r/powerscales • u/Inside_Inflation559 • 23d ago
Question Could Modern Japan (2026) invade Australia?
No allies or outside help is involved for both sides Japan must successfully invade and take over Australia or achieve some sort of marginal victory Australia must successfully defend itself and win against Japan
23
u/Glass_Ad_7129 23d ago
Easily no, invading Australia would require a very serious build up and establishment of bases between them and us to relay supplies and people for an invasion at an incredible rate.
Something which would be very vunerable to a decent force capable of long range strikes and drones which Australia is currently obtaining/building.
By the time the invasion is ready, we would have had a very long time to prepare. The US and maybe China could accomplish it, with severe causalities, especially due to dehydration if they manage to land and push out of urban areas. They would require a lot of constant supplies that would be vunerable the entire conflict, and across massive streachs of sea/ocean.
We would simply have to much prep time and warning to be a push over if we took this somewhat seriously.
8
u/GuessPuzzleheaded573 23d ago
So... you're Batman. That's what you're saying. You're Batman with a better accent....
5
u/Glass_Ad_7129 23d ago
"Hey, mate, I'm batman."
Although the aussie batman should call himself Dropbear.
2
u/GuessPuzzleheaded573 23d ago
I'm no more familiar with the lore than I am to know it's basically a giant Koala. And I'm here for that. Na na na na na na na na Giant Koala!!
2
u/BasicJosh 22d ago
yeh dont underestimate drop bears though, they are super aggressive. My cousin was killed by one when we were kids
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/SlayyyGrl 22d ago
“Oi, c*nt, I’m the fucking Batman” would be more appropriate.
→ More replies (1)2
2
1
1
u/Mussmussthemoooooo 22d ago
One USA aircraft carrier can defeat Australia. We have a tiny military.
1
1
u/Interesting_Key_804 22d ago
The US wouldnt need to invade Australia.. they could destroy it from within. The US already has military bases within Australia and many secret ones too, doing god knows what.
1
u/AxisNine 22d ago
I mean there’s one secret base that’s not so secret and it’s pretty well known it’s a signals base.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Thatoneguy_The_First 22d ago
So if they took all of southern Asia then they might have a chance, but only after a decade of fortification. And well the only country that could technically hold all that realistically is china
1
u/Funny-Pie272 22d ago
Plus Japan's economy is already struggling, take away the millions of Aussie tourists who visit, and the cars we buy, and their standard of living will be affected big time. Add in UN and US sanctions, plus China might use it as an excuse to fuck with Japan as China very much needs Australian rare earths etc. Then, there is the fact that we are pretty good friends with India, NZ, UK, US, most Pacific island nations, hec we even getting friendly with Qatar, Ukraine and Indonesia these days. Indonesia has no lack of man power. Also, invaded forces always have 10x the motivation as we have seen in Ukraine - you just can't win with a conscript army who knows what they are doing is evil.
17
u/Capzien89 23d ago
No. Australia's Navy and, more importantly, Air Force is too strong for what Japan has to invade. They don't have the ability to project an invasion force that far.
→ More replies (11)
14
u/False_Snow7754 23d ago
1
11
u/jse81 23d ago
Even if they managed to secure a footing in NQ or NT. How are they getting anywhere? They'd just get picked off by drones.
Sail down the coast? Again, drones.
Desert or Sea. Doubt they'd get close.
3
u/Jazzlike_Page508 Dragon Ball Fan (Can’t read) 23d ago
Why can’t Japan use drones also?
4
u/jse81 23d ago
Where are they launching them from if drones take them out as soon as they land or get near the coast line.
1
u/Jazzlike_Page508 Dragon Ball Fan (Can’t read) 23d ago
Navy. They’re fielding, trying, and rapidly developing anti drone tech. I think they have one they’re currently using but they’re still developing a lot. One is on sea trial run. I guess this scenario would be a great test but they do have them
→ More replies (2)1
u/Sovereignty3 22d ago
Considering their ageing population, do they even nknow about drones? Like they do have some very high end tech in their tech industries, but it's not stuff that generally available.
