Defending Canada from American Military aggression

[MilEME09]

I have faith in the Brockville Rifles and PWOR.

Perhaps we can reactivate Fort Henry and the Martello Towers ? Those 32-Pounders might make them think twice.

Perhaps HMCS Cataraqui can slow them down with their RHIBs and C8s and 9s.

I'm sure JSR and 21 EW can fuck with their Tic Tok feeds...

I agree we need a plan, we've always needed a plan. But in very Canadian fashion we're being caught with our pants down.

And I still don't think Trump will wake up and choose violence. He doesn't have to really.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and I will be on my way to my bug out with the family in the future...

Our best bet in event of an invasion would be similar to defense scheme #1. Blow as many bridges, rail etc on the US side as possible, slow their ground forces down in hopes of reinforcement from NATO.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and I will be on my way to my bug out with the family in the future...

You don't want to man trenches and buy time for politicians and other Canadians who want to make an invasion easier?

 

[Sprinting Thistle]

On a positive note, the area from Kingston to Gananoque has been FLOCARKed by Army Capts on AOC for the last 20+ years that someone has to have a suitable defensive plan that passed assessment.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Canada's best defence is the sense of American voters and through them, their Congress.

Trying to directly improve relations with the administration is a lot of effort, often unproductive, and any result obtained is subject to being vacated at any time without any particularly obvious reason.

It should be possible to identify ways to raise Canada's favourables with US voters without ceding sovereignty.

 

[GR66]

Our best bet in event of an invasion would be similar to defense scheme #1. Blow as many bridges, rail etc on the US side as possible, slow their ground forces down in hopes of reinforcement from NATO.

 

[GR66]

The US Army occupying Dauphin, Manitoba frankly wouldn't matter. They would only need to control the major cities. Have the Reserves train for and specialize in Urban warfare. It's also likely the type of warfare we'd be required to do in defence of a Russian invasion of Latvia so it wouldn't be a wasted effort.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I have faith in the Brockville Rifles and PWOR.

Perhaps we can reactivate Fort Henry and the Martello Towers ? Those 32-Pounders might make them think twice.

Perhaps HMCS Cataraqui can slow them down with their RHIBs and C8s and 9s.

I'm sure JSR and 21 EW can fuck with their Tic Tok feeds...

I agree we need a plan, we've always needed a plan. But in very Canadian fashion we're being caught with our pants down.

And I still don't think Trump will wake up and choose violence. He doesn't have to really.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and I will be on my way to my bug out with the family in the future...

Canada’s defence strategy with America has been the integrated ties with them for the last 90 years. Basically make it so costly to them (mainly economically) that it isn’t worth invading. Plus they basically get everything they want resource wise to begin with so what would they really gain?

Unfortunately Trump isn’t 100% of the mindset that free trade and access to cheaper resources is in Americas favour. He seems to favour direct control or at least bootlickers doing everything he demands.

Our best bet in event of an invasion would be similar to defense scheme #1. Blow as many bridges, rail etc on the US side as possible, slow their ground forces down in hopes of reinforcement from NATO.

With out serious investment in our military (likely at least 50-100k Regs and 250k effective Reserves with decent equipment to match) I doubt we would hold out any length of time. Asking our current troops to hold the line is basically signing their death warrants.

Not to mention I doubt NATO would provide much aid.

Britain? France? Germany? How many can deploy a effective Army/Army group efficiently and quickly into a hostile environment halfway across the globe against the largest Airforce, Navy and Army in the world?

Even ignoring the US Navy/Airforce, who has the capacity to even effectively transport a division (which 12k troops is a drop in the bucket for what would be needed) of peer to peer troops quickly other than the US? They are all set up for combat in Europe or against poorly equipped 3rd world nations, not supporting others against effective peer to peer forces.

Canada would need to figure out for itself how to defend itself. Which in the immediate term isn’t something we are capable of. It would take billions and likely a decade before we could make the US military question if it was worth the blood price in invading us.

The only true way to guarantee our defence is nukes, but without US approval that likely would never happen.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The US Army occupying Dauphin, Manitoba frankly wouldn't matter. They would only need to control the major cities. Have the Reserves train for and specialize in Urban warfare. It's also likely the type of warfare we'd be required to do in defence of a Russian invasion of Latvia so it wouldn't be a wasted effort.

Is the scenario an immediate threat, or long-term?

Trump is out in 3 years. For the Res F, that's 3 x 37 (or 37.5, or whatever) paid days' funding, if they start now, and if that's all they do. Less is achievable if the threat is more immediate. What is usefully achievable?

If the threat is longer term, more is achievable. Unfortunately, preparing openly for these scenarios militates a bit against improving relations with US voters and Congress. A lot of Americans are sympathetic - they're sympathetic to our position in a mere trade war - but we have to be as persuasive as possible. It's difficult to work both options.

Again, what is the best use of resources? "Be like water." "Indirect approach."

 

[MilEME09]

Realistically thsts the only option, unless china helps us lol

 

[GR66]

Realistically thsts the only option, unless china helps us lol

There is no realistic option for foreign military intervention to defend Canada against a US invasion. No other country in the World (other than the US) has the capability to deploy and support a military force at such a distance. And even if they did they couldn't deploy it in the face of the USN and USAF.

That's why Canada has no hope of defeating a US invasion in a traditional force-on-force conflict. The only option we would have would be to make any occupation of Canada as painful as possible to try and turn the political tide in the US against occupation.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Folks, calm down - it's not as if off-the-shelf solutions aren't available for dusting and updating, right?

