Is geography more risky than a weapon itself?

Although geography can create difficulties at the moment of a war, I don't think it is an insurmountable obstacle for beginnig one, especially with the undeniable technological battlefield advancements, created in order to prevent problems like this one.
At the moment of declaring a war, there are other motivations, much more important and stronger than how can the geography affect negativaly the development of an attack. If geography is mainly considered, I think it is only when it is the thing in risk, when it is the reason to fight for. But in other situations, such as religious conflicts, or economical ones, geography just helps to decide which is the best way of attacking.
To sum up, geography does not change the development of a war. If a country has a geography which is detrimental to the well progress of a war, it is going to be attacked anyway. In battlefield there is plenty of harmful things for humans, geography is just one more, and not as risky as a weapon.