# W Bush comes to town and this floats to the top......hmmmmmmmmmmmm



## 54/102 CEF (28 Nov 2004)

http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html

Bet the lites are on at CSIS over this one


----------



## McG (28 Nov 2004)

Old news, and hardly surprising when one considers that Canada & the US always found themselves on opposite sides of conflicts prior to World War 1.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Nov 2004)

There is little doubt in my mind that the US rewrites this exact scenario every 3-5 yrs.  The reason that they love us is because we give then things.  If we ever stopped handing out the freebies, rest assured that they won't hesitate to come over here and take them....Then again, maybe I'm just paranoid for thinking that the only remaining superpower has become accustomed to having their way....

Chimo,  Kat


----------



## chriscalow (28 Nov 2004)

Pretty scary stuff.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (28 Nov 2004)

IMHO the plan doesn't take into account how public support would react to attack...  Granted there wasn't as much opposition to war back then, but even in the war of 1812, the New England states basically sat the war out, and even considered seccession, because of the aggression towards British North America.  And several key routes of attack that the plan outlines are from/through the Northeastern states, or through points such as Detroit and the Sault who would probably be opposed to a war being fought on their doorstop with their neighbours...


----------



## Pieman (28 Nov 2004)

I imagine this is kind of outdated since it was written in 1935...esp. since the great depression is now over.   ;D 
Perhaps they got a new version locked in a cabinet somewhere. Wonder how they would tackle Canada now?


----------



## JBP (28 Nov 2004)

> I imagine this is kind of outdated since it was written in 1935...esp. since the great depression is now over.
> Perhaps they got a new version locked in a cabinet somewhere. Wonder how they would tackle Canada now?



Ummm, unfortunately for us, pretty damn easily. Easier now then it ever would have been before.

Example by numbers: We have what? 100 tanks? Probably only half that immediately servicable for combat status. We have like 80 CF-18 A+B Hornets... 1 BRANCH of thier airforce outnumbers that easily. They have 90 Aircraft on 1... Yes 1... Supercarrier like the USS Nimitz and USS Enterprise. They have at least 10,000 combat capable tanks. Thave an army of 1 million, we have like 60-65,000...... 

They would flatten us in days. It would be a raping! We would literally be slaughtered. And it's probably even worse then that, they have far more military hardware+people than we do in all aspects of a modern day combat capability.

Joe
PS> Hopefully we'll never ever ever have to test our arms against thiers. It's simple numbers, they have more. MUCH, MUCH more.... 
PPS> Even with "allies" comming to save us, it would take them some time to get here, all the strategic points mentioned in that text would probably be taken and fortified by "Blue" (The USA) by the time reinforcements came.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Nov 2004)

hmmmmmmmmm ... can anyone say Training Exercise:



> In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime
> military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops
> converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and
> another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania.  *The war
> ...



Looks like a staff paper to support a training event. Fodder for the conspiracy theorists perhaps, but hardly evidence of the US actually planning an invasion of Canada in the 1930s.

In the Army's staff college we conducted operational planning using the European area of operations after the end of the Cold War, now we use scenarios for the Balkans, even though we're not as active in that theatre as we once were. The selection of geography and force structures for exercises and the training of command and staff procedures, while usually based on real world geography and force structures, does not necessarily imply intent to conduct those operations in real time.


----------



## bgpipes (28 Nov 2004)

I am amused by these conspiratorial theories of The US attacking Canada. I am of the opinion that the US would be much better served by attacking its southern neighbor, the argument can be posed that Mexico is a MUCH bigger threat than Canada,who just happens to be the largest trade partner to the US.And vice-versa,but I believe that both nations have the right to defend against the infiltration of terrorists. the Al Qaeda radicals sees both Americans AND Canadians as infidels. :gunner:


----------



## Bill Smy (28 Nov 2004)

:warstory:

IIRC Cananda had a plan to invade the United States in 1919. Can't recall all the details, but one account I read states that military planners believed with some 600,000 or so veterans it would be possible to concentrate one major thrust and capture Washington. But the victory would be short-lived.

I think it was called Operational Plan 1, or perhaps War Plan 1.

If there were such a plan, it would be interesting reading. Perhaps some of the historians out there can comment.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Nov 2004)

bgpipes said:
			
		

> I am amused by these conspiratorial theories of The US attacking Canada.