Defence Scheme No. 1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War Plan Red - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then there's a solution from an interesting source at U of T

How could Canada deter an invasion? Nukes and mandatory military service

Mandatory military service and nuclear weapons may be new ideas for Canadians, but other friendly democracies have been using these strategies for decades.

theconversation.com

 

[MilEME09]

Folks, calm down - it's not as if off-the-shelf solutions aren't available for dusting and updating, right?

Defence Scheme No. 1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War Plan Red - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then there's a solution from an interesting source at U of T

How could Canada deter an invasion? Nukes and mandatory military service

Mandatory military service and nuclear weapons may be new ideas for Canadians, but other friendly democracies have been using these strategies for decades.

theconversation.com

Pull a France, nuclear land mines

 

[Remius]

There is no realistic option for foreign military intervention to defend Canada against a US invasion. No other country in the World (other than the US) has the capability to deploy and support a military force at such a distance. And even if they did they couldn't deploy it in the face of the USN and USAF.

That's why Canada has no hope of defeating a US invasion in a traditional force-on-force conflict. The only option we would have would be to make any occupation of Canada as painful as possible to try and turn the political tide in the US against occupation.

This.

The likely scenario is a soft take over. Sitting PM resigns and a US friendly government gets recognized. Policies, fiscal policy et al goes to the US, ressources get controlled by the US. Our own armed forces would be be used against us to make sure we remain docile.

Small pockets of resistance causing issues is what will likely be the result. However, if 19 middle eastern terrorists can upend the US for decades, imagine if even 0.5% of our population became shit disturbers on this side and the other side of the border causing issues. Probably supported by American sympathizers more than NATO ironically. People that could move about looking and sounding just like Americans.

North America could become a paranoid mess in that scenario for decades.

Edit: Oh and if they do it to us, they’ll do it to Mexico who will likely be doing the same on their southern front.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not everything has to be defended, and the box has many tools for imaginative minds.

Despite all provocations, Canada must be reasonable, and eschew and disavow and prevent anything resembling atrocity that would turn favourable American popular opinion against Canada. Canada doesn't have to be Gandhi, but neither should it always be "elbows up". There are responses contrary to their interests that would be accepted by enough Americans as reasonable under circumstances.

Internationally, law and customs are indisputably on Canada's side. Absolutely call on NATO members, even if NATO no longer exists, even if nations only ultimately apply the kinds of sanctions they've been talking about if the US is belligerent in Greenland.

Economically, be prepared to stop everything crossing the border. (Part of diplomatic efforts: communicating the consequences). Scorched earth on everything isn't practical; occupied areas will need to be fed and need the infrastructure to sustain the population even if an occupier has the moral charge of doing so. There are still many things that could be blown that would create hardship without creating desperation. As a benchmark, look at what Ukraine puts up with.

Militarily, pick the battles and things to be protected carefully. The forces are small and the country is large. The point of military engagement has to be to buy time for international or domestic American pressure to end things.

Remove all restrictions on private ownership of small arms (long arms and sidearms) and ammunition. No registries. No records except those retained immediately by dealers, and subject to a requirement to destroy them in the event of any foreign power invading Canada. This is sine qua non for any realistic discussion of defending Canada.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This.

The likely scenario is a soft take over. Sitting PM resigns and a US friendly government gets recognized. Policies, fiscal policy et al goes to the US, ressources get controlled by the US. Our own armed forces would be be used against us to make sure we remain docile.

Small pockets of resistance causing issues is what will likely be the result. However, if 19 middle eastern terrorists can upend the US for decades, imagine if even 0.5% of our population became shit disturbers on this side and the other side of the border causing issues. Probably supported by American sympathizers more than NATO ironically. People that could move about looking and sounding just like Americans.

A variation on this theme’s already out there in fiction about how FN folks could gum up the works, so to speak …

An Uprising in Canada | Frontier Centre For Public Policy

fcpp.org

Uprising - Dundurn

With over 2,300 books in print, Dundurn Press is recognized for producing high quality, award-winning books across multiple genres.

www.dundurn.com

Edit: Oh and if they do it to us, they’ll do it to Mexico who will likely be doing the same on their southern front.

In that scenario, wonder if the drug lords would pull a “Ukrainian big businessman/oligarch” move and create militias that would help the big neighbour from doing more harm than expected? Sorta-kinda like UKR in the first invasion in the teens?

 

[Haggis]

Remove all restrictions on private ownership of small arms (long arms and sidearms) and ammunition. No registries. No records except those retained immediately by dealers, and subject to a requirement to destroy them in the event of any foreign power invading Canada. This is sine qua non for any realistic discussion of defending Canada.

That ship has sailed. Once PMMC achieves his majority, the end of private firearms ownership in Canada is not too far in the future.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That ship has sailed. Once PMMC achieves his majority, the end of private firearms ownership in Canada is not too far in the future.

And many a fool Canadian will rejoice.

 

[MilEME09]

That ship has sailed. Once PMMC achieves his majority, the end of private firearms ownership in Canada is not too far in the future.

They said that every decade since the 90s, I doubt it, Carney doesnt seem keen on catering to the anti gun lobby in quebec

 

[Brad Sallows]

That ship has sailed. Once PMMC achieves his majority, the end of private firearms ownership in Canada is not too far in the future.

Maybe. But my purpose in putting it out there and asserting "sine qua non" was to emphasize the pointlessness of tying ones hands in extremis, and suggest that adequate preparation must happen well before the event. "We have to do this", coupled with "No, not that way" is self-defeat.

 

[Jarnhamar]

They said that every decade since the 90s, I doubt it, Carney doesnt seem keen on catering to the anti gun lobby in quebec

The Minister of Public Safety was caught admiting that is exactly what Carney is doing.