Post: #51

Invade and conquer are two completely different questions. Many nations that could be easily invaded would be extremely difficult to conquer.

U.S., Russia and China would all be easy to invade because there are many entry points because of the sheer size of the countries but nearly impossible to conquer.

Switzerland would most likely be the toughest to invade due to terrain, their knowledge how to defend and the people within. Nearly every country has been unsuccessful at invading it throughout history. That's why recently every country avoids it all together.

Post: #52

(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?

Aircraft carriers are outdated technology that can be sunk with a WW2 era torpedo, also highly vulnerable to missiles and tactical nukes.

The U.S. is still the hardest country to invade, however that's not so much because of the carriers as for other reasons.

Post: #53

(05-05-2015 10:58 AM)DChambers 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?

Aircraft carriers are outdated technology that can be sunk with a WW2 era torpedo, also highly vulnerable to missiles and tactical nukes.

The U.S. is still the hardest country to invade, however that's not so much because of the carriers as for other reasons.

What isn't vulnerable to tactical nukes? Carriers are surrounded by a group of ships to deal with torpedos and missles. Admittedly China has been working on anti-ship ballistic missiles, but those would help prevent the invasion of China, and the question was what would be the hardest country to invade. How is anyone going to get men and material past all the carrier groups to the shores of America?

There is a reason the USA has somewhere between 10 and 19 carriers depending on how one counts
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-...-carriers/

Post: #54

Easy question. US by far. I can't even imagine an army landing on the shore.

Post: #55

I'm more curious as to what country would be the most difficult to occupy. Considering the number of citizens who possess arms and know how to use them when other countries ban them from the general populace.

Additionally, I'm curious as to what level the organized crime world would come into action in order to preserve their country.

Post: #56

A country can be conquered simply by taking over and subverting its culture. It doesn't matter how many aircraft carriers or nukes that country has, as long as its people are malleable.

Post: #57

"Switzerland would most likely be the toughest to invade due to terrain, their knowledge how to defend and the people within. Nearly every country has been unsuccessful at invading it throughout history. That's why recently every country avoids it all together."

i agree, Switzerland. Hitler thought he could conquer Russia. The Nazi's did not even want to attempt Switzerland because they knew everyone there has guns and the terrain would have stopped the Panzer blitzkrieg in it's tracks, literally.

Post: #58

'Murica, fucking duh.

Post: #59

I would agree with the guys voting for the US due to reasons already mentioned in this thread.

Except ... the US is not one country. Not mentally or culturally. Vermont, Massachusetts or California would be easy as fuck to invade without the help of other states. Do you really think the 15 million Hispanics, 1 million Persians, 750,000 Armenians and 500,000 Indians in California would fight and die to the last man for America? Highly doubt it. This is not a jab at minority members as I'm one too but there is no way that recent 1st or 2nd generation immigrants will die for America the way more established populaces will. On the other hand, states like Texas or Flawda' would be impossible to invade and conquer. The US military is disproportionately Southern. God Bless 'dem countryboys.

It's a highly divided country. Don't believe me? Take away all the wealth and opportunity. See how loyal and resistant to outside invaders the population will remain not counting rednecks, African-Americans and some old pre-union Texas Hispanics.

I'd put my money on Germany and Japan. Ignore the current beta behavior of their men but they are one country and one people who're easy to rally in case of emergency.

They are also culturally highly disciplined and the kind of people who would walk through fire if it's an order.

So yeah ... Germany and Japan. Those guys are fucking crazy if given a purpose.

Post: #60

(05-07-2015 12:26 AM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 10:58 AM)DChambers 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?

Aircraft carriers are outdated technology that can be sunk with a WW2 era torpedo, also highly vulnerable to missiles and tactical nukes.

The U.S. is still the hardest country to invade, however that's not so much because of the carriers as for other reasons.

What isn't vulnerable to tactical nukes? Carriers are surrounded by a group of ships to deal with torpedos and missles. Admittedly China has been working on anti-ship ballistic missiles, but those would help prevent the invasion of China, and the question was what would be the hardest country to invade. How is anyone going to get men and material past all the carrier groups to the shores of America?

There is a reason the USA has somewhere between 10 and 19 carriers depending on how one counts
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-...-carriers/

This. And if you're going to factor in nuclear capability, we don't even NEED the carriers because troop transports get nuked easier than carrier groups.

And you don't want to get in a nuke fight with the guy with the most nukes.

Post: #61

(05-14-2016 06:04 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  "Switzerland would most likely be the toughest to invade due to terrain, their knowledge how to defend and the people within. Nearly every country has been unsuccessful at invading it throughout history. That's why recently every country avoids it all together."

i agree, Switzerland. Hitler thought he could conquer Russia. The Nazi's did not even want to attempt Switzerland because they knew everyone there has guns and the terrain would have stopped the Panzer blitzkrieg in it's tracks, literally.

No, there was just no reason to conquer it.

Post: #62

Canada would be an easy country to invade, but an impossible country to conquer. We wouldn't even know we'd been invaded for at least several weeks.

Post: #63

You would have to say America. Shit show of SJW's aside, the moment their iPhones using, organic soy cappuccino lifestyles are threatened they would be the first to rationalise nuking the world.

Further, they have a big population, there is a significant percentage of the population with firearms and the ability to use them, a relatively expansive military and strong allies.

Supposing the whole world turned on them, the United States still have the capacity to wipe entire countries off the grid with the push of a button, a strong missile defence system, and enough armed civilians to fight the good fight.

Post: #64

Terrain plays a huge factor as well. Historically Russia has been almost impossible to invade, but on second thought I actually would agree with a lot of US territories being difficult to invade. A lot of areas would go down easily: the flatlands in wheat country, California, the Atlantic coast up until you hit South Carolina.

