• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Eaglelord17 said:
That glass jaw exists when those wars were fought far away against non-strategic threats. Canada cutting off power is both local and critical to them. That is the type of war they see to the end.
Click to expand...
I was responding more generally to this silly jingoistic “Canada’s only sovereign because we let them be” crap from people who would never put themselves in harm’s way on that bet. Obviously we aren’t going to cut off access to power, oil, etc- notwithstanding that they “don’t need or want anything” from us nor that it would instantly fix their trade deficit with us. But it would very obviously be stupid of us to do that. Add an export tax? Ehhh. Maybe. But why wouldn’t we sell them what they’re willing to buy at market rate?

I’m just scornful and contemptuous of any Americans who think that Canada would be easily and willingly subjugated. Invaded? Sure, I said that already. They just wouldn’t enjoy trying to keep us, for a whole lot of reasons. And those energy and other resources? If they wanted to try to pull a Venezuela on us, well, that’s a lot of exposed, long, linear infrastructure. Not sure it would pan out how they think.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Doesn’t matter how pervasive that belief is, rather whether it is wrong or not.

Currently Canada does lack the military required to protect our sovereignty. We can talk about cutting off power or oil all we want, but if the nation to the South with the most powerful military on the planet decided not to accept that, we couldn’t stop them currently.

Hence why I want to either be nuclear or at least have a military which makes them question whether it is worth it or not. You don’t necessarily need to win, just capable of inflicting enough potential losses to make it a non-starter.

Is it excessive? Likely yes. But I would rather be capable of saying no and just not, than being unable to say no because we lack the will to defend ourselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

brihard said:
To defend against such a threat a nation needs to have a population technically proficient enough to make use of the various means that exist to inflict human cost on an occupation force.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Lumber said:
Between you and @NavyShooter, I feel safe.
Click to expand...

I got you boo ;)

Happy I Love You GIF by Warner Bros. Deutschland
 
Halifax Tar said:
lol
Click to expand...
What’s funny about it? This is the calculus that ultimately prevailed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that thus far has kept American ground forces out of Iran and their manned navy almost entirely out of Hormuz and the Gulf. Their air operations appear to have changed since they had do do a hairy as shit CSAR into Iran and almost lost people.

Because of America’s volunteer military, highly open passage of information within its society, and the discretionary nature of its wars, they have a low tolerance for casualties. Therefore, the willingness and ability to inflict those casualties is a deterrent factor for any country fearing U.S. aggression. Pretty straightforward. shrug
 
brihard said:
What’s funny about it? This is the calculus that ultimately prevailed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that thus far has kept American ground forces out of Iran and their manned navy almost entirely out of Hormuz and the Gulf. Their air operations appear to have changed since they had do do a hairy as shit CSAR into Iran and almost lost people.

Because of America’s volunteer military, highly open passage of information within its society, and the discretionary nature of its wars, they have a low tolerance for casualties. Therefore, the willingness and ability to inflict those casualties is a deterrent factor for any country fearing U.S. aggression. Pretty straightforward. shrug
Click to expand...

lol No nothing... Nevermind...


Wizard Of Oz GIF
 
Halifax Tar said:
lol No nothing... Nevermind...


Wizard Of Oz GIF
Click to expand...
You don’t have a lot to say for someone who’s clearly got something to say. If you laugh at my post you can reasonably expect to get pressed on it.

Do you disagree that this shapes U.S. thinking and strategy?
 
brihard said:
You don’t have a lot to say for someone who’s clearly got something to say. If you laugh at my post you can reasonably expect to get pressed on it.
Click to expand...

Don't get testy. No one is attacking you.

brihard said:
Do you disagree that this shapes U.S. thinking and strategy?
Click to expand...

Not at all. We actually agree on the glass-jaw issue.

That said, I don't think we're allowed to discuss what made me "LOL".
 
Halifax Tar said:
Don't get testy. No one is attacking you.



Not at all. We actually agree on the glass-jaw issue.

That said, I don't think we're allowed to discuss what made me "LOL".
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I’ll leave it as saying I don’t think Canadians are any more willing than anyone else to be subjugated, and that there would be a sufficient critical mass of resistance to make it costly. We definitely have all kinds of people with all kinds of skills, and, ironically, the reality is that bilateral trade would remain economically necessary even in an occupation scenario, meaning the border would likely remain quite porous. Canadians with a will to defend sovereignty would likely be able to get necessary stuff easily enough. Those to the south who talk flippantly about an invasion of Canada - and unfortunately there are quite a few of them - haven’t thought past the first 72 hours. Seems like a common blind spot of theirs in their geopoliticking of late.
 
brihard said:
Fair enough.

I’ll leave it as saying I don’t think Canadians are any more willing than anyone else to be subjugated, and that there would be a sufficient critical mass of resistance to make it costly. We definitely have all kinds of people with all kinds of skills, and, ironically, the reality is that bilateral trade would remain economically necessary even in an occupation scenario, meaning the border would likely remain quite porous. Canadians with a will to defend sovereignty would likely be able to get necessary stuff easily enough. Those to the south who talk flippantly about an invasion of Canada - and unfortunately there are quite a few of them - haven’t thought past the first 72 hours. Seems like a common blind spot of theirs in their geopoliticking of late.
Click to expand...
Cough - "A mere matter of marching" - cough
 
Halifax Tar said:
An invasion of Canada would be much like invading Russia, I suspect.

Our biggest weapons in defence are geography and weather.I
Click to expand...
I have more:

It'll be a 3 day military operation;
We bombed the hell out of them and they're crying to talk to us;
We'll be home by Christmas;
etc, etc
 
Halifax Tar said:
An invasion of Canada would be much like invading Russia, I suspect.

Our biggest weapons in defence are geography and weather.
Click to expand...
And the fact that most of us can quite easily 'walk among them' without them even being aware of it. Never under estimate the value of that.
 
FSTO said:
I have more:

It'll be a 3 day military operation;
We bombed the hell out of them and they're crying to talk to us;
We'll be home by Christmas;
etc, etc
Click to expand...

I actually have this book:

Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of U S Military Preparations: Rudmin, Floyd W.: 9780921842095: Books - Amazon.ca

Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of U S Military Preparations: Rudmin, Floyd W.: 9780921842095: Books - Amazon.ca
www.amazon.ca

Interesting read.

I also think you like some works by this gentleman:

Harry Turtledove bibliography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top