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.@evan 1 and 2 are good for political pressure. But don’t blow up bridges and close the border because we’ll need that.
Geography and force discrepancy mean that regular forms of military resistance are bound to fail.
We should instead take advantage of these facts:
1- We have a huge border
2- 80% of Canadians look and talk like Americans.
3- The American people are extremely divided, even more so when it comes to invading us.
4- The US Army couldn’t handle insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. -
@evan I'm sorry, I agree we need to have a strong plan, but pre-emptively invading the United States is, frankly, insane.
Nothing will more quickly galvanize Americans to believe Trump's lies about how we are soooo bad. Our vestigial armed forces are in no position to make such an effort. Salients are a nightmare to defend, even if forces are equal.
We would be carpet bombed to oblivion.
Abandoning cities just gives them free real estate. Lower home prices
!And nobody is going to help us.
@AlexanderVI I think you might need to read through it again. In this case, the US has expressed its intention to attack and is moving troops into position within reach of the border.
Letting those troops get into position and cross our border before taking any action would be insane. Especially with 2/3 of the population only an hour from the border.
And don't worry about real estate! It will be much less valuable when it's been pounded into rubble by American bombers and missiles.
-
@AlexanderVI I think you might need to read through it again. In this case, the US has expressed its intention to attack and is moving troops into position within reach of the border.
Letting those troops get into position and cross our border before taking any action would be insane. Especially with 2/3 of the population only an hour from the border.
And don't worry about real estate! It will be much less valuable when it's been pounded into rubble by American bombers and missiles.
@AlexanderVI but I'd love to hear your defense plan. How would you protect Canadian sovereignty in the event of an American invasion?
-
@AlexanderVI but I'd love to hear your defense plan. How would you protect Canadian sovereignty in the event of an American invasion?
@evan At present, if there's a full scale invasion, no such thing is possible. This is the most powerful military in all human history we are talking about.
To be clear, yes, a troublesome insurgency that adds to the domestic American polycrisis such that continuing is impossible is likely our only hope. But we should not be unrealistic. Vietnam went on for ages.
And moving millions of people hundreds of kilometres is simply not feasible and would pretty much immediately end our economy.
-
@evan At present, if there's a full scale invasion, no such thing is possible. This is the most powerful military in all human history we are talking about.
To be clear, yes, a troublesome insurgency that adds to the domestic American polycrisis such that continuing is impossible is likely our only hope. But we should not be unrealistic. Vietnam went on for ages.
And moving millions of people hundreds of kilometres is simply not feasible and would pretty much immediately end our economy.
@AlexanderVI so, because resistance would be hard, accept an occupation and lose any advantages whatsoever, and hope guerrilla actions nudge towards collapse of the empire?
Hand in the guns and fight with sticks?
That's just defeatism.
-
@evan 1 and 2 are good for political pressure. But don’t blow up bridges and close the border because we’ll need that.
Geography and force discrepancy mean that regular forms of military resistance are bound to fail.
We should instead take advantage of these facts:
1- We have a huge border
2- 80% of Canadians look and talk like Americans.
3- The American people are extremely divided, even more so when it comes to invading us.
4- The US Army couldn’t handle insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.@nantel yes, supporting insurgencies in the US would be a good idea. But partisan tactics on Canadian land is a last resort, not a primary plan.
-
@AlexanderVI so, because resistance would be hard, accept an occupation and lose any advantages whatsoever, and hope guerrilla actions nudge towards collapse of the empire?
Hand in the guns and fight with sticks?
That's just defeatism.
@evan no, I am not saying that.
I'm specifically saying the invasion piece is not a good idea, in my opinion. Many other aspects of your plan are sound goals, and I sincerely hope we can avoid the worst. I agree we need to maximize friction.I'm taking a Scouting approach: Be Prepared. We need civil defence organization and emergency preparedness efforts so we can support each other. We should be massively expanding something like the Reserves, maybe even a Swiss approach.
I'm preparing.
-
@evan no, I am not saying that.
I'm specifically saying the invasion piece is not a good idea, in my opinion. Many other aspects of your plan are sound goals, and I sincerely hope we can avoid the worst. I agree we need to maximize friction.I'm taking a Scouting approach: Be Prepared. We need civil defence organization and emergency preparedness efforts so we can support each other. We should be massively expanding something like the Reserves, maybe even a Swiss approach.
I'm preparing.
@evan if you sincerely believe the Canadian Forces can go toe to toe against the US military, I completely understand your reasoning.
From the numbers, and from what I have seen of the US military up close, we are going to have very different opinions on that.I am glad we are at least having frank discussions about this. I hope DND is as well.
For clarity, my family came to Canada as refugees when New York was evacuated in 1783. I have personally lived in the States. I will not do so again
-
@evan no, I am not saying that.
