Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Country you'd least like to invade?
Amorphous Blob    11/30/2008 7:41:18 PM
Kind of an off-the-wall question - which country in the world, besides Russia/China/US, would be the toughest to invade and defeat their regular military forces? The toughest to occupy or pacify? Assume that if they have nukes, they can't use them.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
verong       11/30/2008 9:13:12 PM
any large population country
 
Quote    Reply

beersheba       11/30/2008 10:16:41 PM
Australia doesn't have a massive population but trying to invade and occupy the country would be a nightmare for the invader.
 
Quote    Reply

lurker       11/30/2008 10:42:07 PM
toughest for occupation, i'd say canada. Toughest to invade due to military forces, either Britain or Switzerland.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       11/30/2008 11:19:08 PM

Kind of an off-the-wall question - which country in the world, besides Russia/China/US, would be the toughest to invade and defeat their regular military forces? The toughest to occupy or pacify? Assume that if they have nukes, they can't use them.

Gah, I hate that stipulation. What that basically does is handy-cap the countries that have nukes as well as the countries who are in defense pacts with countries who have nukes.
 
To make it simple: No nukes means completely different defense and spending policy of that country which completely changes the scenario. 
 
It's like a pet-peeve of mine that goes along the lines of; "If Britain didn't have the Channel the German's would have rolled right over it like France." If the Channel wasn't there than Britain's entire military (and history for that matter) would have been totally different, so it's impossible to know.
 
Same goes for the nukes.
 
 
Rant over. 
 
 
B.L.
 
Quote    Reply

LB       12/1/2008 11:06:25 AM
One might wish to avoid invading nations with long histories of fighting foreign invaders (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) and those nations with very high rates of gun ownership.  That said one does not have to invade by direct military force alone.  Nations have been invaded and conquered with ideology, demographics, etc.   A nation vulnerable to invasion includes any not willing to fight for it's own freedoms or identity.  Consider communist China fighting the foreign invasion of liberty having previously lost the foreign invasion of capitalism.  

In an information age one can be invaded by information that inspires revolution.  Consider Muslim fundamentalism and western notions of democracy, liberty, and rule of law.  Also worth considering how a nation can fight off all these ideas, Russia comes to mind here.
 

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/1/2008 11:20:34 AM

One might wish to avoid invading nations with long histories of fighting foreign invaders (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) and those nations with very high rates of gun ownership.  That said one does not have to invade by direct military force alone.  Nations have been invaded and conquered with ideology, demographics, etc.   A nation vulnerable to invasion includes any not willing to fight for it's own freedoms or identity.  Consider communist China fighting the foreign invasion of liberty having previously lost the foreign invasion of capitalism.  




In an information age one can be invaded by information that inspires revolution.  Consider Muslim fundamentalism and western notions of democracy, liberty, and rule of law.  Also worth considering how a nation can fight off all these ideas, Russia comes to mind here.

 




One of the few times I agree with, LB. Soft power is a better way to change an enemy than hard power. Very Chinese observation, LB. Also very astute. Wish I'd thought of it.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       12/1/2008 5:02:55 PM
"Australia doesn't have a massive population but trying to invade and occupy the country would be a nightmare for the invader." - beersheba
 
Will that also make it a nightmare for the defender?  A small population trying to defend so much space? 
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       12/1/2008 5:10:04 PM
"One might wish to avoid invading nations with long histories of fighting foreign invaders (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) and those nations with very high rates of gun ownership." - LB
 
Or short histories of fighting foreign invaders such as Israel? 
 
Israel is not a big country with a big armed force but their "Never again!" and "back to the wall" attitude would make it a bloody nightmare not worth the effort in the minds of many.
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       12/1/2008 11:58:14 PM

Depending on the nationalistic feelings of the populous, Iran would be a tough nut to crack. You would no doubt have to deal with radical suicidal Islamists, huge variation of terrain, economic consequeces of oil being cut out of the market, proximity to vital shipping routes, and having to contend with proxies such as Hezbollah stirring up stuff too. It would also take considerable resources to wear down and defeat their conventional forces too.

 
Quote    Reply

beersheba    longrifle   12/2/2008 1:24:59 AM
You make a good point with Australia's small population but anyone trying to invade Australia is going to come from the north or north west. It gives Australia the chance to pick when and how it goes on the attack. You gotta get past Australia's sea and air set up and then welcome to miles of hot as hell desert. Australia's special forces (not just SASR) including regional force surveillance units will bleed enemy units dry, suprise ambush etc and then piss off back into the bush only to hit the invader some where else. Look at Toburk, the (mostly) Australian garrison caused all types of problems for the Germans - a larger force - by heading past the lines, knocking off troops, tanks, taking prisoners. That sort of stuff gets to you after a while. Who wants to go to sleep with the thought of being snatched from your cot by the bogeyman who wants you dead. Meanwhile, Australia's regular troops, armour, things that fire shells at you from 15km etc move into place and whack you in the chops like a giant poo bat at the crapper after a night on the turps. Also, I'd like to think that during the past 100 years, the Australian soldier has proven himself, more than enough times, that they enjoy a fight and if you step onto this big brown, sunburnt land without an invite you'll be escorted from the premises. And, no, you don't get to finish the drink in you hand. But of course, I'm an Australian, so of course I'll back our mob to the job but I think I have made some points amongst all that lot.
 
Canada would be a nightmare to invade. Too bloody cold, the locals know how to fight and they have bears that root around your garbage and last time I checked, they'll have a go at you too. Cheeky bastards.
The Poms would be a right royal pain in the arse. They'll hold onto that island like a pisshead with a goon bag.
The US is, obviously, out of the question. Though specially trained Australian units, usually blokes between 18-35, have been invading your women for quite some time. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics