Could the U.S. defeat Canada in a war?

[Massacure]

I'm having this wierd arguement on if the U.S. is strong enough to beat Canada or not. My arguement is that canada is 10 times bigger than Iraq, and that we have the best snipers in the world, plus javelin missiles. This is compared to Iraqis who just have AK-47s and RPGs. I also noted the U.N. and NATO would defend Canada. Canada ranks 17th in military spending BTW.

Could Canada fend off America long enough for the U.N. and NATO to intervene?

[unblock]

1. we would never attack. we would engineer a coup and annex.

you just don't understand our methods.

[mmonk]

2. Intervention would be immediate

most likely.

[lenidog]

40. The problem is that NATO

usually has always depended on and planned to use the US's air and see lifting power to get anywhere they have almost no power projection outside of Britain and France.

[mmonk]

63. Intervention could take many shapes in action

[Placebo]

3. HAHAHA!

Puny canada, with 90% of your population located within 100 miles of the US border, I think it would be a relatively miniscule task for us to take over your speck of a nation.

And oh yea, the US can defeat any nation in a war, it's what happens after the war that's the hard part.

[JohnKleeb]

9. I doubt we could defeat the Chinese or Russians

[Placebo]

13. Bullshit, we so could...

it just gets tricky once you have to deal with these pesky little "rules" like not launching a nuclear missile their way, or trying to kill as few civilians as possible.

[JohnKleeb]

15. ahh

Russia and China are huge countries and those people are tough.

[Placebo]

16. We would still win.

End of story. :)

[JohnKleeb]

21. we would lose a lot of people

[Placebo]

24. And?

War is tough. We would still win, massive casualities or not.

[JohnKleeb]

30. I really doubt it

I cant really explain why I don't think we would win but you have to take in to account the weather. I dunno, you also have to take in to the account the will of the people of those countries.

[datasuspect]

79. not in the event of nuclear war

russia and china have nukes.

some strategic emp detonations in the troposhere would make enough electronics systems go haywire (banking, stock exchanges, credit bureaus, control modules in cars built after 1980, and radiologic contamination of the food supply, water table, resevoirs, communications systems, and other calamities) to thrust us back into the middle ages.

the military would probably have enough shielded installations to protect data, command, control, and communications, but the majority of people who live would not have an easy go of it.

a limited nuclear attack would only be more interesting because of the large number of people who wouldn't die - this population would still have to deal with the breakdown of civilization.

[Goathead]

110. I gotta go with Kleeb on this one

No way we could defeat the Chinese or the Russians and not fall victim to MAD.

[JohnKleeb]

113. whats MAD? pardon my ignorance

Not only would we have trouble with their military IMO but the weather would be tough too and resistance too.

[realisticphish]

129. mutually assured destruction

it means that both countries have enough nukes to destroy each other, so in theory they wont attack the other


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[pres2032]

19. perhaps, but...

we'd lose our entire male population and half the females in the ground war and the rest would die in the nuclear holocost to follow

[DrWeird]

32. Are you serious?

Ignoring the fact that you just suggested we could win a nuclear war with Russia.

Are you seriously suggesting we could win a land war invasion of Russia?

[Placebo]

We've had plans to do it successfully...

for decades!

[DrWeird]

Funny, so did Hitler and Napoleon.

That's the funny thing about plans.

[Placebo]

55. And you're defending Russia...

but bashing the US instead comparing us to Hitler and Napoleon? Puh-leez.

[DrWeird]

57. Surely you're joking.

Your post is a parody of a Freeper. Right?

[Placebo]

61. I'm sorry, but as bad as the US is...

and as fucked up as we indeed are, I would never compare us to Hitler or Napoleon. If you hate America so much why are you on this board? We're trying to help America here, not hate it. :eyes:

[DrWeird]

66. Ah, Napoleon. History's greatest monster.

I mean here we were, discussing a land invasion of Russia, and I have to bring up Hitler and Napoleon. What on Earth was I thinking? :eyes:

But seriously? How old are you? What grade are you in?

