So, here's my defense plan for Canada.
-
So, here's my defense plan for Canada. Basic philosophy: it is unsafe to wait for an attack.
1. Secure public confirmation from NATO that Article 5 applies even if the aggressor is also a NATO member.
2. Send an ultimatum to Washington demanding a public acknowledgement of Canadian sovereignty by the President and confirmation of non-aggression.
3. In the absence of that acknowledgement, sever diplomatic ties, close the borders, and embargo trade. Blow bridges, tear up roads and rail lines.I would like to think that if we tried to invade Canada, the northern states would rebel against the federal government and/or most of our troops would refuse to obey those orders.
I am, unfortunately, not as sure of this outcome as I would’ve been just a few years ago.
-
Military planning is to identify goals and accomplish them in ways most surprising to the enemy.
Ideally, with no one hurt.
I like the first part of your plan the most: address this through the already extant treaties of international law - WHICH ARE ALSO US LAW. (See US Constitution, Article III, section 2)
@Amgine How long do the USA last without Canadian oil?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States) -
4. Evacuate Canadian civilians from the border area; probably 300km or more. Yes, this is where most Canadians live.
5. Declare a security corridor of 300km on the other side of the border, in US territory. Any military activity in that area is a sign of imminent aggression and will prompt a defensive strike.
6. If anything occurs, surge forward and take territory. Keep any war on US soil, not in Canada.@evan evacuate all of Windsor? Vancouver? really?
-
The goal is to get Canadians out of harm's way for a shooting war with short-range missiles (500km-1000km); keep something like an economy running, although severely curtailed by the loss of US trade and any facilities near the border; and bring the maximum pain to the US economy, civilian morale, and government.
@evan as a resident of Michigan I find this idea reprehensible. We have a democrat run state, democrat senators etc. Why kill those who don't support DT?
-
So, here's my defense plan for Canada. Basic philosophy: it is unsafe to wait for an attack.
1. Secure public confirmation from NATO that Article 5 applies even if the aggressor is also a NATO member.
2. Send an ultimatum to Washington demanding a public acknowledgement of Canadian sovereignty by the President and confirmation of non-aggression.
3. In the absence of that acknowledgement, sever diplomatic ties, close the borders, and embargo trade. Blow bridges, tear up roads and rail lines.@evan You might want to delete "tear up ... rail lines" because Elon Musk it seems doesn't like our train systems (at a minimum, one of them) anyway. Why spend the effort if these bozos may do it for you?
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article264451076.html
-
@evan evacuate all of Windsor? Vancouver? really?
@lakelady it could be partial; move non-essential people north or overseas in tranches. Pull back the final groups only when bombardment or attacks get too heavy (destroying infrastructure as they pull back).
-
@ch0ccyra1n there are 193 other countries on the planet, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
@evan @ch0ccyra1n If the US government declares martial law and flights are grounded, there are only two countries that was feasible escape routes.
-
@lakelady it could be partial; move non-essential people north or overseas in tranches. Pull back the final groups only when bombardment or attacks get too heavy (destroying infrastructure as they pull back).
@lakelady another option would be declaring the security corridor much further into US territory; 500-1000km south (again, if we are concerned about short-range missiles). That is down to Virginia, Nebraska, or Northern California, and almost all of Alaska. It's possible but I think it's a lot harder to cover and defend.
-
@lakelady another option would be declaring the security corridor much further into US territory; 500-1000km south (again, if we are concerned about short-range missiles). That is down to Virginia, Nebraska, or Northern California, and almost all of Alaska. It's possible but I think it's a lot harder to cover and defend.
@lakelady I don't think there's a win condition where we let US troops and vehicles mass on the border, with most of the Canadian population within an hour's drive, and wait until they invade before making a move. There's just not a lot of territory between Niagara and Toronto to manoeuver.
-
preemptively abandoning territory esp your most valuable real estate is just plain nuts + we have long range missiles so it's surrendering in advance for naught
@peachfront @preinheimer it takes less than an hour to get from the US border to cities housing 2/3 of the population. There's just no time for evacuation when an invasion has actually started. If you're going to evacuate and keep most of your population from being occupied, it has to happen ahead of time.
-
@peachfront @preinheimer it takes less than an hour to get from the US border to cities housing 2/3 of the population. There's just no time for evacuation when an invasion has actually started. If you're going to evacuate and keep most of your population from being occupied, it has to happen ahead of time.
@peachfront @preinheimer and, of course, there would have to be military in that area. Just the minimum number of civilians possible.
-
Last note: I am a software developer and standards enthusiast, not a military planner. I hope that PM Carney and his cabinet are having aides develop much, much better plans at this level of seriousness right now. I'm sure theirs will be a lot better than mine.
Do you really think the American military would follow an order to attack Canada?
But then I can’t imagine viewing it from your point of view.
-
@evan as a resident of Michigan I find this idea reprehensible. We have a democrat run state, democrat senators etc. Why kill those who don't support DT?
@lakelady Unfortunately that's not how war works.
It would definitely be easier for everyone in the US if it was only an invasion of Canadian soil, I agree. I just don't think it's a good strategy for Canada.
-
-
Do you really think the American military would follow an order to attack Canada?
But then I can’t imagine viewing it from your point of view.
@davew that seems like a really big bet to take!
-
4. Evacuate Canadian civilians from the border area; probably 300km or more. Yes, this is where most Canadians live.
5. Declare a security corridor of 300km on the other side of the border, in US territory. Any military activity in that area is a sign of imminent aggression and will prompt a defensive strike.
6. If anything occurs, surge forward and take territory. Keep any war on US soil, not in Canada.@evan short war, decades of Canadian IRA
-
@evan You might want to delete "tear up ... rail lines" because Elon Musk it seems doesn't like our train systems (at a minimum, one of them) anyway. Why spend the effort if these bozos may do it for you?
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article264451076.html
@bzdev let's hope they put Elon in charge of supply lines! All the ammunition will be transported by child-sized submarines.
-
@evan I mean, I dig your enthusiasm and forward thinking, but...
Many American states in the north near the border wouldn't probably be too bothered by becoming Canada. You're unlikely to encounter resistance in say Maine or Minnesota.But your problem comes in considering this as a land war action. The US wouldn't move infantry in until after Shock and Awe...that's been their strategy for the last 3 engagements.
Also, Donald has fired all of the actual War College generals. There is nobody in charge of the US military who understands tactics. These are small, stupid men. And you know what happens if you back small stupid men into a corner? They do crazy shit.
Do you have faith that Donald's army wouldn't launch tactical bomb busters, white phosphorus and chemical weapons into Toronto just like they did in the Middle East?
Palestine was a test run to see what "democracies" could get away with when it comes to mass destruction. It's a lot.
@MissConstrue no, I totally agree that a lot of warfare would be artillery and bombers. That's why it's crucial to get the civilian population out of harm's way, either by moving them North or overseas to Commonwealth allies. Unlike Gaza, bombing Canada wouldn't be like shooting fish in a barrel; these fish can swim away.
-
@Amgine How long do the USA last without Canadian oil?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States) -
@davew that seems like a really big bet to take!
I think it might work better if you had massive demonstrations telling Americans to wake the fuck up.
