What is the hardest country to invade?

mega48man

New member
Mar 12, 2009
638
0
0
the united state of america. if any country trys any kind of unprovoked attack, you won't get what you saw in modern warfare 2 and the trailers for 3, you'll see a harbor full of airplane parts, or boat parts depending on how the tried to get here. and depending on how much damage was done to the US in the initial attack, it would depend on how angry the american people would be that would determine if that country would become a nuclear fallout zone or not. remember how pissed we were after 9/11? OK, now imagine if we absolutely knew for sure which country they're from by looking at the flag on their shoulders.

north korea is launching an attack? was launching an attack
russia wants to inavde us? wanted to invade us
osama bin laden wants to kill infidels? where the hell is that bastard........ah, found him, wanted to kill infidels, and according to what they found in his house all he wanted to do watch loooooads of porn. i'm serious to.
 

uzo

New member
Jul 5, 2011
710
0
0
WolfThomas said:
Ultimatley though the costs/risks don't outweigh the rewards, what do they want? Land? There's not that much sustainable agriculture. Uranium and coal? We sell it for cheap enough. Nothings really worth the invasion and/or involvment of other nations.
Yeah, I agree - it's pointless to attack Australia for anything besides genocide. But the point of this forum was a hypothetical invasion. I don't care why they're invading - just imagine they found Unobtanium or somethin' James Cameron-esque.
 

E.X.D.

New member
Apr 12, 2009
111
0
0
Now I haven't had the chance to lurk much and you guys seem involved in a very heated debate but I would like to nominate my personal choice for hardest country to invade: Atlantis. Atlantis has several key features that make it a hard target to invade, first of all there is the state of geographic isolation Atlantis has been in for several thousand years allowing them to develop an economy not dependent of foreign imports, instead depending on the many natural resources available at the ocean floor. Since Atlantis isn't globalized traditional tactics such as siege and embargos are rendered useless. In fact in times of extreme duress the entire nation of Atlantis can be mobilized and relocated elsewhere. Now Atlantis has developed very specialized military technology to combat the numerous sperm whales, giant squids, and angler fish that probe the deep seas. As such they have an unparallelled advantage in marine warfare, that coupled with the fact that Atlantian vehicles do not need to surface to resupply with air makes it nigh impossible to face the Atlantian army on their terms. You'd be hard pressed to find a more protected country than Atlantis.
 

Lunar Shadow

New member
Dec 9, 2008
653
0
0
Australia: TO quote the natter on TV Tropes
It is exactly like Russia. Sacrificing Western Australia to buy time is actually not a bad idea, as all attempts to cross the country laterally have failed abysmally. If you somehow manage not to die of heatstroke or dehydration, if you manage not to piss off any of the wildlife (including estuarine crocodiles, the largest crocodiles in the world, and the inland taipan, the most venomous snake in the world, and its relatives the mainland taipan and mulga snake, which are nearly as potent and a lot worse-tempered) if you are miraculously not killed in a sandstorm or one of the epic downpours that crop up, if you don't starve to death from dingos and hopping rats stealing your rations in the middle of the night, if the local indigenous tribes don't take a dislike to you and poison you or screw with your navigatory equipment or spear you... after that you still have to deal with the Australian military and any local populations who have formed a militia, and they will be well fed, hydrated, and very pissed off.
If you even make it ashore. The majority of the western Australian seaboard is protected by rocky reefs. A fact many early sailing ships discovered quite tragically when they ran aground. According to historical records, even if you made it ashore, between the environment, the local tribes, and the wildlife, you were lucky to make it out alive.
And don't think trying to come through the northern rainforests will be any easier. Between the monsoons, the crazy wildlife, and the heatstroke (people have literally been boiled alive in the Daintree,) well... take a look at what we did to the Japanese at Kokoda, then add in the fact that we're fighting on home ground. Yep. You're screwed.
And lets not forget that the average Aussie farmer has a couple of rifles, a shotgun, half a crate of jelly (Gelignite) and you don't want to know what else tucked into the back shed. The Aussie locals aren't much less deadly than the wildlife.
That amount of weaponry is minimal, most are better armed than that. A lot of Australian farms are capable of being independent for food and water, enormous quantities of fuel, underground tanks, and it's very common to have a well equipped workshop that can make anything from a tractor to a machinegun.
Not for nothing did Rommel say, "If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it."
Of course, most enemy armies would try to invade the east coast in that case. Not to mention modern militaries have much more modern equipment like the Osprey. There is probably a commander stupid enough to invade west Australia, though. Not to mention there's a barracks over here that has a little unit called the Special Air Service Regiment. Who Dares, Wins, troper.
The east coast is where all the soldiers are. Back to square one.
Not to mention that if invaders landed in Far North Queensland and tried to sweep down the eastern coast, they'd be confined to a narrow strip of land as they moved: most of the Queensland coastline is flat, but travel inland a little way and you hit mountain ranges, rivers, and in some places enough jungle to make the Viet Cong weep. As mentioned above, jungle is what our lads in the beige berets do best.
Invading Sydney? Well the Great Dividing Range makes coming in from the west suicidal as the few roads able to support large vehicles are obvious bottlenecks. The bay area has a smallish mouth making it a shooting gallery for ships sailing through. Coming up from the south requires being able to either cross the Great Dividing Range with land forces where there are even less suitable crossing points, or being able to sneak past the city and land on the coast. Invading from the north is the same except the Great Barrier Reef isn't called that for nothing.
Invading Melbourne? Well forget any naval support, the mouth of Port Phillip Bay is one of the most dangerous stretchs of water in the world. Refusing the assistance of a pilot to get through is suicidal at best, not to mention the ADF has forts on both sides of the openning. Landing on the eastern side of the mouth runs into the problem of crossing a range that leads mostly into wilderness. Land invasion from the east and north are blocked by the Great Dividing Range again. Invading from the west requires a fair march through the Otway Mountain ranges and finding a place to land where giant cliffs don't turn the whole scene into a bizarre reversal of the Galipolli landing.

