easiest country to invade?

[orlagu]

China. Historically speaking, teh Middle Kingdom was fucked almost each and every time she got invaded, no matter who the invasion force is, a stronger country or a smaller tribe. I doubt that would ever change, even now.

 

[Mr Herbert]

new zealand probably

 

[Dakota rube]

Originally Posted by redzapper

The Maldives. Heck, with 50 billion, you could probably just buy the country.

Isn't the Maldives being inundated by rising oceans?

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Isn't the Maldives being inundated by rising oceans?

yes, but they have a lot of toursim, and tuna fishing.

 

[Trompe le Monde]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Where are you going to get the military? How are you going to keep your soldiers fed, armed, and loyal? How are you going to keep the local population in check, especially since you've renounced the dictatorship route? There is a whole basket of "how" questions your invasion plan does not take into account. Don't get me wrong; I admire your ***** and ambition. But it's pretty clear you haven't played armchair general on internet forums as often as some.

It's clear you've never heard of the 20$ billion private military / "private security" market. Top ex-special forces, seal, delta, sas, are loyal to money. You also overestimate developing countries' defensive capabilities. Communications, aerial capabilities, and just plain training and experience yield force multiplers of 5x, 10x, 20x, proven in smaller-scale conflicts of elite military operators or PMCs against rag-tag local teams in central america, south america, africa, etc. Recent attempted coups (ie. Equatorial New Guinea) were funded with far far far far far less money. Nobody said anything about maintaining stable occupation. A 50$ billion bankroll for the combined services of DynCorp, Triple Canopy, XE, Aegis, etc would quickly and easily overrun many less-connected, sovereign states in the world.

 

[zeroconspiracy]

What about Sub-Saharan Africa? I think you could roll over the better part of that continent with $50B give or take. However, you will have to go through China to get that at that ****. Very mineral rich.

 

[zeroconspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Problem with African countries is that the people are constantly starving, pissed off, drug-addled, or a whole bunch of other messes. Keeping them in check is extremely difficult without establishing a dictatorship, and yet, a dictatorship always breeds resentment. It's a catch 22. Most would-be rulers choose the dictatorship route so long as they can maintain control over their military leaders. They bank on the fact that their people will be too broken to rise up.
This is because of corrupt, crooked governments and military coups every decade >> which happens because the people are constantly starving, pissed off, drug-addled, and/or a whole bunch other messes. Chicken or the Egg. Also, you need to differentiate between SSA and North Africa.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by Trompe le Monde

It's clear you've never heard of the 20$ billion private military / "private security" market. Top ex-special forces, seal, delta, sas, are loyal to money.
WTF are you talking about, "It's clear I've never heard of" these things? Hiring these sorts of people (mercenaries) has been the entire premise of my argument so far. Have you even read my posts?

You also overestimate developing countries' defensive capabilities. Communications, aerial capabilities, and just plain training and experience yield force multiplers of 5x, 10x, 20x, proven in smaller-scale conflicts of elite military operators or PMCs against rag-tag local teams in central america, south america, africa, etc.

You're underestimating them, frankly. Pound for pound, are the mercenaries you hire via the black market or private security market better trained than the national or paramilitary forces of various central and south american countries? Perhaps. But you can't get them in sufficient quantity, because there aren't enough of them available to beat the entire military forces (not to mention drug cartel forces) of a central american nation. Furthermore, you're underestimating the serious advantage conferred on the "home team" by virtue of its far superior knowledge of the terrain and geography and culture. It's not enough to simply compare strength on one side vs. strength on the other, or hardware on one side vs. hardware on the other. You need to take geographic, cultural, and intel/knowledge factors into consideration.

Recent attempted coups (ie. Equatorial New Guinea) were funded with far far far far far less money.

Hence the reason why I really don't like playing the whole "You have $50 billion" game with this scenario. $50 billion is more than any of us will ever realistically have to fund a mercenary force.

Nobody said anything about maintaining stable occupation. A 50$ billion bankroll for the combined services of DynCorp, Triple Canopy, XE, Aegis, etc would quickly and easily overrun many less-connected, sovereign states in the world.

Nobody ever said anything about maintaining stability because they didn't take it into account. I did. I brought it up. That doesn't mean it's an invalid point. It's an EXTREMELY valid point that I had the insight and good sense to address in the first place. We can't just ask ourselves what country we'd like to take over. We need to think through the aftermath. Otherwise, what's the point of taking over? Just to say you did it? To earn XBox 360 achievement points or something? If you take over a country by military force, you need to plan through the next steps beyond that. Failure to do so will spell disaster. You sound like Donald Rumsfeld with the level (or lack thereof) of your strategic analysis. The country you successfully invade doesn't just go on "time out" because you beat its military.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by zeroconspiracy

This is because of corrupt, crooked governments and military coups every decade >> which happens because the people are constantly starving, pissed off, drug-addled, and/or a whole bunch other messes. Chicken or the Egg.

And your point is? I brought that up because the poster I was responding to had assumed he was simply going to waltz on in and change those dynamics by building roads and hospitals and ****. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that easily. The instability is part of the game, and addressing it realistically should be part of the game. This isn't like playing Monopoly or something. "Oh, I'm going to buy Marven Gardens and build a hotel on it. La dee da."

This is "I'm going to buy Marven Gardens, and oh, wait, wtf...the Marven Gardenians are pissed off at me and blowing up my hotel. ****."