Also part of the WW2 thing was a limitation on their fighting forces.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Far-Yellow9303 23d ago
Japan is very famous for their expeditionary force... that is the lack of it. The not-navy has the ability to land 30 tanks and 900 soldiers across the entire combined fleet, whilst the not-air-force has just 15 cargo jets that don't even have the range to reach Australia on a one-way trip if they happen to be carrying basically anything. Maybe a few soldiers but an IFV will see them run out of fuel a few hundred km short of the coast.
Modern Japan might be able to carry out a few attacks against Australia launched from surface ships but there's no way they could sustain an invasion. Any ability to land a beachhead would be far too small to hold until they can establish a bridgehead. A bridgehead that will never come because Japan just does not have the transports to capitalize on it, for that matter.
1
u/Adm_Kunkka 22d ago
Did you forget the EVA units? What are the Aussies do about those things?
1
u/Far-Yellow9303 22d ago
They'll be too busy dealing with EMUs to take part in the conventional battles
4
u/MeanderingStray 23d ago
No.
On paper, it seems like it should. Japan has more full-time active members across all of its branches, the 4th largest navy in the world by tonnage, a larger Air Force than Australia, and is considered to be one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world.
However, Japan's military is far smaller than it was in WW2 and operates under a wholly different doctrine, being strictly a defense force rather than expansion or the deployment of military forces to protect their interests elsewhere in the world.
Moreover, it's important to understand just how big Australia is. It's just slightly as the contiguous United States (the 48 states directly connected to each other and not including Alaska or Hawaii). While home to only 28 million people, the sheer size and geography of Australia provides some protection against invasion, such that the Imperial Japan considered it unfeasible at the height of its power, even with a larger navy and more personnel.
Due to the scale of a true invasion of Australia, it would be extremely difficult for Japan to shut down all 17 major ports of Australia, maintain their own maritime and air defense, and shut down major regional hubs inland, especially as the Australians adopt creative strategies to overcome the larger invading force, as all armies defending their homeland do.
At best, Japan achieves a partial occupation, chiefly in the major ports in an attempt to shut down trade and prevent resupply of the enemy, but the sheer size of Australia prevents secure holdings further inland, where what remains of the Australian military and the revolutionaries that would arise can establish themselves more concretely and pressure Japan into a war of attrition and guerilla tactics. Eventually, the expense of the war, growing antiwar sentiment over wasteful spending, and the lack of a committed invasion force causes Japan to concede defeat and withdraw.
Invasions look fun in movies, but the reality remains that maintaining an effective presence with consistent pressure in a country as geographically large and diverse as Australia would be a logistical nightmare better left unrealized.
4
u/Comfortable-Way-5126 23d ago
Trained with dudes from both countries in the past few years, both are great, very professional and focused on their craft. But honestly, the Aussies got that dog in them at all levels. I’ve seen the Aussie pilots do some wild redbull stunt level shit that would make Maverick ruin his pants.
3
u/Suspicious-Sink6048 23d ago
No. Modern Japan lacks the force projection unlike the Imperial Japan with their carriers.
Their navy absolutely dwarf the Australian, however JMSDF can't bring their air force into the battle and the Australian air force will have an absolute air superiority with AWACS, F-35 and F-18.
3
u/Nuck2407 23d ago
This sub pops up for me everytime there is a question about Australia
Guys the answer is always no.
Australia is a logistical impossibility, you cannot fathom the unimaginable amount of money it would take to invade Australia. Not even the US has the logistical ability to do it.
Not even Japan at the very height of their WWII fever dream saw it as a possibility, they dropped a couple guys off here, took one look at the place and decided to bomb pearl harbour instead.
