Top 10: Countries Impossible to Conquer?

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=top+10+countries+that+are+impossible+to+conquer

Interesting lists.  I as surprised to find Finland put down a Russian invasion.  The Philippines made the list in the first video. Terrain, size, and population all played a big part in lots of countries making the list.

One video said Canada was impossible to invade due to weather.  Huh? How many people live in the coldest parts of Canada anyway?

The U.S. tops the list in pretty much every video.  And other countries are only included because the US protects them.  And, of course, the big reason that many videos pointed out was our armed population.  We have more guns than people (which only includes the guns we know about).

Yeah, pretty much impossible to invade the US.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Canada is on the list because we would come their defense.

[zil]

Gondor?

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, pretty much impossible to invade the US.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Gondor?

Numenor. No one will ever conquer Numenor

[SpiritDragon]

The list I watched did not have Canada anywhere in the top ten, which seems accurate. While Canada does have many things that would be helpful such as sheer size and climate comparable to Russia, resources to be self-sustaining for a long drawn out conflict, an educated populace capable of manufacturing innovative technologies and strategies to name a few, we lack a critical factor which is an identifying unity. For instance, if the US wanted to invade Canada, I would estimate that at least 1/3rd would happily capitulate because flying the stars and stripes vs the maple leaf would simply not be a big deal to them (although if Trump were leading the charge, plenty of people would want to resist that). I suppose though, that if a drastically different culture were invading, we might rally together behind our official languages and democracy. We would need a real leader and not just some election accident to be able to unite us. Our current PM seems excited about the idea of us having no identity to be unified by. We might just implode on our own.

There is no doubt that up against a powerful technological and highly populated enemy we would simply lack the man power and equipment without allies coming to our aid at least initially until we could set up the necessary infrastructure to mount an effective resistance. Without NATO and the UN, Canada would need to consider putting a lot more effort into national security.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

They showed that in a couple of the videos.

[JohnsonJones]

Hmm, well many nations that people list have actually been conquered in the past 200 years, and some were conquered and then were liberated by the US later. 

I'd say currently the US is one that would be very hard to invade, Russia would be another one that would be hard to conquer because of it's area and you have to beat the Russian winter before it hits from a historical sense if you want to be successful...and Australia as far as I know has never been conquered and trying to do so is a logistical nightmare for one of the many reasons that it is harder for other nations to invade the US...it's a BIG vast ocean between them and many others (plus you have the land size). That does not make them impossible to conquer though.

Ironically, Russia was conquered/beaten both via a hot war and via a cold war in the past 120 years so, maybe not so unconquerable but normally seems to fall from the inside out rather than foreign invaders taking it over.

The UK on the otherhand, or more specifically Great Britain has not fallen for centuries even when under great pressure in war and siege, so that is probably a pretty stalwart nation.

Edited December 17, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Colirio]

This is some country that I don't believe will be conquered:

 

 

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 The Philippines made the list in the first video. Terrain, size, and population all played a big part in lots of countries making the list.

The main reason why it is difficult (although it is not impossible - if USA or China or Russia invades us, we're doomed, that's why we need alliances) to conquer the Philippines is because of the Filipino spirit shown in the video below.  This is just a Basketball Game where Australian players decided to bad-mouth Filipinos (not just the basketball team but all of the Philippines) saying stupid stuff about having the tournament hosted in the Philippines.  Our entire team except for 3 people got ejected and they still continued to play - just 3 people, no substitutes, through the rest of the game.  The Filipino fans stood by them, the Filipino people (after the history of the brawl finally passed through the biased reporting of the media) hailed them as Patriots.  This willingness to sacrifice one's career and even one's self for our country is embedded within our culture.  This is just a basketball game.  During the Filipino-American war, we were horribly outmatched having just raised our flag against the Spaniards.  Even so, guerrilla fighters strapped heroin around their bodies and went through American lines hacking away with machetes, getting riddled by bullets and swords deadened by the heroin.  It was a bloody kamikaze massacre of US soldiers.  But, of course, America had more resources than the Philippines and General Jacob Smith retaliated and basically wiped out Filipinos - men, women, children, soldiers, civilians, everybody.  Although he got court martialed by the American government, he did succeed in finally silencing the guerrillas.  It was about the only thing the Americans could have done to win the war because even when Manila has raised the American Flag and declared victory way before the US troops massacre, individual tribes refused to surrender.  With each island having their own tribal leaders speaking their own language, it would be like the Americans fighting 7,000 countries instead of 1.  So putting the fear of getting their entire tribe wiped out, and not just their fighting men was what effectively made the Filipinos fear the Americans enough to surrender.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2

[Colirio]

I can confirm the unconquerable spirit of the Filipinos. 

I received the lakan antas rank in modern arnis (Filipino martial art) many years ago. Some of the most practical-minded combatives training I have done. 

 

In terms of conquering any group of people, I'd say that removing God from their society is key #1 to ensuring their demise. Scriptural history has shown this over and over again. 

[Guest]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:08 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I have been thinking about this movie for a bit over the past couple of days.  It was simply 80s American propaganda.  I don't know realistic this would have been.  But there was one line in the movie that was really poignant which they seemed to gloss over.

One of the team betrayed them somehow.  They decided to execute him along with an enemy captive they had.  One person begged for their friend's life.  Claiming this was tantamount to cold blooded murder and asking,"What makes us different from them?"

"We LIVE here."

In a situation like that, the only morality of the war was that we were fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive one.  They ran through the line so fast, I'm not sure how much of it impacted the audience.

