Post: #1

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...13389.html

Seems like an RVF question.

WIA

Post: #2

Russia definitely has history on their side, besides that, we should also gauge WHY you should invade a certain country in the first place, what interest would you have there... I struggle to see the interest in New Zealand...well...they do have a lot of cattle I believe...

Post: #3

Some insanely mountainous landlocked country, like Bhutan.

Quote:The heartland of Bhutan has never been successfully invaded; the British, while establishing a protectorate over the nation, did so with threats to the low-lying territories below the highlands.

Post: #4

From who'se point of view? A major factor is location and how far your supply lines can extend.

Post: #5

Afghanistan?

Post: #6

Does this scenario only take into account geography and location and how that would pertain to logistics? Or does it also include present military capability. Assuming the former, I agree with Wastelander that Bhutan would be among the toughest to invade. The central Asian countries would also be difficult. Assuming the latter, I would have thought the the US would be the most difficult to invade at present.

Post: #7

It's hard to say this without appearing biased, but I'd say the U.S. for a number of reasons:

- Private weapon ownership and militia culture
- Fierce local/regional nationalism, especially in Texas and the South
- State governments capable of functioning as independent units, with their own economies, budgets, militaries, and judicial systems.
- High population, large country geographically, abundance of natural resources. Many in rural parts could sustain themselves from the land.
- Rocky Mountains and Appalachian Mountains form natural lines of defense, with local hillbilly/pioneer/cowboy populations protecting the agricultural heartland. Any invading army would be stopped at one of these mountain ranges while the interior can regroup and maintain production (similar to the Soviet Union in WW2).

Add in our current economic power, conventional military power, technology/infrastructure, etc. and the U.S. has a clear advantage.

Post: #8

Russia and Afghanistan have pretty strong histories of batting off most invaders.

Post: #9

(05-03-2015 09:56 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  Afghanistan?

was pretty easy to invade.

successfully occupying it...not so much.

Post: #10

Taiwan would also be very difficult to successfully invade. Once you got the boys ashore, it wouldn't be long before they put down their weapons and started shagging the local girls.

Post: #11

(05-03-2015 09:56 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  Afghanistan?

Invading it was "easy."

Conquering it, like Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere required more than anyone wanted to commit.

WIA

Post: #12

Switzerland in terms of "invasion". Anti-tank defences everywhere , compulsory military service/training for male population, gun ownership rate on par with USA, mountainous, specialised Alpine divisions aplenty, formidable natural defences, man made defences and well trained defensive military personnel.

Post: #13

The States for military power.

Russia for their historical advantage.

The UK for geographical supremacy.

Post: #14

Switzerland in terms of "invasion". Anti-tank defences everywhere , compulsory military service/training for male population, gun ownership rate on par with USA, mountainous, specialised Alpine divisions aplenty, formidable natural defences, man made defences and well trained defensive military personnel.

Post: #15

Post: #16

The US has oceans on two sides, far weaker nations on the other borders and the most powerful military in the world.

Russia has a ludicrous amount of territory to retreat too, harsh winters invaders would have to cope with and a history of treating large numbers of people as disposable during warfare.

Stalingrad wikipedia entry:

"Through brutal coercion for self-sacrifice, thousands of deserters and presumed malingerers were executed to discipline the troops. At Stalingrad alone, 14,000 soldiers of the Red Army were executed in order to keep the formation."

"So great were Soviet losses that at times, the life expectancy of a newly arrived soldier was less than a day, and the life expectancy of a Soviet officer was three days."

"Bitter fighting raged for every ruin, street, factory, house, basement, and staircase. Even the sewers were the sites of firefights. The Germans, calling this unseen urban warfare Rattenkrieg ("Rat War"), bitterly joked about capturing the kitchen but still fighting for the living room and the bedroom. Buildings had to be cleared room by room through the bombed-out debris of residential neighborhoods, office blocks, basements and apartment high-rises. Some of the taller buildings, blasted into roofless shells by earlier German aerial bombardment, saw floor-by-floor, close quarters combat, with the Germans and Soviets on alternate levels, firing at each other through holes in the floors."

"Though women were not usually trained as infantry, many Soviet women fought as machine gunners, mortar operators, and scouts. Women were also snipers at Stalingrad. Three air regiments at Stalingrad were entirely female."



So I would go with one of those two.

Post: #17

(05-03-2015 10:09 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  It's hard to say this without appearing biased, but I'd say the U.S. for a number of reasons:

- Private weapon ownership and militia culture
- Fierce local/regional nationalism, especially in Texas and the South
- State governments capable of functioning as independent units, with their own economies, budgets, militaries, and judicial systems.
- High population, large country geographically, abundance of natural resources. Many in rural parts could sustain themselves from the land.
- Rocky Mountains and Appalachian Mountains form natural lines of defense, with local hillbilly/pioneer/cowboy populations protecting the agricultural heartland. Any invading army would be stopped at one of these mountain ranges while the interior can regroup and maintain production (similar to the Soviet Union in WW2).

Add in our current economic power, conventional military power, technology/infrastructure, etc. and the U.S. has a clear advantage.

I would add that here in the West Coast, if an invading army managed to reach a coastal metro area and tried to go into the interior, they would already run into problems because they would either be forced to cross the Sierra Nevada here in California or the Cascades in the Pacific Northwest. Those mountains would be excellent defense barriers since there aren't that many roads that cross those mountains and the defending American troops would have the advantage of high ground and local knowledge of the mountains.

Post: #18

It has to be the US simply due to the fact that it could take on the rest of the World combined in a war...and win!

All things being equal, though, which life and especially war never is; you'd have to think Switzerland is up there...

Take a glance through their history...

Post: #19

Given that Russia has a nuclear arsenal that numbers in the 1000's locations of which are still not known I doubt the USA can 'win' against Russia itself let alone the 'world combined in a war'.

Post: #20

Canada / Mexico would do a better job invading USA and China invading Russia than France/Germany/Austria/Italy invading Switzerland.

Invading means penetrating into the country, not conquering.

Obviously USA & China the hardest countries to conquer, followed by Russia.

Post: #21

I wonder if they'll develop some sort of weapon that blunts or disables nuclear blasts from occurring. If that happens, it's only a matter of time before armies start marching across boarders.

Post: #22

(05-03-2015 12:08 PM)zayfran Wrote:  Given that Russia has a nuclear arsenal that numbers in the 1000's locations of which are still not known I doubt the USA can 'win' against Russia itself let alone the 'world combined in a war'.

I think we're assuming a conventional war here, not a nuclear holocaust. Obviously there would be no winners in a nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia.

Post: #23

(05-03-2015 12:27 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I wonder if they'll develop some sort of weapon that blunts or disables nuclear blasts from occurring. If that happens, it's only a matter of time before armies start marching across boarders.

I don't know if you can blunt a nuclear blast. Once that chain reaction happens, it'll keep going. If anything, the best solution would probably be some sort of missile interception system which can disable a missile before it enters your airspace. (maybe by frying the internal electronics so the bomb becomes a dud?)

Post: #24

bombing a country is not invasion, no matter what Donald Rumsfeld says

Post: #25

Geographically: UK
Arms/Skill per person: Israel
Fighting spirit: Japan
Sheer power: China