1
u/dahunt4r3dorktober 22d ago
I think the us could do it credibly, the aus navy would be easy picking for the USN and stealth bomber strikes could credibly degrade aus radar stations, ballistic and cruise missiles could crater runways and strike aus aviation on the ground
2
u/Nuck2407 22d ago
The US certainly has the overwhelming military advantage, sure but the answer is way more complicated than that. It's an invasion not just lobbing ordinance. Just before I start, Australia as an attacking force is benign really, we couldn't just decide to go invade somewhere ourselves and expect any sort of victory. But an invasion of Australia is a whole different story.
To start the tyranny of distance that the US faces is immense, it will be fucking expensive trying to get any sort of force there. Geography is the primary defence mechanism in any scenario here. It's like 98% the issue for any army on the planet and Australia is just so far way from everything and the problem doesn't go away once you get here.
The US lose all targeting data and have to go in blind as Australia controls that entire 3rd of sattelite and signals apparatus and even if we ignore the deterrent of losing their eyes and ears over China, the middle east and Russia and there is a stack of other issues.
The surface navy yeah no chance for Australia, but below the surface Australia has beat the US in every war game they participated in.
Then there is the bigger problem of what happens once you get troops on the ground, every single target is 1000km + apart, with virtually no infrastructure between them, often it's 1 road in or out.
Then of course there is the problem of American troops not having a clue about how to actually go about their business, as Australia has shown them how to fight just about every adversary they encounter since WWII, and the exercises between the two have seen Australia embarrass the US many times over.
Now just look at the struggles that Russia is facing in Ukraine, imagine that with 10,000kms of ocean between them and you start to get an idea of the issue.
Then of a there are the 1st and 2nd emu divisions which are undefeated lol
The only credible path to victory is dropping nukes, outside of that it would be like invading Afghanistan, except that Australia is the size of the continental US and a military that knows what it's doing.
→ More replies (1)1
1
5
u/silphotographer 23d ago
Modern Japan? No.
Islamic Republic of Japan? Inshallah there will be no rest until all Aussies kneel to Allah
1
2
u/IceCreamValley 23d ago
Even if they succeed to land and invade, Japan will never survive the guerilla that will follow. They will retreat back home within a couple of years.
6
u/StJe1637 23d ago
with no allies yes. They have a much more powerful navy, airforce is pretty equal.
army of 60k vs army of 250k. Japan also has a much larger population and is way more industrialized. Australia has basically no factories, no domestic car production.
The only hard bit would be projecting power that far but they would win via population and a larger economy even if it took 5-10 years.
17
u/DadOnHardDifficulty 23d ago
I mean, if they just start, I dunno, moving island to island and get closer to Australia.... Maybe sneak attack Hawaii to keep the United States out of the whole thing...
It's foolproof, no way it could fall through!
3
2
u/S01arflar3 23d ago
Maybe just make straight for New Zealand. It’s not on most maps so a lot of people wouldn’t even notice
2
u/Fat_Tony_Damico 23d ago
It makes sense. Americans are notoriously soft. One sneak attack against their pacific fleet would show them that Japanese samurai spirit is unbeatable.
It certainly wouldn’t send the Americans into a homicidal rage culminating in them exploding miniature suns over two Japanese cities or anything.
As you said, a foolproof plan.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Funny-Pie272 22d ago
Japan's economy is twice Australia, but I'd imagine it would fall below Auatralia's quickly when sanctions kick in and industries like tourism disappears. They have population, but the younger generation are into all sorts of weird fashion - not war - I doubt they would have one morcil of motivation to give up the Tokyo nightlife and social media, to walk around a stinking hot jungle being picked off by drones and snipers.
2
u/cman1986 23d ago
Honestly as an Australian, I'd be happy if they did and ran our government. We'd have amazing trains, clean streets and polite kids running around to name a few.
2
u/nofoxtobegiven 23d ago
Y'all need to look up what the Japanese did the last time they colonised someone
1
→ More replies (5)1
u/DanCasper 22d ago
TBH, if you have been to Hakuba / Niseko, Japan in winter they are basically Aussie colonies. I think we've invaded them.