 

[globetrotter]

here's the deal, mercenaries are about 1000 times better trained and more disciplined than the armeis of most of latin america, Oceana and africa. but it is hard to put together anything but a very small group of mercenaries without a really good leadership - you get 200 mercenaries together its not easy to keep them from killing each other. if you get a good leader, you face the problem of controling him.

there is also a big difference between taking the place over and hollding it,

 

[Hombre Secreto]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

here's the deal, mercenaries are about 1000 times better trained and more disciplined than the armeis of most of latin america, Oceana and africa. but it is hard to put together anything but a very small group of mercenaries without a really good leadership - you get 200 mercenaries together its not easy to keep them from killing each other. if you get a good leader, you face the problem of controling him.

there is also a big difference between taking the place over and hollding it,

That's why Hannibal was the greatest General.

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

here's the deal, mercenaries are about 1000 times better trained and more disciplined than the armeis of most of latin america, Oceana and africa. but it is hard to put together anything but a very small group of mercenaries without a really good leadership - you get 200 mercenaries together its not easy to keep them from killing each other. if you get a good leader, you face the problem of controling him.
Exactly. Mercenaries have several liabilities that come with them: 1) Command and control issues, especially if you have no military experience or credibility yourself. 2) Potential language barriers, especially if you're pulling from a variety of different cultures. 3) Numbers. Despite how well-trained many of today's mercenaries are (and many of them are extremely well trained), there aren't that many of them floating around out there. Even with $50B at your disposal, you're not going to levy an army of more than a couple hundred thousand mercenaries of any appreciable skill level. And that's at most.

there is also a big difference between taking the place over and hollding it,

Yes, but they're really part of the same conversation. Like I said, I don't understand the point of taking over a country if you don't intend to hold it afterward. If we're serious about this intellectual exercise, we really need to try to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Taking over a country and not bothering to hold it is sort of like making a delicious meal, and then throwing it in the garbage rather than eating it. IMO, if you're going to talk about hypothetical invasion plans, you should take into account contingencies and plans for the aftermath. I don't think that's an unreasonable line of thinking. In fact, I think it's unreasonable not to consider those things. Or at least unrealistic.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Exactly. Mercenaries have several liabilities that come with them:

1) Command and control issues, especially if you have no military experience or credibility yourself.

2) Potential language barriers, especially if you're pulling from a variety of different cultures.

3) Numbers. Despite how well-trained many of today's mercenaries are (and many of them are extremely well trained), there aren't that many of them floating around out there. Even with $50B at your disposal, you're not going to levy an army of more than a couple hundred thousand mercenaries of any appreciable skill level. And that's at most.



Yes, but they're really part of the same conversation. Like I said, I don't understand the point of taking over a country if you don't intend to hold it afterward. If we're serious about this intellectual exercise, we really need to try to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Taking over a country and not bothering to hold it is sort of like making a delicious meal, and then throwing it in the garbage rather than eating it.

IMO, if you're going to talk about hypothetical invasion plans, you should take into account contingencies and plans for the aftermath. I don't think that's an unreasonable line of thinking. In fact, I think it's unreasonable not to consider those things. Or at least unrealistic.

I think that getting an army of more than 1,000 or so serious mercenaries would be impossible for a private citizen to do today. aside from anything else, you'd need a staging ground, who is going to let you gather together and train an army?

I was thinking that any project that required more than a few dozen wouldn't work. and the trick would be taking it over, and then handing it to a local person who you control and who pays you "rent"

 

[Don Carlos]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I think that getting an army of more than 1,000 or so serious mercenaries would be impossible for a private citizen to do today. aside from anything else, you'd need a staging ground, who is going to let you gather together and train an army? I was thinking that any project that required more than a few dozen wouldn't work. and the trick would be taking it over, and then handing it to a local person who you control and who pays you "rent"
I think more than 1,000 is doable if you've got $50B and can bribe local militias or cartels to do your bidding. But controlling them is another issue altogether. At any rate, we are in agreement on one thing: raising a credible standing military force of highly trained soldiers, be they mercenaries or turncoats or what have you, is exceedingly difficult. When I say 100,000, I'm talking about an absolute best-case scenario. You seem to agree with my assessment that most of the plans on this thread are pretty naive and rely on a lot of assumptions that just won't bear themselves out. Things like "Oh, I'll just hire a million soldiers and buy a bunch of planes and tanks and advanced weapons!" LOL. And store them where? And transport them how? And train/quarter your men where? Etc. Not to mention the fact that many local warlords in many countries have plenty of their own men, their own armor, their own missiles and artillery, etc. Most of them are probably lacking in credible airpower, but with SAM installations and stingers, they don't really need air defenses. Nor do they need air offenses, because they can overwhelm you on foot with superior numbers. I also doubt any of them will give you time to build an airstrip on their territory, either, so I'm not sure how the "using planes" scenario would ever realistically bear itself out. (Note: aircraft carriers are not for sale on the black market). I think the absolute best-case scenario would be to raise anywhere from 1,000 to 20,000 mercenaries and a small fleet of barely-seaworthy speedboats -- plus maybe a rusted old cruiser, or some diesel subs from a former Soviet bloc nation, if you're lucky -- and a shitload of rockets and guns, and go lay siege to a small island nation that is not under the formal protection of a local or international power. You could take the island relatively easy, install your mercenaries as the new government and military, and so forth. This plan would almost certainly require the backing of a major nation as your patron and underwriter, as I've said earlier. Taking over a Central or South American country, or even an African country, would be unrealistic for a nonnative with no local ties to the population and no groundswell of local support. i think the best-case scenario possible for this game would be a Cuban native returning to Cuba with a reasonably sized militia and several years of legwork secretly arming and gaining support of a faction of Castro's military. So when you landed on the island, if everything went to plan (big if), those you've bribed or persuaded to your side would rise up with you. But, as I've pointed out earlier, look at how well the previous Bay of Pigs attempt went...

 

[Mountains]

89 posts in and no one has thought of Belgium? Come on, the country was practically made for invasions.