What is the hardest country to invade?

[Stilkon]

Australia. Why has no one said this? They're out in the middle of the ocean, they have decent defenses, and getting across their massive desert would probably be a headache.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Sweden is up for honourable mention.

Difficult terrain and a military that is suited for it makes for a bad day for all invading forces.

They have fighter and bomber planes that can be rolled out of mountain caves and take off from dirt roads, they have ships invisible to radar sailing between the dangerously rocky waters in the archipelago, they have some of the best man-portable anti tank weapons, and some of the coolest tanks ever.

Good luck.

 

[spartan231490]

I think the US. In all categories. A massive and well equipped military, and high firearms ownership and proficiency with those weapons. Also a pretty high population. Russia and China are close second and third.

 

[Archone]

Has anyone here actually thought about Canada? The United States has successfully invaded multiple nations all over the globe, many of them previously thought impossible to conquer prior to the assault. Japan (the Mongols couldn't do it, thanks to possibly divinely mandated typhoons). Tripoli (every other country at the time just paid them tribute; a sort of international "insurance policy" against piracy). Heck, including Afghanistan - the U.S' body count is far below that of the losses suffered by the USSR or the British Empire when they took a whack at it.

But in the entire history of the United States, my country has only failed in one invasion. We went up north, thinking to liberate Canada from British rule. And Canada explained rather pointedly that such efforts were appreciated but undesired. Canada's military reputation is amazingly minute in regards to its actual history of military accomplishments. They don't brag, boast, threaten, or posture. They simply abide by the ancient saying later corrupted and coopted by TF2's Sniper. "Be polite. Be friendly. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Canada or Italy. Canada being huge, almost no one who DOESN'T love our country and a people who have repeatedly shown that when push comes to shove or when we send in our army we win more than not because we are determined, not to mention China would probably help us and so would America (from a defence standpoint). Italy because it's a very small country with mountainous terrain and every village is close to another and there is roughly 60 million people who live there.

EDIT:The country furthest away from you because it's easy to INVADE a country, to take over a country is a whole different story.

 

[Grim327]

Let's see I would say:

Costliest Invasion: USA
Bloodiest Invasion: Israel, I mean the guys are practically fighting year-round, and they don't mess around.
Longest Invasion: Russia, The brutal Russian winter has proven time and time again to be the ultimate game changer.

Hardest Invasion: A toss-up between any of these 3.

 

[Fappy]

Israel for all of them. Why? Well, the wars' been going on since the late 40s. >.>

EDIT: (You could argue since 1967 too)

 

[Grim327]

True, but you have to remember that all of those attempts have been before 1750 and the Mongolian Horde conquered China. No one has completely conquered Russia, and the Russian winter has proven over the entire time line from 1300's to the present that it will protect Russia.

 

[synobal]

Russia and the USA, both have way to much land to really cover effectively and eliminate insurgents. Plus both have loads of guns floating around.

 

[Toar]

"Mine is,"
Spits tobacco and cocks shotgun.
"Jus' try an' take my trailer'n see what happens!"

 

[Stealthygamer]

Sealand because they wouldn't be able to find it , and before you tell me that's a water themed amusement park not a country LOOK IT UP

 

[Miles Bruce-Mitchell]

Historically speaking Russia has always been the greatest challenge. They can throw people at you, wearing you down. Then the harsh winter comes to finish you off. But I imagine that isn't as much of a factor as it used to be.

I imagine Peru would be a good challenge, since, y'know, the Amazon hates everyone.

The USA has maybe the world's best military, and even if you get past that there's all those civilians with guns.

Saw some people on here mention Isreal, and now that I think about it those fuckers are HARDCORE. They will not go down easy.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

If you mean that the territory is invaded and held after the battle then it pretty much a tie between the US, Russia, and China. Between all of their resources and man power invading any of these countries is going to take so much time and money the only it would be possible is if two of those countries focused all of their resources entirely on invading the remaining nation.

I don't really count Israel because while they have been fighting ever since the country was established and also are one of the best trained militaries in the world, they have been continuously receiving support from other countries like the US, while their opponents have received almost none from any of the global superpowers.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Has anyone here actually thought about Canada? The United States has successfully invaded multiple nations all over the globe, many of them previously thought impossible to conquer prior to the assault. Japan (the Mongols couldn't do it, thanks to possibly divinely mandated typhoons). Tripoli (every other country at the time just paid them tribute; a sort of international "insurance policy" against piracy). Heck, including Afghanistan - the U.S' body count is far below that of the losses suffered by the USSR or the British Empire when they took a whack at it.

But in the entire history of the United States, my country has only failed in one invasion. We went up north, thinking to liberate Canada from British rule. And Canada explained rather pointedly that such efforts were appreciated but undesired. Canada's military reputation is amazingly minute in regards to its actual history of military accomplishments. They don't brag, boast, threaten, or posture. They simply abide by the ancient saying later corrupted and coopted by TF2's Sniper. "Be polite. Be friendly. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

I still think Canada, The US, and Mexico should say go ahead and say fuck it and just make one big ass America. Why call the new nation America, cause it's all still North America and The United Territories of Mexico America and Canada is way to long

 

[HalfTangible]

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.

And one million misses/friendly fire incidents/massive failures/poor attempts to intimidate trained soldiers. At least the Vietcong had unity and sincere motivation. Hell, I shudder to think just how much of the US would turn guns on each other the moment order was threatened. And I shudder harder when I think about who they'd shoot.

I think you vastly underestimate Americans - almost all of us who own guns know how to use them. And if they're reponsible at all, they know not to aim guns at people they don't want to kill.