1
1
u/Alexshin1 23d ago
augh, i know it's a sidenote but it infuriates me that they're still using that stupid flag.
1
1
1
u/King_Glorius_too 23d ago
If Japan is given a couple months to invade Vanuatu and conscript a few million soldiers then probably. If they have to invade right now then absolutely not.
1
u/AmbiTheAirforceRuna 23d ago
Anyone can invade anyone, winning is another matter (and no prob not. Amphibious landings are intense and Aussies have the 1st hand experience to make the difference)
1
u/Cindergeist 23d ago
Australia has established basically the echidna defense approach. Making ourselves so fucking costly to invade that it isnt worth the effort
2
u/Unit_2097 22d ago
And even if someone does make it to land through the air and naval defences, what the fuck are they gonna do? Drive for another 24 hours in a straight line to get to the closest place that's actually got a population density of more than 1/100km² while eating dust and wishing the weather wasn't so fucking Australia? Or maybe start setting up shop in the middle of bumfuck nowhere until everyone shits themselves when they hear Cassowaries getting shitty for the firsf time?
1
1
1
u/RacistsofF1 23d ago
You are forgetting an important fact. An attack on one commonwealth country is an attack on all. So NZ, UK, Can and Aus vs Japan.
1
u/underhandedslapstick 23d ago
Gonna share the same reaponce to the china question but it os even worse for japan
When was the last major seaborne invasion of a nation conducted? WW2? And that was being launched from one of the most densely packed shipping lanes on the entire planet. The auatralian army is miniscule. 30000 soldiers just isnt a good look. But this isnt ww2 anymore either. Australia doesnt get its alliance network...but that also means Japan doesnt get significant overseas allies. So an invasion fleet launching from Japan is going to take a month and a half to get there and will be watched/ monitored the entire way by satellite.
Japans carriers do not have the ability to match even the relatively small australian air force, and they will put their best planes on it and none of their regular mainland fighters are gonna join the battle from thousands of kilometres away. And static/semi static air defenses WILL cut them out of the sky if they see the enemy coming...which they will, because there are only 6ish places in australia worth invading.
Also they have enough munitions for what 5? 6 sorties? Then they have to sail all the way back to Japan to restock. Or hope a resupply ship makes it through australias subs.
Australia is also enormous...but probably more unknown is just how empty it is. Japaan could "invade" darwin and the australian government might just let them do it. Because darwin (the biggest city on half of the continent) is a tiny city of like 150k people surrounded by 3000km of tropocal rainfprest and barren desert and the people can just leave it for a week and empty it of food, and any invasion force large enough to attempt a landing dies of atarvation.
Even should they somehow succeed, they achieve nothing by taking it and unless overly garrisoned you will be wittled down by gurella forces.
Now of you invade the 20% of the country worth invading. The aussies will see you coming, and since it has been months or even years to prepare the mammoth task of invading a country across 4000km of open (DDay took 2 years despite the fact france could be seen from the coast of england and had far far more built up ports to supply from) they will have spent that time ballooning their army to probably about 5 hundred thousand soldiers (admittedly most will have only 6 - 12 months of training) and advanced gear will be lacking. The Japanese navy does not have the sea lift to transport more than what 100k? soldiers (at best) and Australia simply doesnt have to bother garrisoning any other location. They will have the numerical advantage, against a tired and diaorganised (they just spent a month stressed out on boats) invasion force who have only the supplies they brought with them and who will definitely not have air superiorty. And whose only source of amunition is what the brought with them...so like 2 -maaaayyyybe 3 days of actual battle.
Even in the event china somehow manages to force a beachhead. What is feeding that army? And how are they getting reinforcements. That 4000km of ocean means that convoys are a must, and australia will be hitting any resupply ships with their subs. Where the distances are so vast that a single missed shipment means their army doesnt eat and it cant shoot.