I'm no conspiracy  theorist.  I have a healthy mistrust of ANYONE who carries ultimate power.  It is the nature of the beast that it will look to secure it's position by dominating those around them.  It is reasonable to assume that if Canada ever elected an openly hostile government, that the US would take steps to control it, either economically, militarily, or both.   Just my thoughts, not a theory...


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Nov 2004)

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> :warstory:
> I think it was called Operational Plan 1, or perhaps War Plan 1.
> 
> If there were such a plan, it would be interesting reading. Perhaps some of the historians out there can comment.



It was called Defence Scheme No. 1, prepared between Dec 1920 and Apr 1921, a 200-page document with a central assumption that "the principal external threat to the security of Canada lay in the possibility of armed invasion by the forces of the United States." 

The reference goes on to note that "in his assessment of intention, the strategic intelligencer can make only two kinds of errors: he can mistake enemies for friends; and (less commonly) friends for enemies. It was "Buster" Brown's distinction to have committed the more unusual of the strategic intelligencer's sins."

"Buster" Brown was the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence (D.M.O. & I.), Colonel J. Sutherland Brown, who occupied the position from 1920 to 1927.

The reference makes another related coment in stating "the central assumption of Defence Scheme No. 1 not only ran counter to the central assumption of Canadian foreign policy; it challenged most of the assumptions held by others in the military establishment."

Reference: In Defence of Canada: From the Great War to the Great Depression, James Eayrs, University of Toronto Press, 1964




			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Just my thoughts, not a theory...



"Just your thoughts" - which, by definition, makes it a theory.


----------



## bgpipes (28 Nov 2004)

It would seem to me, that Canada's military resources would be better spent searching out ways to respond to terrorist attacks on her cities. If such an attack were to take place,would Canada be able to mount a decisive global response? Could Canada put aircraft carriers to sea, along with Tomahawk missle carrying cruisers? Could Canada launch stealth bombers,fly halfway around the world,and hit targets with bunker buster bombs? All of this,with or without the assistance of the US? How much of a response could Canada mount? Would it just be wringing of hands,pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth coming out of Ottawa? :-\ :-\ :-\


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Nov 2004)

Thank you Merriam Webster.  I did not realize I was in the company of such accomplished wordsmiths.  I shall attempt to be more erudite in future postings to this august company...

Chimo,  Kat


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Nov 2004)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Thank you Merriam Webster.  I did not realize I was in the company of such accomplished wordsmiths.  I shall attempt to be more erudite in future postings to this august company...
> 
> Chimo,  Kat



Quit crying; you said something dumb and got called on it.  You don't have to be erudite - we'll settle for coherent.  

Published Author Mike


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Nov 2004)

Wel, goooo-lly, you can't expect a highschool dropout like me who spent 23 years slopping around in the muck to be all there, can ya? :crybaby:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Nov 2004)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wel, goooo-lly, you can't expect a highschool dropout like me who spent 23 years slopping around in the muck to be all there, can ya? :crybaby:



Well, we'll make you a deal.  If we ever come around to slop around in the muck, feel free to tell us what we're doing wrong.   If we care about what we're doing, we'll appreciate the constructive criticism.  If we do something outrageously dumb, we'll share in a good laugh with you.

Feel free to adopt the same attitude here while writing with the wordsmiths.  I'm fairly certain Mr. O'Leary was poking some good natured fun at you while stating the obvious....


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Nov 2004)

All done tongue firmly in cheek... If I had taken offense, I would have been a little more verbose...


----------



## 54/102 CEF (29 Nov 2004)

Not sure getting "saying something dumb and getting called on it" is in order here or any time.


----------



## bgpipes (30 Nov 2004)

HA! Well said S_Baker.....I could not have said it better myself....(wordsmith)


----------



## pbi (6 Dec 2004)

Since the US cannot tolerate the presence of enemy forces on the soil of North America, it would only make sense for them to prepare plans to take action in the event that such a contingency occurs. They would be negligent to do otherwise. It is difficult to see how they could effect such a defense without entering Canada (if that's where the threat was)   either with or without our sovereign permission. Hopefully the former in an ideal situation but doubtless the latter in a crisis.