Edit: Little tail end that I missed
It ain't like Russia. Those invading Russia get to march home after they've been chewed up. Those who invade Australia will have to SWIM home.
Swimming past the sharks, poison jellyfish, blue ringed octopi, salt-water crocodiles (remember the old saying, 'if there's no sharks at the beach, it's because the crocodiles have eaten them all'?), etc...
SWIMMING KNIVES!
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
i might be biased but..

the USA, not only the strongest country military wise, and economic (not so much right now, but hell no one is doing well right now). not to mention the citizens here have guns and know how to use them. hell consider every deer hunter a sniper. and what separates us from china is that during invasion we could probably keep feeding and aiding our citizens and we have an abundant amount of natural resources. and we know how to defend our country in one way or another, either blow them away quickly, or drag it out in guerrilla warfare and drain their morale and supplies.

though this is obviously hypothetical speculation.


or Ireland...drunk, armed, and insane...that's terrifying. (and awesome)
 

Timedraven 117

New member
Jan 5, 2011
456
0
0
CiB42 said:
JB1528 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.

wrong we won
JB1528 said:
CiB42 said:
JB1528 said:
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.
also not to mention that we won the war in iraq by ourselves i am pretty sure
 

Testosticore

New member
Jul 22, 2011
59
0
0
The hardest to invade period is the USA. Mainly because the invasion would be brought to a grinding halt before boots even hit the ground. The USA has oceans on either side of it, and that means the only way to it [Excluding Canada and Mexico because they wouldnt even consider losing this cash cow/gaurd dog] is through sea. I dont know if it changed since the last time I checked, but America has the biggest, most technologically advanced navy in the world. So large, in fact, that is larger than every nation in the worlds navy combined. Unless you destroy an enormous number of ships from the air, there isnt even a chance.

But that may be impossible to. The USA also has the most advanced Air Force in the world, and launching any attack from the air would mean a swift kick in the ass from some of the most meanest, advanced machines this side of the Terminator series. Sure, you may get a few boats sunk with the first strike, but America doesnt like that shit happening at home, and will turn around and invade your ass right back. Simply put, we love war to much to not have the leading edge in every form of killing possible.

Close second is china, because think about the population for a second... Imagine four billion desperate people charging at you, not with guns... but with mother fucking KUNG FU!
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
OpiateChicken said:
...

emeraldrafael said:

lol, inb4 everyone picks their own country?

...
Not really sure why I'm arguing this back, but I did mention two other countries, and included both those countries in my example with the US.

Now as to the civilian aspect, I'm not going to say anything on it cause it was said in another post. However, dont underestmate guerrilla tactics. Even if you have large supply lines you can still push an enemy into surrendernce, or at least get back a significant peice of land. Throughout the US's history its been seen that small guerrilla style forces have overcame larger ones.

Also, fixed your quote, cause you put a different person in mine.
 

gabe12301

New member
Jun 30, 2010
1,371
0
0
William Ossiss said:
theriddlen said:
Costliest: USA (Has the best equipment specialized in destroying high tech weapons and vehicles, which cost a lot)
Hardest: USA (They continuously have the most advanced and widely adapted in army technology)
tactical advantage. whilst everyone is staring at the fireworks on the fourth of july, that is when you strike. you take the major institutions, greatest landmark tactical advantages. the Us is arrogant. "hurr, no one dares to invade on the 4th of july!"
you forget that 39 % of us owns a gun. that's 119732554 problems for the opposing army although most of them haven't used their gun and most who have can't shoot anything and wouldn't shoot a person......on second thought yea nevermind.
 

E.X.D.

New member
Apr 12, 2009
111
0
0
Lunar Shadow said:
Australia: TO quote the natter on TV Tropes
It is exactly like Russia. Sacrificing Western Australia to buy time is actually not a bad idea, as all attempts to cross the country laterally have failed abysmally. If you somehow manage not to die of heatstroke or dehydration, if you manage not to piss off any of the wildlife (including estuarine crocodiles, the largest crocodiles in the world, and the inland taipan, the most venomous snake in the world, and its relatives the mainland taipan and mulga snake, which are nearly as potent and a lot worse-tempered) if you are miraculously not killed in a sandstorm or one of the epic downpours that crop up, if you don't starve to death from dingos and hopping rats stealing your rations in the middle of the night, if the local indigenous tribes don't take a dislike to you and poison you or screw with your navigatory equipment or spear you... after that you still have to deal with the Australian military and any local populations who have formed a militia, and they will be well fed, hydrated, and very pissed off.
If you even make it ashore. The majority of the western Australian seaboard is protected by rocky reefs. A fact many early sailing ships discovered quite tragically when they ran aground. According to historical records, even if you made it ashore, between the environment, the local tribes, and the wildlife, you were lucky to make it out alive.
And don't think trying to come through the northern rainforests will be any easier. Between the monsoons, the crazy wildlife, and the heatstroke (people have literally been boiled alive in the Daintree,) well... take a look at what we did to the Japanese at Kokoda, then add in the fact that we're fighting on home ground. Yep. You're screwed.
And lets not forget that the average Aussie farmer has a couple of rifles, a shotgun, half a crate of jelly (Gelignite) and you don't want to know what else tucked into the back shed. The Aussie locals aren't much less deadly than the wildlife.
That amount of weaponry is minimal, most are better armed than that. A lot of Australian farms are capable of being independent for food and water, enormous quantities of fuel, underground tanks, and it's very common to have a well equipped workshop that can make anything from a tractor to a machinegun.
Not for nothing did Rommel say, "If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it."
Of course, most enemy armies would try to invade the east coast in that case. Not to mention modern militaries have much more modern equipment like the Osprey. There is probably a commander stupid enough to invade west Australia, though. Not to mention there's a barracks over here that has a little unit called the Special Air Service Regiment. Who Dares, Wins, troper.
The east coast is where all the soldiers are. Back to square one.
Not to mention that if invaders landed in Far North Queensland and tried to sweep down the eastern coast, they'd be confined to a narrow strip of land as they moved: most of the Queensland coastline is flat, but travel inland a little way and you hit mountain ranges, rivers, and in some places enough jungle to make the Viet Cong weep. As mentioned above, jungle is what our lads in the beige berets do best.
Invading Sydney? Well the Great Dividing Range makes coming in from the west suicidal as the few roads able to support large vehicles are obvious bottlenecks. The bay area has a smallish mouth making it a shooting gallery for ships sailing through. Coming up from the south requires being able to either cross the Great Dividing Range with land forces where there are even less suitable crossing points, or being able to sneak past the city and land on the coast. Invading from the north is the same except the Great Barrier Reef isn't called that for nothing.
Invading Melbourne? Well forget any naval support, the mouth of Port Phillip Bay is one of the most dangerous stretchs of water in the world. Refusing the assistance of a pilot to get through is suicidal at best, not to mention the ADF has forts on both sides of the openning. Landing on the eastern side of the mouth runs into the problem of crossing a range that leads mostly into wilderness. Land invasion from the east and north are blocked by the Great Dividing Range again. Invading from the west requires a fair march through the Otway Mountain ranges and finding a place to land where giant cliffs don't turn the whole scene into a bizarre reversal of the Galipolli landing.