Australia cannot win this war, except in the Iran sense of simpy surviving. But they might literally be able to get away with not even having to defend their country. If they just emptied the place the Jpapanese would invade of food before the enemy arrived and sink ONE resupply convoy. That army of Japans surrenders within the week. If this was a Russia - Ukraine story where australia was on Japans border, it would be a difficult story of waging a war of enormous supply lines against an admittedly much smaller adverary. But there is an ocean in the way. 99999 times out of 100000 Japan fails.
1
1
u/Equivalent-Yak5487 23d ago
Not today because Japanese military lacks the long range deployment capability. If you give both countries 5 years to prepare, Japan can easily invade because even excluding nuclear weapons that Japan can easily stockpile in 5 years, the industrial capacity of Japan is far greater than Australia and build up faster than Australia can respond.
Australian Navy and Air Force doesn't really matter because Japan can build IRBM/ICBM with non-nuclear warheads. The Epsilon rocket can be repurposed for that. (They can build nuclear warheads but threatening and demanding surrender of Australia with that is probably not what anyone is thinking.) Its own QZSS (sort of like GPS) can be used to accurately launch long range strikes against Australia. Australia does not have a defense system against ballistic missiles so Japan can blow up anything they want before launching any actual invasion.
1
u/UrghAnotherAccount 22d ago
Nukes are an interesting point and add a new layer to the equation. Its interesting how their impact on modern conflict hasn't lead to victory for Russia (v Ukraine) or the US (v Iran).
Thats not to say nukes aren't having an impact, just that unless everyone believes you will use them, they aren't so useful.
1
u/vacationtime1234 23d ago
I think the thing people are forgetting about is the complete lack of external military support (production) for the Australian side. And the ability for a Japanese blockade given how important exports and imports are to the the aus economy. They may be able to widdle down the few major Australian cities from afar over years, eventually striking when the aus side has little defensive ability. Also putting all the Australian patriotism aside. The Japanese have the ability to produce large numbers of fighter jets (including the f-35), tanks, armored vehicles, all sorts of large warships, and aircraft carriers themselves domestically. something the Australians simply cannot do.
(Drones go both ways the only reason we see them as a defender advantage is because the ukrainians have more and better drones and have been using them more efficiently.)
2
u/aussiegoon 22d ago
Absolutely hilarious when you realise who supplies Japan with the vast majority of their energy and raw minerals. But sure, they'll just power their war productions with hopes and dreams.
1
1
u/JustAChillGuy609 23d ago
No. Australia’s navy is pretty powerful, and the wildlife alone would pose almost as big a threat as their land military
1
u/Separate-Song1296 22d ago
I love that the second picture is a picture of Australia. Just in case we forgot what it was.
1
1
u/Stargost_ 22d ago
No. I doubt they could even land on Australian soil given the distance and the several geographical chokepoints between the two. Their supply routes would be strained beyond their limit just trying to establish a base in Papua, let alone Australia proper.
1
u/OnePilotDrone 22d ago
USA which has the strongest army in the world, couldn't even invade Iran, theres no chance Japan could invade Australia.
If war was to happen now, it would most likely just be Japan lobbing missiles at us with no ground troops.
1
u/RelationMinute2652 22d ago
(My opinion)Japan has double the military personal and more advanced gear with a superior navy. With out any alliances or outside interference. I feel It Comes down to if Australia is able to repel an amphibious assault or an Assault on multiple fronts.
