Military models Canadian response to hypothetical American invasion(theglobeandmail.com)
theglobeandmail.com
Military models Canadian response to hypothetical American invasion
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-military-models-canadian-response-to-hypothetical-american-invasion/
24 comments
Well done America, you made your neighboring country work on insurgency tactics because an imperialistic attack from you is now a real possibility.
Think about that a second.
It's insane that both countries are in a military alliance, have existing common defence projects and are preparing for a war against each other. Just insane.
It’s pretty well known that for probably 50+ years that the US has commissioned operational plans on virtually every country in the world. Including allies.
'The West Wing’ had an episode where the US plan to invade Canada was a plot point (https://westwing.fandom.com/wiki/A_Good_Day). Of course there is a US plan to invade Canada - no matter who the president is, the armed forces would try and be prepared for any eventuality no matter how unlikely (in the episode the plan was over a hundred years old, but it existed). Similarly, it would not be unusual for Canada to have war gamed a US invasion.
IIRC, the original, historical plans were developed to counter a scenario where Canada had been blitzkreige-invaded by "another Northern power", as a prelude to launching an attack requiring the US to defend 2,000-miles of border.
It never was about mistrusting Canada. Mexico, maybe, if they were mad; but not Canada.
It never was about mistrusting Canada. Mexico, maybe, if they were mad; but not Canada.
Hrmm - this loads (better than original article), but is nuked shortly thereafter. :(
The world hasn't seen an AI activated IED yet that monitors the surrounding using a local visual model, detonating when the classification chain triggers. The catch is that it would need a substantial amount of fuel to stay powered, but "that's what a car is for".
In international land conflicts I always like to imagine it as the following scenario: you get a letter in the mail telling you that you’re going to be forcibly relocated to country X.
But what about your friends and family, you might say. Will you still be able to see them? You would surely fight to not be isolated from them. Well, good news, they’re being relocated as well.
What about your home, your possessions? You would surely fight to not lose them. You’re in luck, also relocated.
But the land will be different, the weather. Good news, the land and weather are also being relocated.
But what about the government, whom you love dearly and would miss terribly. Sorry to say, the government is the only thing not being relocated.
So, will you pick up a gun and risk death, even near certain death in some cases, to stop yourself having the same life, except for the government? Really? Is the other government really that different from yours?
That being said in this case the notion of USA invading Canada is ridiculous and won’t happen. It’s just reality TV guy pushing the deal landscape wider so he can get the modest-by-comparison thing he actually wants. He has a whole book that talks about how he does this. It’s weird how people still take him seriously when he does this.
But what about your friends and family, you might say. Will you still be able to see them? You would surely fight to not be isolated from them. Well, good news, they’re being relocated as well.
What about your home, your possessions? You would surely fight to not lose them. You’re in luck, also relocated.
But the land will be different, the weather. Good news, the land and weather are also being relocated.
But what about the government, whom you love dearly and would miss terribly. Sorry to say, the government is the only thing not being relocated.
So, will you pick up a gun and risk death, even near certain death in some cases, to stop yourself having the same life, except for the government? Really? Is the other government really that different from yours?
That being said in this case the notion of USA invading Canada is ridiculous and won’t happen. It’s just reality TV guy pushing the deal landscape wider so he can get the modest-by-comparison thing he actually wants. He has a whole book that talks about how he does this. It’s weird how people still take him seriously when he does this.
I’m not sure the people in Eastern Ukraine who have been “relocated” to Russia agree with your idea of “nothing changes except for the government”. I don’t think the people across Europe and Asia during World War II would agree either.
Your new government does not and cannot trust you. You pledged allegiance to your old country. Are you still secretly fighting for it? Or have you pledged allegiance to your new country? Does that mean anything when you betrayed your old country to whom you had pledged allegiance too? You’re a potential enemy and your new government will act accordingly.
Your new government does not and cannot trust you. You pledged allegiance to your old country. Are you still secretly fighting for it? Or have you pledged allegiance to your new country? Does that mean anything when you betrayed your old country to whom you had pledged allegiance too? You’re a potential enemy and your new government will act accordingly.
