I was just thinking, here we always talk about who can do what and whose military is the best etc...so I put this question to you, given size, location, military, etc...which country would be the hardest to invade and control? I say the US would be very difficult to invade and control if for no other reason then there so many people with weapons who are very good at using them. Not to mention trying to take over LA, before the Military gets there the gangs will have torn you a new one. I say China would be very difficult due to the size of the country and the population. Russia as well, the size of Russia and the elements would be very difficult to overcome. Britian would be very hard to conquer as well. Short of nukes, I don't see any convential force being able to overrun the island.
The U.S. would be freekin' impossible. I mean who in there right mind would want to be in the Mid-West during winter. Let alone try to invade it. Easiest to conquer? Jamaica.
China was "over-run" several times during its imperial history. In each event, the invadors became "more Chinese than the Chinese", due to their respect and love for the culture. I would expect a similar phenomenon to take place to whomever invaded, mon.
US would be the hardest, there just to powerful, China would be another hard one...and nobody would dare to invade britain
It`s impossible to invade ANY nation that is in possession of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Germany would be quite easy to invade because there are nearly no natural borders but the alps and the northern sea. Also the Germans would be quite happy about a change in government and would probably cheer the invaders.
Can anyone here even imagine something like this happening in the first place? I'm talking an invasion involving 2 or more of the, oh say, largest and most powerful 10 or so nations. If so, why?
America is going to be annexed by Austria after Arnold becomes the Presinator. It will go off without a hitch, because the Republican Faux News machine will claim that not going along with the Conservative Austrian invasion is 'unAmerican' and 'liberals are the ones that don't surrender.' In actuality, after Iraq, larger countries will no longer expand militarily. The new shifts in power will be largely migratory and economic. Germany, France, and England compete culturally and economically in the European sphere. China will continue to move into Hong Kong and Taiwan through culture and government, bringing their economies into the fold. South Korea will continue to make inroads into the North with aide and Hello Kitty. Mexico and Central America will continue to influence the United States government through mass immigration. The immigration of arabs to the major European countries will influence society.
The answer is: All of them. But if I had to pick one, it would be Russia. In Risk, China is the hardest to control. FWIW.
WRONG! When you think about it, we were INVADED by terrorists prior to 09/11/01! Other natiions have been similarly invaded by terrorists...
yes, most part of the world have been invaded by terrorists except the Far East. There is very small amount of iraqi, iranian, or other mid-east bastards living there that's why it is so safe. Compared to western europe or north america, you guys have many terrrorists hidden in your countries that you guys don't know and much of those terrorists simply look so much like you local people that's why you guys are in huge trouble. So overall, Far East is the safest since we don't let mid-east bastards living in that region. Just look at how Japan and Korea have so far been stayed away from all those suicide bomber attack or airplane crashing building.
wtf? China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are made up of the same ethnic group. But they are living under different system. They share the same culture and are from the same ancestors. But the point is they have been separated for quite a long time but it doesn't mean they are not formed by the same ethnic people and have the common culture.
I think he's pointing to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers lived in the US during the buildup to the attack. Their occupation didn't last long though, so the invasion was hardly successful. The scary thing is, knocking off the existing government was relatively painless. It probably wouldn't be so easy with most other countries worth invading.
The culture in mainland Communist/Fascist China is very different from Hong Kong (British) and even megalopolis Taiwan. Trust me on this. The culture shift will be from 'China is a big bully trying to take away our freedoms' to 'China is a big market.' China is already moving tons of Mainland Chinese into Hong Kong (and Tibet) to move along this shift.
Montgomery's "only two rules of war " were: 1. Never invade Russia 2. Never invade China. Afghanistan has a fairly good claim on the number three spot, and Spain has done pretty well when called upon...
I look at the question like this: which countries would it be impossible to invade and occupy even if you took that coutnry's uniformed military out of the equation?? The US is the only one that really fits the bill.
Without our military? Please. We're big, granted--but we also have a great transportation infrastructure, which would certainly help any invaders. As for all the guns and so forth, well--against a real army, not so much. Not to mention, most Americans live in urban and suburban areas. Could an urban insurgency be started? Certainly, but look around your neighborhood and ask yourself how ready you and your neighbors are to fight that kind of war. Those things don't come from nowhere--there has to have been some sort of militia/paramilitary structure prior in order to develop any formidable opposition. It's possible something could develop over time. Certainly, there are some sparsely populated mountanous areas where a genuine guerilla war could be carried out, but if a potential invader had to wait awhile to control Montana, they could deal with that. Without our military, against a real military (I'm assuming for the sake of argument our hypothetical conqueror has the numbers to pull this off), I think the best chance we'd have would be a slowly developing insurgency, starting in the Mountain West and then spreading to urban areas. I'm curious about rural versus urban gun ownership.
I didn't realize you needed a smiley face to know that my post was a joke. I clearly overmisunderestimated you.