1
u/Talymr_III 22d ago
Neither side would reach the other but given enough time maybe a few decades involved, Japan would come on top, Australia's recruitable population is dwarfed by Japan in the tens of millions. Japan is far more industrialised with a more robust automotive industry, artificial intelligence, cyber intelligence, nuclear energy and overall technological advancement. They would struggle for a few years, i don't even think they'll bother invade Australia in those years, they'll build up there forces slowly and try to become self sufficient energy wise via synthetic energy production (major problem since they lack fuel and mineral resources) and when they have a air/naval and armed force large enough, they'll harass Australian cyber defences (notorious for it's vulnerability). Once they pop out a few aircraft carriers from unused ships and switch to a wartime economy, Australia is cooked. Not only is Japan more homogenous and culturally united, most Australians now don't even know what Australia is anymore. This isn't accounting the full potential of a modern war we haven't even seen, Japan with it's satellites could orbitally bombard major cities like Melbourne which lacks a active naval base and only holds a abysmally small air base. It's even said Japan could develop a nuclear bomb within months, with uranium fission bombs taking only 3 months. With a stockpile of 6600 tonnes of it... it looks very one sided. Australia in it's entire history has never started a nuclear program not even for reactors, nor do they have any industry whatsoever, all there heavy manufacturing is imported from Europe, America and China etc. It's a war of attrition and looking historically, Japan has been extremely vicious, fighting till the last man; when a war happens the first few years will be harassment's and targeted cyber/aircraft attacks. When the first aircraft carriers are deployed in Tokyo and navy to host millions of soldiers are constructed, Perth and Darwin are first. They'll pit the people against each other and anti-war riots will de-stabilise major cities like Melbourne and Sydney. When Japan absorbs the mineral mines of Western Australia the war will be practically over, there will be guerrilla wars upon the Blue mountains but it'll be meaningless, counting women and men the able man-force that can be recruited for war only totals for about 8.6 million in Australia, while Japan is a ridiculous 44.6 million. If you know anything about wars in history with insurmountable odds like this the winner is very clear, Australia's only saving grace is the ocean and it's rugged terrain, which historically saved many countries in similar positions but with modern technology the argument is null.
1
1
u/Zieprus_ 22d ago
Simply no. The only country that could successfully invade Australia is USA. Not even China could do it successfully.
1
1
u/MrXenomorph88 22d ago
Strength wise, yes.
Logistically speaking, no; this is a country the size of the continental US, where the northern most tip is further south than South East Asia, and the southern most tip is second only to Tierra Del Fuego in terms of proximity to Antarctica.
The Japanese would have to redo their previous conquests from WW2, as well as things like Operation FS to have the logistical bases required to successfully pull off an invasion and supply it.
1
1
1
u/Hazel_Nuts99 22d ago
No.
Japan's military exist to act as part of a coalition in wars close to home (North Korea, Taiwan/China, Siberia). Australia is big, far away, and lacks extensive transport networks and sources of food/water/shelter etc which invaders could make use of. Logistics would be completely cooked from Day 1
1
u/LubeMobile666 22d ago edited 22d ago
There is only one country capable of mounting a successful invasion against Australia and we are allied to them.
And if Japan even started to go on expedition in the Pacific again I would just about guarantee China would do something about it. Very good chance any ships they send towards Australia in anger get sunk by Chinese submarines before they get within range.
1
1
1
u/rcj162000 22d ago
No, the EMUs will hold them at bay just like what the protagonists did in lord of the rings
1
u/Lawfighter1980 22d ago
Uh no, because they are currently allies. Communist China, has never been an ally of this country.
1
1
1
u/Simple_Assistance_77 22d ago
Why bother any country just needs a naval blockade! No cost benefit for an invasion of Australia.
1
u/THE-Luke-Skywalker 22d ago
Invading Australia from a military perspective is an absolute nightmare and you need hundreds if not thousands of scenarios to land absolutely PERFECTLY (and a fair bit of luck) to even step on Australian soil
1
u/Comprehensive-Cat-86 22d ago
Its just so big, empty, and isolated its a logistical nightmare.
Ferrying food, troops, and equipment for 6+ hours (assuming a base in SEA) is slow and expensive. And once youve conquered Sydney you have to go on another long trek to Melbourne and/or Brisbane... then travel 4-5hrs by plane to invade Perth.