Edit: Little tail end that I missed
It ain't like Russia. Those invading Russia get to march home after they've been chewed up. Those who invade Australia will have to SWIM home.
Swimming past the sharks, poison jellyfish, blue ringed octopi, salt-water crocodiles (remember the old saying, 'if there's no sharks at the beach, it's because the crocodiles have eaten them all'?), etc...
SWIMMING KNIVES!
You make a very compelling argument for the defense of Australia but, I would like to point out that Australia is still very vulnerable to nuclear attacks. Meanwhile Atlantis is submerged so deep that most weapons couldn't withstand the pressure of such depths. As a result of being so far below Atlantis' food sources aren't dependent on the sun and instead farmed from volcanic vents. Making them the only country able to survive a nuclear winter
 

ScarlettRage

New member
May 13, 2009
997
0
0
Berenzen said:
2 sets depending on what allies do with the defending nations.

Allies don't support defending nations
Costlest: Russia
Bloodiest: Russia
Longest: Canada or Russia, depending on where the invasion happens, If the invasion happens in eastern Russia, it's russia, otherwise Canada- much more spread out in terms of average pop. dens.
Hardest: Russia

If Allies support the Defending nations it's a toss up between Canada (barring a U.S. Invasion) and Russia in all Categories. I chose Canada as the other option as it really doesn't have a good point to invade from, from the North, East and West you have several thousand kilometers of ocean, and from the South you have the United States. Tack on the very spread apart cities, city proximity to the U.S. border, and various NSA monitoring stations tacked around the natural borders of the country and the sheer amount of allies in the world supporting it, suddenly you have a very long, costly war. Russia is a bit more vulnerable to invasion, due to the fact that it has 2 borders that could be hostile and a third that is a quick jaunt across the Bering strait. But that doesn't mean it would be less difficult to take over, particularly with all of it's NATO allies.
haha! nobody messes with Canada!

..That and who would want to attack us? everybody loves Canada ^_^ And Switzerland.. because they are neutral.. but they also sell firearms to both sides if there is a war going on... WTH
Switzerland?!
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Assuming the invasion is only succesful if you completely take over the country... I'd say a tie between Russia and the USA.

Russia covers a massive area of the world, to such a degree that if you ever tried to invade, it would take months just to get from one end to the other. In addition, you'd be fighting in one of the coldest countries on the earth - your army would be more likely to freeze to death than win any battles. (I don't remember which world war this actually occured in, but you can look it up as an example)

America because of two major factors: the first, terrain. America's population and cities are actually spread pretty far over it's geography, except for the east coast where the population is largely clustered in small areas. In addition, it's two mountain ranges mean you have to either find a way to cross unfamiliar mountains twice, or carry out the invasion of central, east and west America separately. Second, most everybody in america owns a gun or has easy access to one. Invade america, and suddenly every single citizen is trying to kill you. Imperial guard philosophy made reality, folks: one million barely trained men with guns will still fire one million shots.
 

Gavmando

New member
Feb 3, 2009
342
0
0
I think the USA, China and Russia would all be very hard to invade.

The US - Because even if you somehow manage to beat their insanely well equiped and well funded military, you then have to deal with their many citizens who are sporting guns and who have been waiting for the king of England to invade them for a while now.

China - Because they have a huge army and have a billion+ people who would be more than happy to defend the place.

Russia - Well, we've seen how well that goes. People have been invading Russia for thousands of years. It hasnt really worked. They just fall back and let winter take care of them.

And as for the most logistically challenging - Australia.
You invade anywhere in Australia, and it's a bloody long walk to the next populated area. Plus it gets really, REALLY hot down here. We wouldnt be able to hold out for all that long. (One American air craft carrier usually has more planes than we have in our entire arsenal.) But it would be a difficult invasion, and holding the country would be challenging. Your army would have to be spread out over great distances just to keep a hold of the major areas.
Plus, the US and the UK would come to our aid. Not because they like us, but because we're a western country in South East Asia. And having an ally in this region is good for them.