I used the imperial guard as an analogy, but it's a poor analogy in retrospect because the only similarity is quality over quantity mentality: the average citizen (who manages to live past the first few days) would engage in guerilla warfare. And since so many of us own guns, we'd be able to at least put some hurt into whoever decided to invade.

As a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate the point: Let's say everyone's aim is so bad that they can only hit a soldier with one bullet in each clip, and the others either miss or hit someone on their side. Let's further assume that each person has a gun with... eh, 7 shots. And it's a semi-automatic so that it takes three shots for the soldier to react and bring him down. This means that the three shots have a 1/7, 1/6, and 1/5 chance to hit each time. This means that there is a 107/210 chance to hit on one of those three shots (if i have my math/assumptions right - possibly not, i'm no good at statistics ) Let's say 4000 people rally in a single area of indeterminate size. That means 2038 shots hit. Factor in the fact that 80% of shots miss in war and assuming it's due to human nature, that's 407.

I realize this isn't how it would work in real life, but this is an estimation.

Moving on.

Correct me if i'm wrong: if somebody's home is being attacked, they've GOT motivation. If they're working with their neighbors, they've GOT unity. And they have the advantage of home terrain. Cuz, ya know. HOME.

On the guns: If order were threatened, it wouldn't matter if we had guns or not - we'd all go crazy. That's what humans do when their safe little lives are threatened: they go crazy. Angry mobs and riots don't start because someone was too polite at dinner. And if an outlaw wants a gun, he'll get it. Period. If you take guns, the only people you'll get them from are law-abiding, good citizens.

EDIT: Forgot one last factor.

People, especially civilians, tend to look after themselves. So long as it wasn't a door-to-door gankfest, people would most likely submit to their new overlords so long as burgers and cable were restored asap. Oh, and most untrained people don't shoot to kill even when they are soldiers. And more often than not even trained people freeze up when they see guns pointed at them. Hell, even the Russians who knew their guys would shoot them for running still ran from the germans, and got shot. None of them thought to shoot the guys who promised to shoot them. Armed conflict, despite what pop psychologists may want you to believe, is not easy to prepare for by playing computer games.

Oh, and as for your NRA sloganeering, I live in a country where they did take the guns, after we won gold in the largest mass murder ever event. Still no sign of UN takeovers, or spiraling gun crime as yet. I've personally seen 1 (one) handgun in the hands of a drug dealer, once. And he was arrested two days later, with his unloaded gun. Damn those scary outlaws.

If the RA applied it's arguements to drug policy, I might think them credible.

Thank you for assuming i'm an idiotic mindless drone because my country's flag has fifty stars on it like everyone else on the internet has assumed since i got here -_-

I am MY OWN PERSON, thanks. I don't pander to what the NRA believes just because the NRA says it. I believe it's true, so i repeat it.

The eighty percent statistic i added referred to the accuracy of shots fired by trained soldiers, who should know precisely how to hit their targets - it was to account for the number of shots that miss because, subconsciously, humans don't want to kill each other.

The NRA was founded for one purpose: the second amendment. I realize it's difficult to remember sometimes, but that means that the only statements that the NRA officially makes are to do with the second amendment and gun rights. Whether or not they view drugs as something that the same logic should be applied to isn't relevant to their organization's purpose, so you're never going to hear an opinion on it.

I have little faith in my government's ability to get anything really meaningful done. Show me that the USA government can actually do something competently, that taking away guns will stop people from getting their hands on them if they want them, and that getting rid of guns will improve life for people in one of the best places to live in the world, and i MIGHT lend your argument some credibility beyond 'bleeding heart'.

How about: It's been done many times throughout history in many different countries with amny different national characters and is yet to produce, in the first world, any of the horrible scenarios that the NRA regularly predicts. So, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself. A line from a man ballsy enough to stare down Nazi Europe from a tiny little island. Whos country then, not too long after WW2 ended, and a few scary firearms incidents occurred, decided to remove firearms from their society. But I'm sure the old NRA logic of "But this is merka, it's diffrent." magically voids all reason, so I'll stop bothering and just let you go back to watching the Red Dawn remake and eating bnuffalo wings on your stars and stripes comforter cover...

I hate buffalo wings, i don't have a stars and stripes comforter [havent even seen one] and what the hell is 'the Red Dawn'? You're not even TRYING to think i'm my own person, are you?

This thread isn't to discuss the second amendment or whether taking it away is the right thing to do, so i'm not sure why you posted that at all - there's nothing in that post that has to do with the topic, and come to think of it this entire tangeant went from 'Everybody has a gun which will make the invasion difficult' to 'guns should be banned because guns should be banned'.

This conversation is over. Kindly stop being even more ignorant than you're trying to make me out to be.

 

[Krion_Vark]

Has anyone here actually thought about Canada? The United States has successfully invaded multiple nations all over the globe, many of them previously thought impossible to conquer prior to the assault. Japan (the Mongols couldn't do it, thanks to possibly divinely mandated typhoons). Tripoli (every other country at the time just paid them tribute; a sort of international "insurance policy" against piracy). Heck, including Afghanistan - the U.S' body count is far below that of the losses suffered by the USSR or the British Empire when they took a whack at it.

But in the entire history of the United States, my country has only failed in one invasion. We went up north, thinking to liberate Canada from British rule. And Canada explained rather pointedly that such efforts were appreciated but undesired. Canada's military reputation is amazingly minute in regards to its actual history of military accomplishments. They don't brag, boast, threaten, or posture. They simply abide by the ancient saying later corrupted and coopted by TF2's Sniper. "Be polite. Be friendly. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

You forgot Northern Vietnam. The US kinda got fucked over trying to invade them on South Vietnam's behalf.