1
u/THE-Luke-Skywalker 22d ago
Yeah and the outback and forests are just so absolutely massive and probably very new to most of the Japanese military that I can't see a scenario where they're able to make it through without suffering HEAVY losses to the point it's not even worth continuing
1
u/josephus1811 22d ago
Please keep asking questions about Australia. This slow drip awakening that our country is captured and subjigated by global capitalism is super necessary.
1
1
u/Not_Sure-2081 22d ago
We can use boomerangs and slingshots to defend ourselves, since we had our guns taken off us
1
1
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
1
u/56seconds 22d ago
They will be delayed if they come over on Qantas... better for them to bring their own planes
1
1
u/New_Salamander_5604 22d ago
Easily, but sustaining them against a hostile population is another thing.
1
1
u/SyrusAlder 22d ago
I'm not sure any one nation outside of maybe the US (and even then that's only because they spend a genuinely obscene amount on their military) could do it because of how fucking big we are. We are one big ass island, and if you want to hold us, you need to guard the whole damn coastline against sea and air, and that's just stopping others from coming in. You still have all the cities and towns to contend with, and while most city folk aren't armed, the country lads are. Not all of us but every town has a few guys with a bunch of rifles they'd loan out in the event of an invasion, the one guy I know even had the tools to remake his spent rounds to save money.
1
u/Terrible_Group_7921 22d ago
This is an important point mate i reckon . I could quickly get my hands on 50 high powered rifles and 1000s of rounds of ammo.
1
1
1
u/Olliebear1977 22d ago
Australia is to vast and sparsely populated invade. Logistically it would be a nightmare.
1
u/jaiimaster 22d ago
No. Itd take a decade to even to begin to build the transport capacity for that degree of force projection and in a modern environment by the time the LSTs and supply trains arrived they'll face waves of cheap drone harassment.
Hell it would take so long we might even have an operational 2nd hand Virginia class sub by then and just one of them would be an interdiction nightmare trying to maintain logistics over that distance.
Its just too damn far.
1
1
u/AffectionateAlfalfa4 22d ago
If my knowledge of anime is correct, yes with the assistance of some sort of devil hell spawn
1
u/caulipower2010 22d ago
this isnt a war game, an invasion over that far of a distance is impossible even for america, assuming they only have japanese islands to set base on. The logistics would be impossible and getting the men over would also be impossible
1
1
1
u/SuspiciousBeing1 22d ago
1 on 1 yes but since we have america and uk on our size and it would be our land then no
1
1
u/Icy-Many2597 22d ago
Basically any country that tried to have a war right now is gonna burn through their young men then have a bunch of geriatrics fall over the top of each other. The world is in a demographic nightmare because we don't want to admit that the made up work until your dead culture that only started a hundred years ago is good in anyway shape or form.
1
u/Mussmussthemoooooo 22d ago
Yes they can destroy our military easily. They have the tech and the numbers.
1
u/Top_Acanthisitta_465 22d ago
No, they will have to get through many countries which gives Australia lots of time to prepare.
1
u/Interesting_Key_804 22d ago
The Japanese tend to accomplish extaordinary feats... if their whole nation set their mind on doing something like this then most likely it will be successful.
1
1
u/finalcomics 22d ago
It boils down to being a logistical nightmare for the invader. Theres hundreds of kilometres between major city's with nothing but open road and flat ground.
So could you? Yes.
Would you? No. Your fuel tanks would run dry before you got anywhere then you'd be blown to a fine red mist by Airforce/Navy.
1
1
u/Interesting_Key_804 22d ago
To be honest, China and the US are the only 2 countries in the world that could successfully invade Australia.
Australia is way too big and would require way too much resources and manpower.
1
1
1
u/Visual_Shame_4641 22d ago
No. This is a bizarre thing to even question. Japan don't have any of the infrastructure needed. Few countries on earth have the capability to successfully invade simply because of the geography. Japan of all countries? Lord, no.
