Post: #26

Switzerland sounds about right. Don't they have compulsory military service?

I would add Vietnam to the list. Yes, the French were there, but I always got the impression that the Vietnamese are a fighting people. You don't survive next to China for thousands of years by being a nation of pussies. Also, some of the Viet dudes I meet are sorta raw in a masculine and dangerous way. Would not fuck with.

Post: #27

The US, undoubtedly. How the hell would you get an army of the size needed to take down the continental US across either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans? The last time anything similar was tried was Normandy, and that was only across the English channel. And even assuming you do make a successful landing, how the hell would you keep your army supplied with a 2000+ mile supply line?

Post: #28

Russia without question. All the tactical advantages from their terrain, harsh winters, a functional nuclear arsenal, a leader who gives precisely zero fucks.

Although if the inner city youth in America could be galvanized into something resembling a loyal, heavily armed guerilla force, that would be pretty rough.

Post: #29

Anyone who has played RISK knows it Australia. One avenue of attack.

In all reality, It would probably be the US for what others have said. You have 4 points of entry: North, South, East, West.

North is Canada (Sorry Alaska, you're cannon fodder. But hey, thanks for the heads up when the Ruskies hit the beaches), a large continent with difficult terrain. They are also Allies with the US and would be actively fighting an invading force as opposed to allowing them rights of passage to get the to the US.

West is the ocean. Some country once tried was planning an invasion via the pacific ocean of the US. It didn't end well.

East is the ocean. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. The ocean is the best natural barrier you can get.

South is South America which is connected via a multitude of countries comprising the narrow strip of Central America. Good luck getting all of those countries to allow rights of passage. And if an invading force rolls through them, well at least they'll reach the southern border battle weary.

Logistically invading the US is an astronomical feat (unless your Canada).

Then you have to maintain that army. A supply chain thousands of miles long. The US struggles logistically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is with advanced technology, lots of blood money, and plenty of ally nations in the area.

Then you have to deal with the American military. Look at that defense budget. Good luck.

If the American military falls, you have throngs of rednecks, thugs, and militias that are going to fight for every inch. Murica mothafucka!

Yeah yeah the US may be a bully, but the last thing you want to do is fuck with a bully in his own house.

Although it would be exciting. Feminism and the associated weak ass beliefs die off quickly in a situation filled with legitimate danger.

Post: #30

(05-03-2015 12:01 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  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!

No it couldn't, hell no. They've got soldiers marching around in heels like faggots these days. Good weapons, yes, but the soldiers are being trained not to rape, rather than to force enemies to their knees. (Personally my policy would be "rape away on the enemies hoes.")

The best it could do in a "US Vs Everyone" war would be "mutually assured destruction" AKA Armageddon.

Post: #31

Without the fancy weapons, Russia would fuck up everybody.

Post: #32

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Without the fancy weapons, Russia would fuck up everybody.

Well, removing the fancy weapons poses a totally different question...

Russia's population isn't high enough to resist a medieval weaponed attack from China...which sits just to its South.

Remove the weapons and nobody can resist an attack from China. He with the most men usually wins.

Post: #33

America is impossible to invade. We have Chuck Norris and Little Dark.

Post: #34

^^^^^
Not to mention the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Post: #35

(05-03-2015 09:44 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...13389.html

Seems like an RVF question.

WIA

Texas.

I know.

Post: #36

It's obviously the US. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries...+Countries

How would they even be able to get troops onto American soil?

Post: #37

(05-04-2015 12:11 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  It's obviously the US. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries...+Countries

How would they even be able to get troops onto American soil?

This is absolutely true, and I would qualify it by saying they are not just carriers but carrier strike groups which have enormous projection power and defensive power.

Post: #38

(05-04-2015 12:30 AM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:11 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  It's obviously the US. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries...+Countries

How would they even be able to get troops onto American soil?

This is absolutely true, and I would qualify it by saying they are not just carriers but carrier strike groups which have enormous projection power and defensive power.

My comment earlier was scoffed at but I believe it to be true: you guys could engage the entire world in a non-nuclear war and win.

Post: #39

(05-03-2015 02:38 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  bombing a country is not invasion, no matter what Donald Rumsfeld says

WIA, you're forgetting Rumsfeld's followup ops, his 1000 Fighting Styles:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1079434/posts

No country can resist Fist of the West Side

Post: #40

If the invading country isn't Russia or China, then I'd nominate Mongolia as one of the hardest countries to invade.

Post: #41

USA - due to most powerful military and surrounded by ocean on the East and West sides. Also, if a land invasion were to occur, the civilians are relatively highly armed and would probably form effective guerilla units.

This would be followed closely by Russia - due to their extremely strong military and weapons capability and strong sense of nationalism and fighting spirit.

Post: #42

The Uk would be tough to invade; we've been fighting people only a few miles away for a thousand years and nobody has managed to invade us yet.

Dense populations make invasions hard.

Island.

Advanced defensive weaponry.

Warrior mentality (despite what people think).

I think you'd have to carpet bomb most of the UK to successfully invade...at which point there'd be little left to take.

Post: #43

New Zealand is lucky in that you can't just walk here.

We have basically zero military power and would rely on Uncle Sam to take our back.

Our only fighter jets (like 6 of them) got decommissioned, sat on a run way for years and sold to Uganda for training at scrap value (or something along those lines, don't quote me).

Post: #44

(05-04-2015 05:34 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The Uk would be tough to invade; we've been fighting people only a few miles away for a thousand years and nobody has managed to invade us yet.

What?

What about the Romans; the Normans; the Vikings, etc...?

Post: #45

(05-05-2015 05:28 AM)Bey Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 05:34 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The Uk would be tough to invade; we've been fighting people only a few miles away for a thousand years and nobody has managed to invade us yet.

What?

What about the Romans; the Normans; the Vikings, etc...?

Indeed. Quite a lot of turnover in the past thousand years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs

The strength of the UK is that everyone who comes here gets converted to thinking they're locals and starts complaining about foreigners... even Nigel Farage has a German wife.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #46

(05-05-2015 05:28 AM)Bey Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 05:34 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The Uk would be tough to invade; we've been fighting people only a few miles away for a thousand years and nobody has managed to invade us yet.

What?

What about the Romans; the Normans; the Vikings, etc...?

All more or less a thousand years ago...

In fact, you could make a very good argument that the stability and relative security of the UK may be the single most important factor in the development of the western world. No other country has been in a position to give its citizens and creative thinkers such a platform of wealth, safety, and opportunity to make discoveries over generations.

Post: #47

Indeed. When I wrote the post I thought "I bet some smartarse is going to say 1066 was less than a 1000 years ago".

Post: #48

(05-05-2015 07:06 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Indeed. When I wrote the post I thought "I bet some smartarse is going to say 1066 was less than a 1000 years ago".

Haha, my original post said 'all more than 1000 years ago...', then I realised that the Norman Conquest was actually 949 years ago, and that that was a critical difference to some, so I edited it.

Post: #49

(05-03-2015 10:20 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(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

We all know that now. Hindsight is useful like that.

But at the time of those wars you mention, there was genuine belief that they would be successful campaigns.

I think to say "Afghanistan was easy to invade but couldn't be occupied" is being a bit too pedantic.

Post: #50

First tier: Russia, USA, China -- they can't be conquered by anyone. Sheer size.
Second tier: other countries with nukes. Mutually assured destruction. Nuff said.
Third tier: Other Western Europe w/o nukes, Japan, S Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil -- at extremely high cost of attacker can be fought by first/second tier.

Everyone else is probable still conquerable.

We should be happy we have nukes nowadays. More peace.