[JohnKleeb]

70. its a valid comparsion doc

honest, the two mistakes Hitler and Napoleon made when invading it were one underestimating the will of the Russian people and two underestimating the weather.

[DrWeird]

77. Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

nt

[JohnKleeb]

86. Yeah

I dont know what he thought you meant, I obviously got what you meant, when disussing invaidng large countries such as Russia, one must always remember those two incidents.

[datasuspect]

80. hmmm

our strategic plan against russia was always MAD (mutual assured destruction).

[Spider Jerusalem]

159. No way in hell.

The Russians have superior air defence..they have better fighter planes and better air combat tactics, as the US sort-of learned recently in joint exercises that pitted USAF F-15's and -16's against Indian Air Force SU-30's (derivative of the SU-27 Flanker). The result of the exercise? The Americans got their collective arse kicked by Indian pilots flying Russian planes and employing Russian combat doctrine.

And as to the ground war, well, the sheer size of Russia, and the inhospitality of the climate in winter, makes winning a ground war next-to-impossible.

ANd the Russians have missile technology that comes close to rendering our navy obsolete. The Russian Sunburn missile is the most advanced anti-ship weapon in the world, specifically designed to penetrate the defences of the US Aegis shipboard anti-missile system.

The only way the US could "win" a war with Russia would be with massive nuclear strikes, and the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal means that would be suicidal.

And as to China, they could muster an army some 100-200 million strong, should they need to, and they also have nuclear weapons (although their strategic arsenal isn't large).

I don't really see how the US could "win" a war with either.

[nickshepDEM]

106. If you assume

Nuclear weapons are out of the question we could easily beat Russia or China. Wars these days are won in the Air and at Sea. We could cripple both countries through strategic strikes from the Air and Sea. The US has the most powerful Sea and Air arsenals in the world. On the other hand we would never be able to invade and occupy either country, IMO.

[datasuspect]

115. the u.s. has air supremacy

over the middle east and naval/air superiority in the persian gulf.

what happened to iraq?

i forgot, "mission accomplished."

in terms of conventional warfare we could possibly beat russia, but definitely not china and definitely not both if they decided to gang up on us.

[nickshepDEM]

137. I dont like to talk like this because

I didnt support the War in Iraq but.... Technically the original "Mission" has been "Accomplished". The Regime has been dismantled and removed. If Bush wanted to be a real **** he could just up and leave.

Ill link you to another message board that proves the USA's, Air and Sea domination. This guy does a very accurate inventory of the top Navy's in the world. He sets it up into Tiers and the only navy in Tier 1... You guessed it, the USA.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=3482

[datasuspect]

143. yep

the mission is accomplished, just have that pesky civil war and near breakdown of the society that comes with destroying a country.

bush wouldn't leave because it isn't in his family's, cronies', or corporate america's best interests.

you almost make it seem like we are there for a humanitarian mission or like we are doing some good.

it's a bloodbath over there right now.

[nickshepDEM]

146. Oh trust me I know...

I graduated 3 years ago and I have 5 of my closest friends in the Military. None of which are over the age of 20. Luckily, Only one is in the Marines the rest have nice jobs in the navy and coast guard. But, not a day goes by that I dont pray for my friend Matt in the Marines. He is home right now but he told me he has another tour in March.

[chenGOD]

149. Err the original mission was not the removal of Hussein's Regime

It was WMD....

The original mission could never be completed though, cause there weren't any WMD...lol

[nickshepDEM]

151. I understand that WMD's was

the original message and I am not defending the Bush administration. But, since they have yet to find any WMD's they have used the excuse that the world is a better place without Saddam.

[chenGOD]

152. Yeah I know what you meant....

but I just thought I'd point it out for anyone who perhaps might not get that you were offering up the "official" explanation.