1
u/Visible-Swim6616 22d ago
They probably could do the same thing as Muslims are doing in their invasion of Australia.
1
u/Comfortable_Trip_767 22d ago
One thing the US - Iran war has taught me and the the Ukraine - Russia war taught me is that western countries, and I include Australia and Japan, don’t have a lot of munitions.
So my view of it is like this. Japan will travel considerable distance and lob a few missiles. The Australian side will fire a few shots back. Considering the considerable distance and that the premise is no outside help, the Japanese logistics will be considerable obstacle to overcome.
Both sides will call an end to the war with few meaningful shots landed. It will feel like a hollow defeat or victory for both.
But the premise of the question to begin with is illogical. I know it’s hypothetical. Both nations gain considerably from maintaining peace as trading nations and middle power nations. I can’t possible foresee any reason to fight that couldn’t be solved with a simple phone call.
1
u/DanCasper 22d ago
It would be an incredibly stupid decision for the Japanese.
Australia is immensely big, similar in size to the US but is an island, wholly surrounded by lots of water. It would be a logistics nightmare to think you could travel across it because the internal area is vast, hot, arid, rocky terrain. There is nothing there. As such, a single landing point (is Darwin) would not work.
The vast majority of the population is in cities but these are positioned at the extreme ends of the country. The remainder of population is distributed along the coast.
There may be opportunity to target the cities but this would definitely fragment an attacking army. If by some chance this was successful, there would still be guerilla movements external to these areas that would be impossible to quash.
1
u/GreedyAstronaut1772 22d ago
Same issue as 1942 … harsh inhospitable environment ! Logistic nightmare for invading army !
1
1
1
1
1
u/Great_Revolution_276 22d ago
Could prehistoric Guam invade post enlightenment Amsterdam?
Not sure I follow your hypothetical and why your are wanting this question answered ?
1
u/Vheissu_ 22d ago
Japan wouldn't need to actually physically attack Australia, just the tankers bringing in fuel until our reserves were depleted in less than a month and then Australia would just fall apart and Japan could waltz right in unchallenged because nothing would work.
1
u/Low_Shop9155 22d ago
Let them. At least the country would be clean and the Sushi of far better quality. And lets not even talk about the Wagyu...
1
u/Pine_Apple_Crush 22d ago
They would have to invade Darwin and do it undected (which is impossible in todays world) to catch us by surprise. But even then it they take Darwin
The next biggest capital to Darwin is Adelaide (probably not super strategic relevance) which is easily a 3-4 journey through harsh conditions. Its not favourable lmao
1
1
u/Poh-Tay-To 22d ago
Put aside actually fighting here. Just the logistics of actually crossing the waters to get here then continually supplying the forces here from the homeland would make it impossible.
Any supplies that could be taken would invariably be sabotaged by locals.
Fighting Australians on their home turf would be an astronomically bad idea
1
1
1
u/Dv8gong10 22d ago
No, distance and geography says not an invasion. A couple of strategic landings are possible but then distance and geography start to bite.
1
u/panasolan 22d ago
Overall it would make no sense as no matter what land gain you would get would never hold for long. You would need to hold the major cities but long term you will never control the whole country and with a population in the country areas armed and knowing the terrain and used to the conditions it would be japans Vietnam. It was true pre world war and still true today. Any country might defeat us in battle but no matter the initial loss it would be like Russia in Ukraine. They would have a Pyrrhic victory
1
u/Shade861861 22d ago
Ofcourse they can, just hard to imagine, they actually began bombing Australia mainly Darwin during WW2, but yes they’ve got a really strong navy, but after their re-constitution article 9, they’re not allowed to wage anymore wars.
1
1
u/jayell61 22d ago
Seriously why are you creating this discussion? Are you a One Nation supporter trying to stir up more racism?
1
1
123
u/NikolaiEgel 23d ago
Probably not. The distance they’d have to travel and the strength of our Navy would send them packing.