Well I am talking about before a military conflict erupts. I’m talking about what is in the interest of the people, when they are looking at a potential military conflict.
In the case of Ukraine, being peacefully “relocated” to Russia seems much better than what is happening now. Before the war the reputation of the Ukrainian government was not much different from the reputation of the Russian government. If it were me as a Ukrainian in that situation I would not be in favor of fighting.
Now Poles “relocating” to Germany without any conflict seems like it would not have ended well for them. Poles at that time violently resisting made sense. Refusing a land bridge agreement to avoid the need for violence, perhaps not, but resisting occupation, sure. But that is because the two governments at that time actually were very different, one being extremely ethno-centric. This does not really apply to America or Russia. If the Ukrainians were born in Russia nobody would notice, they are well within the ethnic cloud of the Russian state. Same with Canadians in America.
I don’t think allegiance to a nation means much these days. If anyone can move anywhere and not assimilate, who even really cares at that point? Should Canadians accept the human makeup of their nation changing quickly and drastically, no problem, but getting a different government is the end of the world? Doesn’t really make sense to me. Does make sense why governments put out propaganda to rile people up, though, since it is clearly in the interest of the government to resist in all such cases.
In the case of Ukraine, being peacefully “relocated” to Russia seems much better than what is happening now. Before the war the reputation of the Ukrainian government was not much different from the reputation of the Russian government. If it were me as a Ukrainian in that situation I would not be in favor of fighting.
Now Poles “relocating” to Germany without any conflict seems like it would not have ended well for them. Poles at that time violently resisting made sense. Refusing a land bridge agreement to avoid the need for violence, perhaps not, but resisting occupation, sure. But that is because the two governments at that time actually were very different, one being extremely ethno-centric. This does not really apply to America or Russia. If the Ukrainians were born in Russia nobody would notice, they are well within the ethnic cloud of the Russian state. Same with Canadians in America.
I don’t think allegiance to a nation means much these days. If anyone can move anywhere and not assimilate, who even really cares at that point? Should Canadians accept the human makeup of their nation changing quickly and drastically, no problem, but getting a different government is the end of the world? Doesn’t really make sense to me. Does make sense why governments put out propaganda to rile people up, though, since it is clearly in the interest of the government to resist in all such cases.
> Well I am talking about before a military conflict erupts. I’m talking about what is in the interest of the people, when they are looking at a potential military conflict.
When you’re looking at a potential military conflict, you’re looking at a hostile foreign government that’s openly threatening you. What reasons do you have to believe that they will be friendly and that life will go on as usual after you have surrendered?
The foreign government cares about your land, resources, industry, strategic location, etc. They do not care about you, the people. Otherwise they would encourage you to move to them.
> In the case of Ukraine, being peacefully “relocated” to Russia seems much better than what is happening now.
Would it be better though? The Ukrainian government was/is far from perfect. But it’s the government they chose, it’s not an authoritarian one (it tried to be which led to the Maidan protests). They chose to be an independent country and in control of their own destiny. They don’t want to subject themselves to an authoritarian foreign government and they consider that to be in their best interest.
When you’re looking at a potential military conflict, you’re looking at a hostile foreign government that’s openly threatening you. What reasons do you have to believe that they will be friendly and that life will go on as usual after you have surrendered?
The foreign government cares about your land, resources, industry, strategic location, etc. They do not care about you, the people. Otherwise they would encourage you to move to them.
> In the case of Ukraine, being peacefully “relocated” to Russia seems much better than what is happening now.
Would it be better though? The Ukrainian government was/is far from perfect. But it’s the government they chose, it’s not an authoritarian one (it tried to be which led to the Maidan protests). They chose to be an independent country and in control of their own destiny. They don’t want to subject themselves to an authoritarian foreign government and they consider that to be in their best interest.
> What reasons do you have to believe that they will be friendly
Why wouldn’t they be? Like in the case of Ukraine/Russia there is no large ethnic or cultural divide, and in America we don’t believe in that kind of thing mattering anyway, right?
The Russians have no reason for animosity towards the Ukrainian people as far as I can tell. Unlike, say, the Ottomans invading Europe. And especially if they signed a deal through negotiation prior to any violence.