Also worth nothing that I'd also put Afghanistan in this list: It's a landlocked country, surrounded by neighbors that are hostile to almost everyone, and with a society that is almost inscrutable to outsiders. However I won't discuss it further because everything I'm about to say in the next paragraph applies to Afghanistan as Well.

Many areas in the US would be extremely difficult to invade. Both the Appalachians and the Rockies(as well as mountainous portions of the Pacific NorthWest) have a difficult terrain that heavily favors defenders. In the Rockies extreme elevation changes would tend to canalize invaders, leaving them invading down narrow roads which provide an enormous amount of cover and concealment to defenders. The effectiveness of air support would be greatly reduced because a lot of the terrain is at or near the service limit of rotary wing aircraft.....even if they can go that high, the load they can carry is much less than at lower elevations. Furthermore advancing vehicles during winter months against armed opposition would be extremely difficult due to a winter long, feet deep snow cover. It would also be difficult to distinguish between guerilla fighters and the local population as almost everyone has both good reason to be armed and good reason to be outdoors. Many of the same conditions apply to the Appalachians except that the benefit of extreme altitude is substitued for the defensive benefit of extremely heavy vegetation during the spring through autumn months.

In the South, swampy and marshy areas are extremely difficult for heavy units to operate in. Vehicles get stuck constantly in mud, while the large number of waterways restrict their movement. Extreme heat, dangerous wildlife that includes a large number of venomous insects and snakes, mosquitoes,and sanitary challenges would result in dramatically more difficult logistics and (very importantly) would also serve to sap the willpower of invaders. Additionally the high levels of vegetation impair the effectiveness of many support assets: much like how light reflects when looking into a pool of water at too shallow an angle, aerial optics don't work unless you're looking at the treeline almost straight down. All the same factors that allowed the Vietnamese army to have near complete freedom of movement in spite of being up against what was, at the time, the most well equipped military in the world are present in the American south.

Also worth noting: while cities would be relatively easy to invade, controlling them in the long term would be much harder. American cities have an enormous amount of verticality: there are a large number of tall buildings combined with an enormous amount of underground infrastructure. Resistance fighters heavily benefit: they can move across rooftops, snipe from inside storm drains, etc. It only takes a moderate amount of ingenuity to come up with extremely effective ways to attack an occupying force.

Post: #65

As the Arab migrant fifth column into Europe has demonstrated. Land borders & a bit of leftist politics can easily aide an incursion of one sort or another.

Add in that logistics is the biggest factor to any military campaign & Australia rapidly becomes one of the most difficult nations to invade.

Noting U.S. & Aus. SIGINT (including the Pine Gap radar), plus the time & resources needed to even attempt a sea based invasion,
Australia is going to see an invasion coming from a mile away & with a fair bit of notice.

Then when faced with a natural barrier in the Great Barrier Reef on one side & miles upon miles of crocodile & snake infested desert coastline on the other.
Followed up by vast tracts of arid regions / desert on one side or vast tracts of thick jungle on the other.
An invasion becomes less & less appealing.

Even if you were to go for the major cities, that's where most of the military is.
Not to mention. Seize one city & you've got on average, 800 miles to go before you reach the next major port or capital city...

Much better to do what the Chinese are doing & simply buy all the land, resources & property so you wind up owning the country via (ironically) capitalist means instead.

Post: #66

(05-14-2016 07:52 PM)captndonk Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 06:04 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  "Switzerland would most likely be the toughest to invade due to terrain, their knowledge how to defend and the people within. Nearly every country has been unsuccessful at invading it throughout history. That's why recently every country avoids it all together."

i agree, Switzerland. Hitler thought he could conquer Russia. The Nazi's did not even want to attempt Switzerland because they knew everyone there has guns and the terrain would have stopped the Panzer blitzkrieg in it's tracks, literally.

No, there was just no reason to conquer it.

One word:

chocolate.

Post: #67

The US without a doubt. It's not even a close contest. Currently the US war machine is in high-cost high-quality mode to better suck taxpayer money into the maws of the military industrial complex (God I hate using that term) but if America ever had to fight for its survival then they would be back to money-no-object workplace safety-no-concern levels of output that would be staggering to imagine.

Food for thought: [url] http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/e...ction.html[/url]

We might think of modern people as being incapable morons, and in general that could be true, but during a war you only have to be pressed into service to operate one function on one machine to alter one specific part to one measurement. This is why women managed to pick up the slack during WW2 rather seamlessly.

This is of course assuming that the scumbags in Washington DC don't hoist the white flag and assumes furthermore that the military doesn't go along with it.

Post: #68

I have to agree the USA would be hard to beat.

They made a game / simulation of it decades ago I used to play:



The Game

Post: #69

(05-15-2016 03:56 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The US without a doubt. It's not even a close contest...

Although, one could argue the U.S. is being invaded right this minute by Mexican migrants & drug runners...
Just an invasion of a different sought.

Post: #70

(05-15-2016 09:13 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Although, one could argue the U.S. is being invaded right this minute by Mexican migrants & drug runners...
Just an invasion of a different sought.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006.../?page=all

FWIW I don't think that Mexico would annex the Southwest, but with over one quarter of Mexicans/Ctrl Am. already there, the dilution of the American population is well underway, and is far more pronounced than in Germany, which has been getting all the headlines.

At the very least, this has for effect to blur the cultural divide and facilitate the integration of the US into a continental/globalist political structure, and as such is an attack on the United States as a nation-state. In this sense, it is a smart and successful globalist invasion plan.