So, here's my defense plan for Canada.
-
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 isn’t most of Canada’s economic activity well
within 300km of the border? You can evacuate all these people without blowing up Canada’s entire economy. -
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.
I'm sorry to say it, but there's no way to reconcile these objectives. In principle, you could evacuate the population ~250 km from the border, but there's no housing or anything there, so they'd have to live in tents, which is contraindicated by the existence of something called "winter". Constructing housing for that many people doesn't go quickly, even if you haven't abandoned all your industrial facilities (see below) ; and likewise, the heating fuel pipelines are mostly close to the US border, as are all the nuclear power plants.
Crucially, nearly all the industrial facilities bar some mines are located close to the US border, as are almost all the port facilities. So, even if you can divert all imports and exports to different markets (which is very difficult because of the close cross-border integration of many industries, such as cars), there's no good way to move all that stuff without the ports which empty to the Atlantic via the Gulf of St Lawrence.
Barring several independent and very large strokes of luck, your proposed solution would be more destructive than an all-out war.
Now, considering how stupid the people in Washington pushing this bizarre anti-Canada agenda are, threatening it might be believed. I have no way to predict that.
-
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 I've honestly never heard anything as self-destructive as the American goverment picking a fight with Canada and I've been going to AA meetings for 13 years
-
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 I don’t think 300km from the border and keep the economy running is possible. That’s the entire Montreal to Windsor corridor, and half the country’s population.
-
@evan Um, where would you put the population of metropolitan Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver?
@TimFinnerty not an easy answer. The other option is sacrificing these populations and letting them get bombarded and/or occupied. I think evacuation is the better choice.
-
@evan isn’t most of Canada’s economic activity well
within 300km of the border? You can evacuate all these people without blowing up Canada’s entire economy.@juliette yep, it's a pretty big deal. The other option is letting the occupier hold about 2/3 of our population.
-
@evan I don’t think 300km from the border and keep the economy running is possible. That’s the entire Montreal to Windsor corridor, and half the country’s population.
@preinheimer I think if you give up 2/3 of the population to bombardment or an occupying force, it's game over.
But, yes, you can't keep most of the economy going this way. I'll change the post.
-
@evan Put another way: my discomfort is part of your Canadian defense strategy, and yes, I feel it.
@richlitt yeah. Sorry.
-
E evan@cosocial.ca shared this topic
-
@preinheimer I think if you give up 2/3 of the population to bombardment or an occupying force, it's game over.
But, yes, you can't keep most of the economy going this way. I'll change the post.
@evan I’m concerned that we wouldn’t be able to feed that much of a displaced population. We’re also abandoning a lot of fertile soil.
-
@richlitt I think in a shooting war there are some pretty specific definitions for being part of the resistance, and they don't count posting about the "Cheeto-in-Chief" on X.
-
@evan I’m concerned that we wouldn’t be able to feed that much of a displaced population. We’re also abandoning a lot of fertile soil.
@preinheimer true, but we produce a lot of food. And we would have to count on our allies for aid.
-
@evan While fighting on enemy territory may be the correct military strategy, I'm not convinced taking enemy territory will inevitably have a significant effect on enemy morale. Ukraine advancing into Russian territory doesn't seem to have crushed Russian morale; or, alternately, Russian morale is already shot and the war machine does not depend on the morale of Russian soldiers or civilians.
@skyfaller nothing's inevitable. Americans are daintier than Russians, though. Surviving occupation is the national sport in Russia, but Americans haven't had to do it for 250 years.
-
I'm sorry to say it, but there's no way to reconcile these objectives. In principle, you could evacuate the population ~250 km from the border, but there's no housing or anything there, so they'd have to live in tents, which is contraindicated by the existence of something called "winter". Constructing housing for that many people doesn't go quickly, even if you haven't abandoned all your industrial facilities (see below) ; and likewise, the heating fuel pipelines are mostly close to the US border, as are all the nuclear power plants.
Crucially, nearly all the industrial facilities bar some mines are located close to the US border, as are almost all the port facilities. So, even if you can divert all imports and exports to different markets (which is very difficult because of the close cross-border integration of many industries, such as cars), there's no good way to move all that stuff without the ports which empty to the Atlantic via the Gulf of St Lawrence.
Barring several independent and very large strokes of luck, your proposed solution would be more destructive than an all-out war.
Now, considering how stupid the people in Washington pushing this bizarre anti-Canada agenda are, threatening it might be believed. I have no way to predict that.
@tsukkitsune I'd love to hear a better plan! Some countries, when invaded, have left large parts of their populations to be occupied, which does lower cost and logistics issues, at the cost of morale. You're also leaving a big economic powerhouse in the hands of the enemy. An occupied GTA is not providing material or funds to the Canadian government; it's all going to Washington.
-
@TimFinnerty not an easy answer. The other option is sacrificing these populations and letting them get bombarded and/or occupied. I think evacuation is the better choice.
@TimFinnerty if your point is that American invasion would suck, I definitely concur. Not something to seek out.
-
@skyfaller nothing's inevitable. Americans are daintier than Russians, though. Surviving occupation is the national sport in Russia, but Americans haven't had to do it for 250 years.
@skyfaller I don't think military plans are about finding One Weird Trick to Avoid Invasion. It's about finding weaknesses and exploiting them the best you can. I think occupation is a real weakness, and keeping the fight in US soil is also important.
-
We have thousands of kilometers of borderland between the continental US and Canada, as well as Alaska and Canada. Even if the US makes headway into Canada, we can identify areas of the US to occupy. The psychological effect of having US territory occupied by a foreign country would be really devastating on its citizens.
Another principle is jumping before we are pushed. if we wait to let troops and ordnance move to the border, while we hope to preserve trade with some last-minute deal, we're done. We have to take the initiative in our own defense or we will be subject to the whims of Washington.
-
@evan While fighting on enemy territory may be the correct military strategy, I'm not convinced taking enemy territory will inevitably have a significant effect on enemy morale. Ukraine advancing into Russian territory doesn't seem to have crushed Russian morale; or, alternately, Russian morale is already shot and the war machine does not depend on the morale of Russian soldiers or civilians.
@skyfaller @evan Americans haven't had the enemy on our soil since 1942 and that was a remote island in Alaska. Tanks rolling down main St USA would make the consequences real for even the most cultish mouthbreathers
-
Another principle is jumping before we are pushed. if we wait to let troops and ordnance move to the border, while we hope to preserve trade with some last-minute deal, we're done. We have to take the initiative in our own defense or we will be subject to the whims of Washington.
@evan this is incredibly depressing that people have to think about things like this. I’m so sad my country is doing this to people.
-
We have thousands of kilometers of borderland between the continental US and Canada, as well as Alaska and Canada. Even if the US makes headway into Canada, we can identify areas of the US to occupy. The psychological effect of having US territory occupied by a foreign country would be really devastating on its citizens.
@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.
-
Another principle is jumping before we are pushed. if we wait to let troops and ordnance move to the border, while we hope to preserve trade with some last-minute deal, we're done. We have to take the initiative in our own defense or we will be subject to the whims of Washington.
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.