Cause as everyone knows WMD didn't matter either, this was strictly a land grab for forward middle east bases and control of the oil supply.

[nickshepDEM]

138. Also

I wont deny the fact the China is on the uprise and will rival the US as THE GLOBAL SUPERPOWER in the world within the next 15 - 20 years. But, right now we could probably crush china, militarly without a single troop setting foot on Chinese soil. (assuming no nuclear weapons are used.)

[Goathead]

142. No way...

The Chinese could mow us over with shear numbers. That is if they could get over here. Alaska would probably be the battlefield in a conflict between the U.S. and either Russia or China.

[datasuspect]

144. china has a larger merchant fleet

than the u.s. does. those ships could haul more than containerized freight.

[nickshepDEM]

147. China could never mobilize

any significant amount of troops and machinery. If they did it would be a suicide mission over the seas.

BTW we are talking about the same Chinese navy that does not have singal Air Craft Carrier, right?

[auntAgonist]

10. A Nation of people who are well represented here

on this board, very supportive of the Democrats in the USA too.

[MercutioATC]

4. Yeah, but you're easier logistically...

We just roll across the border disguised as moose...

Seriously, we're not good at person-to-person fighting. Give us a building and we can blow the hell out of it. Give us a town full of angry snipers, and we're hopeless....until we decide just to blow the hell out of it.

[tuvor]

5. Well, they probably couldn't nuke us

and expect to enjoy our water supply.

:shrug:

[LeighAnn]

6. Could we handle the teasing?

I remember in Bowling for Columbine where M.M. was talking to those Canadian teens about violence, and M.M. said something like, "Well how do you get back at people if you don't fight?" or something and the kids said, "We tease them".

I can't imaging the insurgency being as much a threat to the troops as we knew they would be in Iraq, but the Canadian Resistance is bound to be funny.

[Maple]

7. Cough, 1775. Cough 1776. Cough 1812

Cough 1866. Cough. 1870

Do we have to keep doing this?

[Pachamama]

8. The US would lose big time if they ever attacked Canada...

Sure, they might be able to send some Nukes over and their "Bunker Buster" Bombs, but for what purpose? To get the Canadians to surrender? The Canadians I know are some of the most wonderful people in the world, kind, generous and fun to be around and very open. But if the US did this, you better believe every Canuck in the land would fight the US (or any invader for that matter) to the end. And with the vastness of the size of Canada and the large parts of land outside of major population centers, the US military would be picked off one by one by snipers from all over Canada....it wouldn't be pretty....

[atreides1]

59. Not All Americans Would Support an Attack on Canada

Also, I'm sure that there are some here on this side of the border who wouldn't have any problems helping the Canadians. I know I wouldn't.

[KSAtheist]

156. The solution to this problem...

Kidnap Rush--the band, not the right-wing asshole.

Hold them hostage.

Stick a gun to their heads, and demand obedience, or else they'll be able to "test for echo" in Geddy Lee's skull.

[Renew Deal]

11. Army against Army the US can beat almost anyone.

And I don't think Canada would be a problem. Gorilla warfare is a problem for any army. It really needs to be fought the way it has always been fought. Kill 'em all, level the place type stuff. You just kill everyone.

[Maple]

18. Chinese army bigger than your entire

population.

And you have yet to subdue Iraq.

Or Afghanistan for that matter.

[Placebo]

22. Well what was Canada's last military success?

Please inform me, I don't keep up with their history. :D

[Maple]

27. After trashing you 5 times?

WWII.

You were late for that one, remember?

[Renew Deal]

29. huh

I don't remember. What are you talking about?

[Maple]

33. In 1775, 1776, 1812,1866 and 1870

the US invaded Canada...

Unsuccessfully I might add.

[DrWeird]

35. Americans like to forget about that.

We're not to bright.

[Renew Deal]

38. I must have forgotten those.

Anyway, you really think that Canada could hang with the US? The US would level the place.

