If the US tried it Canada would make Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc look like a casual sunday stroll in the park. If the US couldn’t handle Guerrilla warfare against people who DON’T look like them, imagine how well they’ll do against people that do. And the further north they got the more fucked they’d be. Ever been in a fight with a pissed off Indigenous individual? try it, see how far you get. Not only that you got all the dudes living in the bush with rifles and god knows what else.
I don’t think it would be nearly as difficult as Vietnam. Vietnam had direct military aid from China coming over the land border, whereas the united States had to stretch their logistics halfway around the world.
If the U.S. hadn’t used up our missile and artillery supplies in Iran and Ukraine, I think the majority of the Canadian military and government could be taken out all at once.
Obviously attacking a friendly neighbor is a villainous thing to do, but I don’t think the Vietnam comparison is apt.
Yeah, maybe Europe would help, and the other commonwealth countries would have an awkward time not helping at all, particularly the UK. But, there’s an ocean in the way. Nobody can just hop on the Hoser Chi Minh trail and cross into ice Laos.
On the other hand, you absolutely could walk accross into America itself and mess things up. Honestly, that might be even better.
Yea 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of a 6,416 kilometre (3,987 mile) largely unsecured border. The counter insurgency would be unparalleled in human history.
Taking out bases with missiles is different than invading and dealing with guerilla warfare tactics and a bunch of really angry citizens who have guns…we just don’t talk about it.
People who look like them, sound like them and know all the same pop culture, including supposedly local stuff like news anchors.
There’s not many shibboleths they could use, and usually they pick a really obvious one. I pledge…
This might be the most delusional thing I’ve ever seen commented on Lemmy.
Why?
Like, it’s a little imaginative in parts. But Canada is bigger than Afghanistan in every way, and not weak in any of the same ways.
Because it is delusional. Afghanistan is a world away, has strong cultural influence for that kind of combat, and isn’t filled with people who came to the country with the intention of going to the USA.
When surveyed about 49% of Canadians say they wouldn’t fight for their country. 10% would welcome being annexed by the USA- after all, many people only come to Canada because they couldn’t get into the usa. We don’t have anything close to the resolve afgans have, and we don’t have the stomach for war. Sure, we have some elite snipers, but snipers an army do not make.
There’s no point in this conversation though, because anybody who thinks Canada stands a snowballs chance in hell against the USA is a full scale invasion isn’t going to respond to reason.
and isn’t filled with people who came to the country with the intention of going to the USA.
Not really a common thing, as someone who lives here. Do you live here? You have a .ca user, but that’s a really weird take.
There’s no point in this conversation though, because anybody who thinks Canada stands a snowballs chance in hell against the USA is a full scale invasion isn’t going to respond to reason.
Oh, we’d lose. For a bit. So did the Taliban.
If you want to stop there, so be it. There is more to say, though.
I don’t know what the definition of common is, but it’s about 10% of people in Canada when polled would welcome becoming US citizens. It was Angus Reid which is known to be heavily botted, so ymmv
And the American count for becoming a Canadian citizen might be 30%, and that 10% is going to be mostly Canadian born. Hell, aside from the tax requirements, I’d take a green card. It wouldn’t hurt! I still wouldn’t move there.
In any war, most people don’t fight. The Taliban was never anywhere close to most Afghans. Afghans are more used to war and harsh conditions, but again, there’s massive advantages we have they didn’t, as well.
Alright, I accept you think Canada can beat the USA in a full scale war.
I don’t believe it, and your comment didn’t convince me otherwise. On the contrary, it reinforced my existing beliefs.
And the further north they got the more fucked they’d be
Doesn’t like 90% of Canada’s population live within 100 km of the border? Not much reason to even go that far north unfortunately
Regardless that at least 70% of Americans would join the Canadians
Or at least passively support us, which works.
If the USA invades, the white house gets burned down again and Trump gets ICC arrested.
Jokes aside its quite possible. Ukrainian partnerships with canada on domestic drone production, the US would burn perpetually if they dared. They are projecting a weak canada to save face, but they dare not mistaken canadian politeness for weakness. There is a reason Trump says we are the hardest do deal with of any country. Because we are done putting up with their shit. To be Canadian means to not be Amerikkkan.
The Canadian military relies heavily on the US partnership, not to mention the average urban Canadian has never seen, held or heard a firearm, as much as liked to say that we have a chance it’s certainly would be a slim one.
Forget the Canadian military, if the US couldn’t defeat the Taliban with NATO help, what hope do they have against Canadians without it?
Canadians aren’t even a different skin color - what is the US going to do, stop and question every white person with a gun? Every white person traveling long distances in a car?
Oh hey look now the Rocky Mountains are impassable by land because there are Canadian resistance hidden in caves all the way down to Mexico. But surely the western seaboard and its population will be loyal to Trump, right?
And so it goes. An invasion of Canada would dissolve the USA in a few years.
One major difference. Canada has had more Intel and data integration with the US for much much longer than Iraq or Afghanistan. This means palantir and other Intel gathering companies have far, far more shit on Canadians that might have an inkling of resistance against the US, and do not think they will spare or be nicer to Canadians. They will absolutely round up everyone they can or their families. It will actually be harder for Canadians to fight back than the others.
Sure, lots of people will get rounded up, but how many will slip the net? How many hundreds of thousands of partisans are spread over tens of millions of square kilometers of rural Canada? How thin can US patrols and round-up efforts spread themselves before they become convenient sources of weapons and ammunition as they are set upon by IEDs and household drones with weapons taped to them? What does it help the US if they know the porn preferences of the guy living in the woods sniping US servicemen?