As for defending ourselves against a truly hostile US "attack" (as opposed to a friendly entry) you don't need to be a genius to see that we offer no credible conventional threat, nor could we short of a massive Norwegian- or Swedish- style "national fortress"   plan that would involve compulsory service, the development of a covert national mobilization capability, massive expenditure on arms, and the construction of defenses and obstacles on all likely axes. (On the Prairies...._where_ to put that crater????). If we were to seriously plan to counter an invasion of this sort, IMHO the plan would have to consist of two lines of effort:

a)   a widespread and determined unconventional("asymmetric") resistance that would target the vulnerabilities of US forces and exploit information operations to the maximum (CNN images might be a bit confusing to Americans-our neighbourhoods don't look too different from theirs, nor do we...M1 in front of a burnt-out McD's or Safeway...) We would have to be prepared to make such an invasion so politically intolerable to the average US citizen that the US Govt looked for an exit strategy:we would be unlikely to conduct "decisive operations" on our own. As the Iraqis and the Taleban have found to their dismay, bending US resolve, especially where a threat to the Homeland is concerned, is not an easy task. This would probably include resorting to extreme measures that we don't even want to think about right now; and

b) a pre-planned diplomatic effort to ensure that we had the greatest possible political, economic and military support from other countries such that the costs to the US of such an invasion would not be only military. Unfortunately, any US govt that was actualy willing to attack Canada would probably not be particularly susceptible to foreign pressure: we would be takling about a major departure from the political culture of North America as we know it.

IMHO far better to take reasonable measures to strengthen our sovereignty defence capability (so we pose less of a threat as a "dead ground approach" to the US), increase our ability to shoulder our military burden in the world (thus regaining some lost credibility), and work on building a relationship with the US that is not mutually hostile, nor "master and lackey" but instead is founded on some kind of improved understanding and respect. Cheers.


----------



## Goober (6 Dec 2004)

They've already tried this... didn't any of you see Canadian Bacon?


----------



## leftcoast (6 Dec 2004)

I have heard that during tensions over Quebec's possible seccession in the 90s, the US military created (updated?) contingency plans for military intervention in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada (various scenarios could have triggered this).  I would be interested in any documentary evidence on this one way or the other.


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Dec 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Oh, I am sure you would left coast........


Well I for one am fed up of providing you "You All's" with cheap energy,and Canada is the major source of energy to the U.S..

It's about time we turn the key off and start asking our own price for our natural resources and we  regain the wealth which is our due and which we have missed on for so many years because of our past Goverments that have sold us out on on our wealth.

Free trade is not working as it's supposed to be so lets rip it up.

I am Canadian.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Free trade is not working as it's supposed to be so lets rip it up.



The numbers don't seem to be pointing that way (unless the editors of Foreign Affairs are a pack of incompetent liars).


----------



## 54/102 CEF (18 Dec 2004)

OK - 1 more time - all Canucks go back to Economics 101 

www.donlowconcrete.com/USA

The 38 most powerful men in Canada are who?

Signed Adam Smith


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Well I for one am fed up of providing you "You All's" with cheap energy,and Canada is the major source of energy to the U.S..
> 
> It's about time we turn the key off and start asking our own price for our natural resources and we  regain the wealth which is our due and which we have missed on for so many years because of our past Goverments that have sold us out on on our wealth.
> 
> ...



I think that our federal government's main plan to keep Canada "free" is by bending over for Uncle Sam constantly.  If Canada stopped selling oil to the US, perhaps as a means of protest against some of America's current overseas adventures, how long does anyone think it would take the States to invade Canada as a means of "liberating the Canadian people from the oppressive tyranny of a government that does not fairly represent the wishes of the Canadian people?"

Sound stupid?  Just remember that America rewrites history to it's own advantage, and that Hussien, Norriega, etcetera, were all willing cohorts of the US until they outlived their usefullness to the American Empire.  Then they were overthrown and vilified for their crimes by the US, who ignored their own tacit involvement in support of these men when they were viewed as supporting Amrerican interests in thier respective countries.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Dec 2004)

So... uhhh... does Canada have any secret plans on invading the US?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> If Canada stopped selling oil to the US, perhaps as a means of protest against some of America's current overseas adventures,



Remind me again who owns most of the oil companies here?


----------



## gunner56 (4 Jan 2005)

If we (Alberta) stopped selling our(Alberta's oil to the U.S.,two things would happen.1) Alberta would verge on bankruptcy until we took over the rest of Canada,and 2) the U.S. would end up buying more Saudi oil,thus ensuring more financing for terrorist attacks on North American soil.Don't forget,we're on Osama's list too.(2nd place,I believe)


----------



## RapidFire (10 Jan 2005)

What about a post peak-oil invation? While FEMA will be useing a great amount of oil to keep the county under martial law with oil prices above $100 a barrel, who are they going to turn to for more cheap oil?

Could Canada even servive with 60 - 65, 000 troops to support the public? Or would we welocome a US invation? 