I am not an expert in the area of Ukrainian/Russian history, so I base my position on all the arguments I have seen others make across the full spectrum, and I have seen zero people arguing from any such basis aside from vague allusions to nationalism. Like what makes the Ukrainians different from any of the bazillion other smaller groups that used to exist before they got smooshed into Russia? Is it rational to risk everything to not end up like them? Is where you ended up that much better? And anyway it’s not personal, your government has just gotten too friendly with the Americans, comrade. Etc. I don’t see any other argument for what is happening other than blind obedience to a government that is probably not being totally honest to the people about its motives (just think about how many times that happened during the world wars, that we concretely know about).
Why wouldn’t they be? Like in the case of Ukraine/Russia there is no large ethnic or cultural divide, and in America we don’t believe in that kind of thing mattering anyway, right?
The Russians have no reason for animosity towards the Ukrainian people as far as I can tell. Unlike, say, the Ottomans invading Europe. And especially if they signed a deal through negotiation prior to any violence.
I am not an expert in the area of Ukrainian/Russian history, so I base my position on all the arguments I have seen others make across the full spectrum, and I have seen zero people arguing from any such basis aside from vague allusions to nationalism. Like what makes the Ukrainians different from any of the bazillion other smaller groups that used to exist before they got smooshed into Russia? Is it rational to risk everything to not end up like them? Is where you ended up that much better? And anyway it’s not personal, your government has just gotten too friendly with the Americans, comrade. Etc. I don’t see any other argument for what is happening other than blind obedience to a government that is probably not being totally honest to the people about its motives (just think about how many times that happened during the world wars, that we concretely know about).
What if the new government also imply that you have to change our religion? What if the new government does not believe in "free enterprise" and will TELL you which company you will work for. What if the new government change the sports teams you like? What if the new government change the language you speak.
See for the example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace#Timeline . Notice how the official language suddenly changes when a new "government" from a different nation take over. Are you so sure that the French Canadians will not have a problem with suddenly English potentially been the official language?My mother hosted and taught French to half a dozen eastern refugees over 20 years, from Chechnya, Georgia, Kazakhstan and a few Tatars from Russia. Russia is very ethnocentric. Not Nazi level ethnocentric, but what you would expect from a person from an empire from the last 19th century.
So much that is either wildly naive, or willfully disinforming, here.
> In the case of Ukraine, being peacefully “relocated” to Russia seems much better than what is happening now.
Provably false: People are risking their lives to avoid that.
No one outside of Russia (except perhaps you and Trump) ever believed Russia wouldn't pursue cultural genocide.
> Before the war the reputation of the Ukrainian government was not much different from the reputation of the Russian government.
What has the international reputation of a government got to do with... anything? "Oh well, no one can tell us apart from Russia, so we might as well sell our children and be sent to work camps voluntarily."
Also, that was dead wrong.
> In the case of Ukraine, being peacefully “relocated” to Russia seems much better than what is happening now.
Provably false: People are risking their lives to avoid that.
No one outside of Russia (except perhaps you and Trump) ever believed Russia wouldn't pursue cultural genocide.
> Before the war the reputation of the Ukrainian government was not much different from the reputation of the Russian government.
What has the international reputation of a government got to do with... anything? "Oh well, no one can tell us apart from Russia, so we might as well sell our children and be sent to work camps voluntarily."
Also, that was dead wrong.
You say government like it's some abstraction. The government being replaced is the one you and your fellow citizens elected. The new is run by a senile pedophile. Suddenly it's not so abstract anymore.
It will be very interesting to see how the Canadian government reconciles the existential need for a populace trained and armed to repel an American invasion and occupation with their political goals of banning private fireownership in Canada.
The Canadian government has recently banned many firearms and is forcing an incredibly expensive and unpopular gun buy-back program (the term is a misnomer -- people dind't buy the guns from the government so they're not actually buying them back.) This program has proved incredibly inefficienty and unpopular[0] with many leaders across the country including Police Chiefs and Provincial leaders refusing to support the program.[1][2]
It seems pretty clear to me that these two goals -- developing the skills to endure an invasion and repel an occupation and eliminating private gun ownership are completely incompatible and it isn't clear what the Carney government is going to do.
