain. The only slight problem is fuel and water but more than worth it considering Australia's mineral and industrial booty well worth seizing in a total war.
The cities would be taken but the ANZAC armies (they work together on almost everything) would give the run around for a while but ultimately they are just too small compared to a belligerent like China. The country would have been invaded for all intents and purposes, just an ongoing resistance to occupation. I also wonder if the cities were taken how long would it be before the civilian government orders the army to surrender.
I would say US only for the sake of most of our border states tend to be Drug and Gun crazy.
Texas, for example.
Texas, for example.
God damn Pandemic. I spent hours trying to conquer Madagascar.Flig said:
In a seriousness,
Costliest: USA. Best weapons and all that.
Bloodiest: China. Too many people.
Longest: Russia. As others have said, they have geography going for them.
Hardest: USA. Best military = Hardest battles.
If capturing a country's capital counts as taking it over, then I would change the USA as the hardest. You only have to go a bit up the Chesapeake Bay to get to DC.
this is actually a very good point, not to mention the fact that among our navy, we have such advanced weaponry to the point where even if things were to get by our navy, our navy still has the power to fire accurately within 50 meters of its target at a max range of 190 km (yes that's right)bibblles said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land-Attack_Projectile
so good luck getting past our first defenses, THEN covering your own asses if you even manage to get through, let alone for the other tons of reasons given why you would literally be fighting for every inch of the country.
(wtf..my captcha was upside down?)
As stated above WW3 can't really happen because of nukes, or at least if it does happen then nobody wins.AssassinFisH said:
But if we want to assume a war between China and the US, using conventional weapons, then the US immediately loses its financial handicap because under a total war policy they can erase their debts to China and turn all their resources back to production and manufacturing.
And China's population and army size help them defend but, amusingly enough, not invade. How do you get 600 million people across the Pacific Ocean? you just don't: certainly not when the largest navy in the world is trying to stop you.
Which is why I'm glad to have military armories and nuke silos scattered throughout the mid-West. Plus private ownership of guns.Cloudedskate said:
Suck it, commies.