I'm specifically saying the invasion piece is not a good idea, in my opinion. Many other aspects of your plan are sound goals, and I sincerely hope we can avoid the worst. I agree we need to maximize friction.I'm taking a Scouting approach: Be Prepared. We need civil defence organization and emergency preparedness efforts so we can support each other. We should be massively expanding something like the Reserves, maybe even a Swiss approach.
I'm preparing.
@AlexanderVI understood!
I think our only win condition is surviving long enough that the invader loses their will to continue the war and comes to the negotiating table.
I think holding US territory would be bad for US civilian morale. It would concentrate American firepower on troops in Minnesota, Idaho and Northern Maine rather than on the GTA.
It would also give us something to take to the table. Exchanging territorial gains and returning to pre-war borders would be a good outcome for us.
-
@evan if you sincerely believe the Canadian Forces can go toe to toe against the US military, I completely understand your reasoning.
From the numbers, and from what I have seen of the US military up close, we are going to have very different opinions on that.I am glad we are at least having frank discussions about this. I hope DND is as well.
For clarity, my family came to Canada as refugees when New York was evacuated in 1783. I have personally lived in the States. I will not do so again
@AlexanderVI yeah, the US military is 10-15 times the size of Canada's, and the US economy is about 10-15 times bigger, too. We can't win a fair war.
-
@AlexanderVI yeah, the US military is 10-15 times the size of Canada's, and the US economy is about 10-15 times bigger, too. We can't win a fair war.
@AlexanderVI one hope would be that moving troops and weapons to North America for a war would destabilize other regions, requiring redeployment of those troops back to Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, or whatever.
But the US has about 1M active service members in the US right now. They wouldn't have to move anyone.
-
@nantel yes, supporting insurgencies in the US would be a good idea. But partisan tactics on Canadian land is a last resort, not a primary plan.
@evan You missed an important detail, I’m talking about partisan tactics on US soil. But mainly it’s leveraging divisions within American society. Remember that millions took to the streets to protest the Iraq war…a far-away conflict against “brown people” of a different religion who had “attacked” the US.
If steps 1 and 2 clarify their intentions, it would probably be easier for us and our allies to provoque a US civil war than for Trump to unify his fractured country againt Canada.
-
@evan You missed an important detail, I’m talking about partisan tactics on US soil. But mainly it’s leveraging divisions within American society. Remember that millions took to the streets to protest the Iraq war…a far-away conflict against “brown people” of a different religion who had “attacked” the US.
If steps 1 and 2 clarify their intentions, it would probably be easier for us and our allies to provoque a US civil war than for Trump to unify his fractured country againt Canada.
@nantel yeah, definitely agree. The only way we retain sovereignty is to survive long enough that domestic opinion in the US turns against the war. So: robust defense and support insurgencies.
-
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.I was with you until 5.
A Canada that is bristling and ready to go, that's good. A Canada that actually attacks the US first, because it looks like the US might be getting ready to attack them?
Uh, uh.
I mean, tactically, sure. But the optics. US public support to (ahem) "defend ourselves" would be through the roof, and potential Canadian allies would be a lot less sympathetic.
Just my dos centavos, of course.
-
I was with you until 5.
A Canada that is bristling and ready to go, that's good. A Canada that actually attacks the US first, because it looks like the US might be getting ready to attack them?
Uh, uh.
I mean, tactically, sure. But the optics. US public support to (ahem) "defend ourselves" would be through the roof, and potential Canadian allies would be a lot less sympathetic.
Just my dos centavos, of course.
@ErictheCerise In this scenario, the US is massing troops and equipment on the border with clear indication for an invasion.
I don't know if there's a way out on US public opinion by that point. Ideally the foray is enough to take and hold some territory, so that American military might is focused on that point, not invasion.
As for allies, I agree that it's a major question. Canada would probably need to clear with NATO that preemptive strikes count as self-defence.
-
@ErictheCerise In this scenario, the US is massing troops and equipment on the border with clear indication for an invasion.
I don't know if there's a way out on US public opinion by that point. Ideally the foray is enough to take and hold some territory, so that American military might is focused on that point, not invasion.
As for allies, I agree that it's a major question. Canada would probably need to clear with NATO that preemptive strikes count as self-defence.
@ErictheCerise Because 2/3 of Canadian population and infrastructure is within 1 hour's drive of the US border, we really can't feasibly wait for the invader to put a toe over the line before defending ourselves. By the time they cross the border, it's too late.
-
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 my guess is that US won't attack Canada directly but might first attack Groenland(Danemark, a NATO member) for which Canada would need to respond accordingly with article 5.
Word is that Trump has already asked its military planners to make propositions...
-
@evan my guess is that US won't attack Canada directly but might first attack Groenland(Danemark, a NATO member) for which Canada would need to respond accordingly with article 5.
Word is that Trump has already asked its military planners to make propositions...
@waps that would suck, but it would also meaning fighting on someone else's territory, not ours (sorry, Greenland). And imperial wars in harsh climates are difficult and unpopular. It would also mean a multi-front war for Canada, though -- not easy!