[Maple]

46. Canada is bigger than the US

[Renew Deal]

64. Land mass, that's about it.

Canada is full of forests and glaciers. No one lives in large sections of the country.

Canada's citizens fit for service are 7,176,642

The US military manpower available is 79+ million.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

[DrWeird]

67. Hmm, forests and mountains.

Kind of like Vietnam. When you think about it.

[Renew Deal]

71. I thought about it.

Not sure what the point is, but at least I thought about it.

[jwirr]

118. Or like Russia

for the German's and French. I personally think this is the dumbest post I have ever read. We have a few blood thirsty dems here?

[JohnKleeb]

119. Russia has some big cities too

Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc, historically urban warfare has been hard for the US.

[Renew Deal]

127. It's hard for anyone.

I don't remember the exact passages from the Art of War. The book was written in the last 2500 years, depending on who you ask. Even Sun Tzu said don't occupy and fight in foreign cities. It has always been a mistake. It's amazing how his writings are still relevant.

Edit: Here is one part. "And when victory is won, Sun stresses that it should be complete, to avoid the expense of maintaining an occupation force."

We fucked that part up bigtime.

http://www.bestjudo.com/brartofwarcleary.shtml

[Maple]

73. That's all it takes

You have yet to manage tiny Iraq.

[Renew Deal]

82. What has Canada ever managed?

They can't even wipe their asses without our help. The problem in Iraq is a Bush/political problem. If we were willing to do the right things from the start, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

[Maple]

89. Well we have a peaceful civilized society

with well run, fair elections, and are multicultural with public health care and advanced technology.

You?

[DrWeird]

91. LOL.

nt

[Renew Deal]

95. Hey, you got me on that one.

;)

[JohnKleeb]

98. don't forget that you helped rescue some of our hostages

[datasuspect]

90. dunno

they seem to provide the west coast with hydroelectric power.

nafta pretty much ensures that we get their greatest national resource though: WATER.

[tuvor]

132. Wasn't someone else just mentioning 5 wars that we beat you in?

I only know about the War of 1812. But, hey, you did ask.

[Placebo]

31. Parading on your past glories.

Fought us lately?

WWII, umm, who's blood won that one? That's what I thought.

[DrWeird]

34. The Soviets.

Whom you, rather hysterically, said we could beat.

[datasuspect]

94. god bless those commie reds

a lot more of their boys died in wwII than all the allied powers combined.

talk about a fucking bloodbath.

i used to drink with former russian navy guys in chicago.

they were some pretty tough motherfuckers. they have an allegiance to vodka, good food, and collegial violence. great fun.

[Maple]

36. Well yours sure didn't

The Russians took out the Germans, everybody else pitched in...the US showed up in time for mop-up.

On edit...oh wait, you defeated Grenada.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

49. Maybe you should study WWII history.

He's right. Nazi Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union. By June 6th, 1944 the German defeat was inevitable. The US just showed up to speed things up a little and to take as much terrority as they could before the Soviets got there.

How is being ignorant of history respectful?

[JohnKleeb]

54. yep the soviets are the ones who won WWII essentially

[Maple]

50. If you think you won WWII

I suggest you read history books printed elsewhere.

The Germans were defeated before the US got there.

[Renew Deal]

76. Who did the US fight in France?

Are you intentionally lying?

[DrWeird]

81. Old men and boys.

The US fought what little Germany had left. If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia there's little doubt he could have driven the Americans, Canadians, and British back into the sea.

[Renew Deal]

84. Oh, OK. I get it now.

:eyes:

[Maple]

83. Leftovers

[Renew Deal]

85. Jokers

[DrWeird]

92. Denial's not just a river in Egypt.

nt

[Renew Deal]

99. I understand that you hate the US.

But you should at least be honest.

[DrWeird]

101. No, I don't hate the US. I just like truth and honesty.

It's the American way.