It kinda sounds drastic but the Peak-Oil theory is something to worry about.

Here is an article on Peak-Oil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm

About 2/3rds of the way down under "Can Saudi Deliver" there is a very interesting snippet from an interview with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency ! 

There is a picture of a North Sea rig, just read the paragraph to the left of the picture & then tell me the powers that be are not trying to cover up the problem !  "


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

Maybe GW read something similar in 2002 and went "oh crap! thats.... bad! who has oil?! Saddam... i seee youuuuu"


Seriously though, eventually the oil will be gone, then what will happen =/ Obviously we will eventually have to find an alternate fuel source, but Saudi Arabia will be out of oil before Alberta... and that somewhat frightens me in terms of what the Americans are willing to do to keep their machine running.Theyll probobly try to start buying up oil companies in alberta or something.... who knows, but a disappearance of a major world resource is never a good thing.

When was it projected the worlds oil reserves would run dry? I heard as early as 2012 =/


----------



## RapidFire (10 Jan 2005)

> When was it projected the worlds oil reserves would run dry? I heard as early as 2012 =/



Yeah, that's "run dry" but a drastic change can come as soon as 2008-9, imagine in 2 years oil prices can reach up to 80$ or 90$ a barrel, things will get out of control = FEMA = Martial Law.


----------



## OatmealSavage (10 Jan 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Not sure getting "saying something dumb and getting called on it" is in order here or any time.



Especially when the criticism was incorrect.   :-X Theory. 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Dictionary.com
A theory is a thought usually, but a thought isn't necessarily a theory. For example "I think I'm a clown:, isn't a theory unless one attempts to explain why one is a clown, such as: "I'm a clown because I spent 20 years living in a hole in the ground"
That being said, taking the piss out of each other is an important part of the army culture, and one of the aspects of army life that I miss the most, so fill your boots.

Think of the Winter War if we get invaded by anybody. And you thought those crappy issue skis where just an embuggerance.

-"too many people with too much time on their hands" Good call, makes me wonder what kind of secret plans are being crafted in NDHQ as we speak.

"When was it projected the worlds oil reserves would run dry? I heard as early as 2012" That's wildly optimistic I think. The director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that oil production would peak around 1920 and steadily decline after that.

If you don't like selling oil to the Americans you could always go into real estate in Fort MacMurray.
Speaking of economics, I think we should divert the MacKenzie River South to Irrigate Utah and Nevada. We're just dumping it into the Ocean anyway. The whole desert green as Idaho and full of potatoes. Then we can get rich off the trickle down effect as the McCain family sells Frozen French (sorry) Freedom Fries to the Chinese.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

Id rather sell our oil to the yanks first over the saudis... or anyone else for that matter.... on the bright side of things, if we don't get invaded, we could get really rich really fast if we can dish out the oil fast enough (probobly impossible) but heres being unrealistic!  8)


----------



## clarkkerr (19 Jan 2005)

O.K so the U.S have all kinds of firepower.. and I wouldn't count Canada out.They may be able to squash us with an onslaught...but there will always be small groups jumping in for a quick attack..lets not forget what there enemies are doing to them now.... war is not pretty.... but this is my country and as long as I can walk crawl... I won't ever give up....just a little go canada go hoopla


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2005)

Duh...duh...duh...another one bites the Dust!

Anyone want to try and fix this one, or is it going to devolve into another juvenile US vs Canada thread?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Jan 2005)

One of the things the armchair critics (I have my armchair critic white wings!  ) often forget is -- the Auto Industry -- when these parts plants end up in China - Ontario goes down the tubes ---- about the time the hybrid vehs co;me on line 

News item 

A dull oily pall of smoke hung over Ottawa and drifted down the Ottawa river where an angry crowd was looting 24 Sussex Drive - the Gov Gen had been chased to the airport and only just escaped with the CC150 lifting off for her refuge in the Northern Nordic countries where she has her secret cache of Ice wine.....

A beleagered government minister nervously tugged his tie strait after the all night session to close down all plants in Oshawa....

At the news conference - in   response to a question from a 20 something face from CBC news he admitted that the job losses to date were proportionatley smaller than in Michigan but still - when federal revenues fell after the tool and die shops from Waterloo to Windsor all went out of business 

NHL gone south, autos gone to Indonesia -- Mr Minister what will you do?

Mr Minister was suddenly overwhelemed by a massive coronary ------ and Sheila Copps grabbed the miek asking everyone to return to their homes...


----------