[NeuroTypical]

Honestly, that scene has been played out in every corner of the world across all the millennia of human existence.  Going somewhere else in big groups and fighting the people who are already there for the purpose of staying there.   God wills it to be so as part of our human experience.  He also occasionally picks sides.  And even directs specific battles on occasion in the OT.   

The last few generations of first world humans haven't really seen it up close and personal, what with our post-WWII efforts in Europe.   Any bets on it being the new normal, or just being a short hundred year pause before we go back to the usual?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Honestly, that scene has been played out in every corner of the world across all the millennia of human existence.  Going somewhere else in big groups and fighting the people who are already there for the purpose of staying there.   God wills it to be so as part of our human experience.  He also occasionally picks sides.  And even directs specific battles on occasion in the OT.   

The last few generations of first world humans haven't really seen it up close and personal, what with our post-WWII efforts in Europe.   Any bets on it being the new normal, or just being a short hundred year pause before we go back to the usual?

I'm having trouble with pronouns here.  Which is "the new normal"?  And which is "the usual"?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Any bets on it being the new normal, or just being a short hundred year pause before we go back to the usual?

Hundred-year pause, for sure. If you can consider it even that.

[NeuroTypical]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm having trouble with pronouns here.  Which is "the new normal"?  And which is "the usual"?

The usual, is humans forming themselves into governments or bands, and heading off to do battle with other groups of humans to take their stuff.    Lots of death and killing.  What we've been experiencing since the end of WWII is a global lessening of that phenomenon.  It seems normal, since nobody in the last 2-3 generations have experienced anything else.  But our older grandparents and great-grandparents remember differently.

So yeah - is our current relative peace (and even with Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Syria, it is relative peace) the new normal?  Or is it just a short 100+ year break before we go back to what we've always had?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

The usual, is humans forming themselves into governments or bands, and heading off to do battle with other groups of humans to take their stuff.    Lots of death and killing.  What we've been experiencing since the end of WWII is a global lessening of that phenomenon.  It seems normal, since nobody in the last 2-3 generations have experienced anything else.  But our older grandparents and great-grandparents remember differently.

So yeah - is our current relative peace (and even with Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Syria, it is relative peace) the new normal?  Or is it just a short 100+ year break before we go back to what we've always had?

Ah.  I see. I guess it's obvious now that you've explained it.  Of course we'll go back to the way it was.  Pride-prosperity cycle.  

My position is that the United States is the reason for global peace.  Without it, the world would be like it always has been.  So, given social conditions as they are, the demise of the US is inevitable.  And then all hell will break loose.

[NeuroTypical]

This might help explain.  Good overall video, around 13:00 is when it starts talking about the post WWII "long peace".

 

[Midwest LDS]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The usual, is humans forming themselves into governments or bands, and heading off to do battle with other groups of humans to take their stuff.    Lots of death and killing.  What we've been experiencing since the end of WWII is a global lessening of that phenomenon.  It seems normal, since nobody in the last 2-3 generations have experienced anything else.  But our older grandparents and great-grandparents remember differently.

So yeah - is our current relative peace (and even with Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Syria, it is relative peace) the new normal?  Or is it just a short 100+ year break before we go back to what we've always had?

Also, and I can't stress this enough, nuclear weapons are at least partially, if not wholly responsible, for the peace we see in the world today. The global superpowers cannot wage the traditional wars of conquest, as they face annihilation if they push other superpowers too far. As much as living in fear sucks, nukes are the only reason we did not fight World Wars 3 and 4 in the 20th century, as that would have fit earlier patterns of war and peace cycles. How long that fear lasts is a matter for debate, but for the moment, we can thank our good friends from the Manhattan project for giving the world an unprecedented level (on the macro not the micro level there are still plenty of brushfire wars) of peace.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

Also, and I can't stress this enough, nuclear weapons are at least partially, if not wholly responsible, for the peace we see in the world today.

I remember being terrified with all the other kids in the '70's and '80's.  We were being sold a story: Mutual Assured Destruction meant that nobody would be first to pull the trigger, because the world was run by rational men who would understand.  Nobody believed it.  And yet, 40 years later, here we are, with nobody being the first to pull the trigger.  So far so good. 

[Midwest LDS]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I remember being terrified with all the other kids in the '70's and '80's.  We were being sold a story: Mutual Assured Destruction meant that nobody would be first to pull the trigger, because the world was run by rational men who would understand.  Nobody believed it.  And yet, 40 years later, here we are, with nobody being the first to pull the trigger.  So far so good. 

Let's hope we never get anyone bat crazy enough to not be scared by it. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

This might help explain.  Good overall video, around 13:00 is when it starts talking about the post WWII "long peace".

 

That was disappointing.  Watch all that to have the narrator say that they aren't covering the "why".

[Vort]

On 12/16/2018 at 10:41 AM, Carborendum said:

Yeah, pretty much impossible to invade the US.

The Titanic was unsinkable.

[Vort]

On 12/16/2018 at 1:17 PM, Fether said:

On 12/16/2018 at 11:32 AM, zil said:

Gondor?

Numenor. No one will ever conquer Numenor

Did you ever notice that Bountiful (the New World city, not the Arabian location) was never conquered, or apparently even seriously threatened, during the entirety of Nephite history from the time it was established until the Nephites were exterminated?

Arabian Bountiful:

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Titanic was unsinkable.

I've heard that.  But I wonder who first said it and why it caught on.  Even the ship design engineer of the time said that was a ridiculous statement.

Remember that the series of videos are not including Nuclear wars or mass use of drones, etc.  Obviously, if your trying to annihilate the enemy, that can be done fairly easily.  That's not what we're talking about.  It's about conventional warfare coming in to take over the country and occupy it.

Under current conditions, I do believe that would be impossible.  However, it only takes a few turns of the socialist screws and all that may change.