And then there’s the American partisans who understand this is the best time to rebel they are ever going to get. With so many loyalists deployed to Canada, are there still enough to respond to riots, sieges of police buildings, prison breaks, acts of sabotage, etc. in the US? Maybe they can be tracked (or maybe the cameras will be destroyed en masse), but are there enough boots on the ground to stop them?
But the opposite is also true, and it’s much easier for Canadians to counter attack on US soil than for anyone else.
Paparo, who serves as U.S. commander for the Indo-Pacific region, visibly took issue with the question. He said: “I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous.”
He added: “I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question.”
Look at his left chest - a billboard of medals and citations. He didn’t get those by giving the wrong answer, or by basing his statements or actions on his personal opinion. His ‘preposterous’ statement would be a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. Here are some of the facts that are behind the factual ‘preposterous’ statement.
Any order that comes down the chain of command, keeps going down the chain of command. At every step of the way, the officers would have the option to follow the order by ‘advancing to the rear’.
From Google AI: Presumption of Legality: Routine orders carry a legal presumption of lawfulness, and a soldier must obey normal commands. However, that presumption breaks down when an order directs an overt, clear violation of domestic or international law (such as targeting unresisting civilians).
Also: The defense of “just following orders” (historically known as the Nuremberg defense) is not legally valid in the US military. If a soldier carries out an order that a person of “ordinary sense” would know is illegal—such as executing a surrendered enemy combatant—the soldier can be criminally prosecuted alongside the officer who gave the command.
Also: The Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties made by the United States are part of the “supreme law of the land.”
Treaty Conflicts: If the U.S. has a formal treaty or defense pact with an ally, attacking that ally could violate U.S. treaty commitments, which hold the status of federal law.
Since both countries are members of NATO, any order to attack Canada from the Commander-in-Chief could easily be interpreted up and down the chain of command as an illegal order. This would put every soldier in the predicament of possibly being prosecuted for obeying such an order, right up and down the entire chain of command. It also presents the possibility of the POTUS being charged and convicted of the crime of issuing an illegal order. Thus, answering the question as stated is factually ‘preposterous’. The POTUS could not, as Commander-in-Chief, be reasonably seen as being able to give a legal order to attack Canada.
But it is also very clear that he is indirectly accusing Trump of being needlessly emotional in even insinuating the possibility that Trump could give such an illegal order.
You really shouldn’t trust the legal interpretations of an LLM. They’re frequently wrong, and, even more dangerously, they’re very, very good at making a wrong answer look right.
In this case, it does seem to be correct, though. The treaty clause has nuances in the way it’s interpreted, but according to the article they’re considered roughly equivalent to federal law. (Sorry for overlooking that and answering wrong elsewhere)
There’s still catches. Prosecution for following unlawful orders is light, and often rests on charging a perpetrator as if they were a private citizen. Violating an international treaty regarding diplomacy doesn’t really have much in the way of criminal penalties, and, even if they did, the NATO treaty doesn’t seem to have a “don’t attack other members” article. Like, it should, but it also doesn’t have a “remove members that attacked other members” clause, because that basically just wasn’t relevant when it was created. (BTW, looking over it, the US is already openly violating article 1 and part of 2)
But sure, if this guy refused to invade Canada, and was court martialled for it, it seems like he’d have a defence.
I have actually researched this in depth. The issue at the time was Greenland, not Canada, but the general principle still applies. Denmark is a NATO country. Article 1 clearly states that all disputes between members are to be resolved peacefully through negotiations. Here is an article discusses it in more depth.
Here is a rigorous legal clarification on the issue, that I am sure the general concept is familiar to all senior officers in the American armed forces.
And here is a legal brief on the principle that a peace treaty is the Law of the Land.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/16-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html
I sincerely doubt that an officer that has achieved his rank, position. and status would not be aware of all of these considerations when he claimed that the scenario was ‘preposterous’. I am sure these issues, given Trump’s emotional statements, have been thoroughly explored by officers in his, and more senior, positions. Their response to such an order would not be a knee jerk off the cuff on the spot response, but a response that has been well planned out and thoroughly vetted ahead of time.
The reporter pointed out that Paparo did not answer the question. The U.S. admiral said he was dismissing the issue, adding: “Would you ask me please also what my attack plans are for the Martians?”
The reporter replied: “You belittle it and I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. This is a serious question about a serious issue.”
A Nanos poll taken in February found that three in five Canadians are concerned about the U.S. being a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty. A majority also support making it illegal for Canadians to serve in the U.S. military, according to a poll commissioned by The Maple in April.
Despite Trump’s threats, however, Canadian government ministers have continued to stress Canada’s continued cooperation with the Americans on military affairs.
I’ve got some family in the military, and they’ve served in Europe both before and after Trump. They said there hasn’t been any actual decrease in cooperation while overseas between the US and us, and everyone they talk to makes it clear how ridiculously an order would be taken to invade.
That being said, their last deployment was July last year, so things may have changed. Also he did note that none said they’d reject the order - just how ridiculous the whole situation was. Hoping we never have to find out.
That means he would.
He very clearly stated what he would do. He found the scenario ‘preposterous’, meaning ‘not possible’. He could not have stated with any more clarity that he and most of the American military officers above and below him would consider such an order as not legal. Further, he all but came right out and said that Trump, by his statements on the matter, are needlessly emotional.
There can be no doubt that his response was as strong a rebuke of Trump’s posturing as could be allowed.