At the end of the day if you want a country that can win assymetric warfare you need a population proficient with firearms. That means training teens how to use them in extra curricular clubs like Air Cadets or Boy Scouts. That means the promotion of regional and national marksmen championships. That means the creation of properly equipped and sanctioned paramilitary groups that offer the public frequent opportunities to learn and practice activities like squad maneuvers, orienteering, and marksmanship.
If the Canadian government is serious about raising a force that can potentiall repel American invasion it needs to start putting guns in the hands of kids. It needs to start opening firing ranges in rural and urban environments and encouraging the responsible and safe use of firearms.
The Liberal Party of Canada has no choice but to re-embrace firearms as a part of Canadian cutlure and identity while rejecting the worst impulses of pacifists who would rather see Canada disarmed and vulnerable than armed and defended.
[0] https://archive.ph/7Byer
[1] https://archive.ph/r72mb
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-ucp-agm-legi...
The Canadian government has recently banned many firearms and is forcing an incredibly expensive and unpopular gun buy-back program (the term is a misnomer -- people dind't buy the guns from the government so they're not actually buying them back.) This program has proved incredibly inefficienty and unpopular[0] with many leaders across the country including Police Chiefs and Provincial leaders refusing to support the program.[1][2]
It seems pretty clear to me that these two goals -- developing the skills to endure an invasion and repel an occupation and eliminating private gun ownership are completely incompatible and it isn't clear what the Carney government is going to do.
At the end of the day if you want a country that can win assymetric warfare you need a population proficient with firearms. That means training teens how to use them in extra curricular clubs like Air Cadets or Boy Scouts. That means the promotion of regional and national marksmen championships. That means the creation of properly equipped and sanctioned paramilitary groups that offer the public frequent opportunities to learn and practice activities like squad maneuvers, orienteering, and marksmanship.
If the Canadian government is serious about raising a force that can potentiall repel American invasion it needs to start putting guns in the hands of kids. It needs to start opening firing ranges in rural and urban environments and encouraging the responsible and safe use of firearms.
The Liberal Party of Canada has no choice but to re-embrace firearms as a part of Canadian cutlure and identity while rejecting the worst impulses of pacifists who would rather see Canada disarmed and vulnerable than armed and defended.
[0] https://archive.ph/7Byer
[1] https://archive.ph/r72mb
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-ucp-agm-legi...
Hilarious. Americans can't even fight government tyranny and you think the civilian population of Canada can fight off a foreign invasion force through gun ownership. If it comes down to it it will be a guerrilla war.
Canada simply needs to allow Chinese and European military bases on their land to defend against the US. You don’t need Canadian kids with guns, you need allies with weapons systems to defend against land and air attacks (with of course some soldiers trained to operate those weapons systems).
Chinese bases would certainly be the quickest way for all Canadians to gain US citizenship overnight.
This is one of the most impotent things I've ever read. All you've achieved here is acknowledging that you are completely defenseless and welcoming foreign militaries into your territory (the thing you were trying to avoid).
What's the plan? Trust the Chinese to defend your country out of the goodness of their hearts (without ever acting on their ability to claim it for themselves at any time knowing you will not and can not do anything to stop them)?
What's the plan? Trust the Chinese to defend your country out of the goodness of their hearts (without ever acting on their ability to claim it for themselves at any time knowing you will not and can not do anything to stop them)?
Canadian troops fought and died to free France from Nazi oppression. It is quite likely that France would be willing to extend their nuclear umbrella to Canada while Canada rapidly spooled up the domestic production of nuclear weapons.
If that were to happen the question 'What's the plan?' becomes extremely pertinent.
What's the plan if Canada builds a few dozen nukes and scatters them in silos across the prairies under the protection of a nuclear power with their own MIC?
If that were to happen the question 'What's the plan?' becomes extremely pertinent.
What's the plan if Canada builds a few dozen nukes and scatters them in silos across the prairies under the protection of a nuclear power with their own MIC?