- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
) 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 
