you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (11 children)

They wouldn't lose immediately, they would have lost before they even attacked. Their own military personnel would likely refuse orders, sabotage the mission, desert, or surrender immediately. I'm sure there would be a few people willing to follow orders, but you can't run an invasion when 1/3rd of your own soldiers are actively attempting to prevent you succeeding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    This is far too positive an outlook.

    I bet way more people would follow orders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (6 children)

    I don't think you realize how many US military personnel have worked directly with Canadians regularly as part of their career, especially the ones in charge of everything. We are pretty much constantly running military training exercises and joint missions at this point.

    We've got a ship docked at your base in Hawaii right now. Pacific Rimguard 2026 just wrapped up in Asia with another one of our warships. There are hundreds of Canadian military personnel permanently stationed at NORAD. We spent 13 years in Afghanistan with the US.

    Even if only 10% were intentionally fucking up, it would still absolutely cripple the capabilities.

    Not to mention the complete lack of a useful target. What are they going to do to "capture" the country? Kidnap the prime minister? Our system doesn't actually have a problem handling that. You could hold our entire parliament hostage and you still wouldn't actually be able to get Canadians to do anything useful. What would the point be?

    Taking our the 10 military bases we have? We wouldn't even give a shit, they don't run or do anything that we need to function as a country.

    Afghanistan was a shit show, and the people were a different skin colour and spoke a different language, soldiers could at least somewhat talk themselves into keeping things "separate" mentally. However, do you think the average American soldier is going to be able to shoot people that looks like their own brother, sister, son, daughter, father, mother, etc. they left at home without immediately having a mental breakdown?

    We saw this kind of shit already happen between Russia and Ukraine, where lots of Russians just decided to surrender or do their least. It doesn't work well, even with a dictatorship willing to shoot you for disobeying. If the US military tried to punish or shoot soliders en masse for refusing to invade Canada you'd have riots in every single city in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago (2 children)

    I'm Canadian.

    I still think your way too positive, and using russia/Ukraine seems to me to be an argument against you (considering its still going)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (1 child)

    If you look at what Russia controls of Ukraine at this point, they're getting literally nothing from it. The Donestsk region of Ukraine has lost almost half it's population (about 3.5 million people have left) since the start of the war. The major cities don't have consistent water, heat, electricity, or even food supplies. Russia is getting nothing from "controlling" it.

    The war may still be going on, but the only reason is because the Russian military is literally willing to shoot people that try to refuse. If there was any allowance for a second government option, Putin would already be gone. The US may be slipping into autocracy, but Trump is not even close to that entrenched or powerful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    12 years since Crimea, still ongoing. I don't think anyone would consider Ukraine to have won right now. Even though I want it to be the case that we'd shut down us annexation, I don't think its realistic that it'd be quick or over before it started.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    We spent 13 years in Afghanistan with the US.

    Remember a few months ago when Trump publicly denied that reality?

    And remember large numbers of Americans believing that lie?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The soldiers who were there remember. What trump says may impact people who have no idea, but soldiers aren't just magically forgetting they spent months working with those people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    Nah, they would win the war almost immediately, there is no question. They could be in control of all our major urban centres within days.

    The problem for them is not the war, i's the occupation. The occupation they would start losing almost immediately as well. But it will take them a long and painful time. Any puppet they set up will be weak and in need of American arms. They would probably employ mercenaries and ICE-type goons. But "might is right" would be their only justification and every one of those found bleeding in some back alley will be one more step down the path to them losing and pulling out. Terrorism will become our national passtime and it won't be contained north of the border, and it will almost certainly spill over to become an American blue-vs-red civil conflict. They will lose, but we will all suffer for a long time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    What does "in control" mean in this case? How do you "control" a city?

    Being there with the military and not having an opposing force is one thing, they could do that. What benefit would they get out of such occupation though?

    There's usually one of 2 purposes to an invasion, capture the territory and make it part of your own for financial purposes, or to kill everyone (or a large portion) to free up space for your own people to take over.

    However, getting anything financial out of invading Canada is impossible realistically. They can't just come in and directly capture the tax dollars or something, none of that even exists physically at this point for a start, and any sort of force they use is just going to result in people refusing to pay taxes, the economy tanking, and them not getting anything anyways. They would have no way to enforce anything against such mass resistance.

    They already get most of the resources we produce, the Oil in Alberta almost entirely flows to them for example. If they invaded they can say goodbye to that, even the US military couldn't protect that much pipeline from terrorism.

    There's just no useful goal to invading Canada in the first place, so if they do it out of pure spite they're going to have to contend with their own population being absolutely livid about it. Like full riots in every US city livid. It will make the Palestine and BLM protests look like an episode of Mr. Dressup.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 23 hours ago

    Exactly, we're saying the same thing.

    Yes they can't be opposed, but once their tanks roll into Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, etc, and once they've installed Maple MAGA collaborators as premiers and prime ministers, then what.

  • source
  • parent