[Renew Deal]

104. No you don't.

You've knowingly lied and misled to make your point throughout this thread. We weren't fighting "old men and boys" in France. That's just dishonest.

[JohnKleeb]

105. I disagree and agree with some of the points by people in this thread

ABout the guys we fought in France, some were old men and boys but many were hardened vets of the Eastern Front.

[DrWeird]

108. But its true.

What we fought in France were leftovers from the Eastern Front. Germany was already defeated by the time the first American, Canadian, and British foot set ashore at Normandy.

Like I said, denial's not just a river in Egypt. I suggest you do some research on WWII, because there's obviously a lot you don't know. And turn off the History Channel, for crying out loud.

[Renew Deal]

112. Feel free to prove what you're saying.

We were helping the British in Britain from 1943. We were engaged with the Germans in the Atlantic. We were fighting the Germans in Africa from 1942. Where's your research?

[TX-RAT]

154. We were fighting the Germans in Africa from 1942.

I'd ask Patton and Montgomery, if they thought Rommel's tank crews were old men and young boys.

[jwirr]

122. Please stop!

Go read history. There is no respectable history teacher here in the US who would try to argue your high school line of thought. Most of us were sold that line in high school but anyone who has either read further or had further education knows the difference. HISTORY MAJOR - CONCORDIA TEACHER'S COLLEGE GRAD.

[Renew Deal]

124. You're the professor

Teach

[Swede]

139. You must be going into 8th grade,I take it.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/chapter12.aspx

There can be no doubt of the numerical superiority enjoyed by the western allies in terms of equipment. On D-Day alone, for example, the U.S. army landed six tank battalions and a battalion of tank destroyers; on the same day, the British placed on French soil 900 tanks and other armored vehicles. Within striking distance of the beachhead on that day were only four battalions of German tanks capable of successfully engaging the Allied mobile forces.(176)

Deprived of formidable defensive positions, German units of 1944 and 1945 were generally inferior to their American counterparts. German soldiers were not only less numerous, they were also less physically fit, less experienced as marksmen, less thoroughly trained, less well equipped, less well supported, and less able to make a combination of arms work for them. German counterattacks often proved suicidal; the best the Germans could hope for from the mobile battlefield was to escape from it with enough strength to man yet another line of prepared defenses

[Renew Deal]

141. And that proves what?

That we were fighting old men and boys? We planned better and had better resources. What's the problem with that? I guess I am helping you graduate 9th?

[Renew Deal]

56. The Russians

as well as everyone else weren't going anywhere until the US showed up. Non axis Europeans and Africans were losing ground. Then the US showed up and helped turn it around. The US with help took back Normandy and then the rest of Europe. The US with the British were able to fight back in Africa. All of this was happening while the US was fighting Japan. No one else had that kind of strength and no one country does now.

[DrWeird]

62. Good lord that's an ignorant post.

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront2/1efrnt4344.htm

[Renew Deal]

68. You obviously know ignorant.

Did you notice that the front lines were IN RUSSIA until 1944. Germany was shifting troops to fight in the west and started to take a beating in the east.

[DrWeird]

74. Umm, yes, that's because Germany invaded Russia.

And that's where the back of the German Army was broken.

[Maple]

65. The German 6th army

surrendered to Russia in 1943. This defeat broke the back of the German military.

The rest of it was mop-up.

[JohnKleeb]

72. that defeat put the Germans on the retreat

[datasuspect]

97. as documented in the clint eastwood tour de force

Heartbreak Ridge

[Renew Deal]

23. We have a more substantial navy.

We also have lots of killing machines. Especially cluster bombs. We can carve them up with daisy cutters. Our tanks are solid and our soldiers are very well trained. We would need to expand the size of our military, but we have the weapons to kill a lot of people.

[DrWeird]

39. The Chinese could take out our Navy.

Several times over.

[Renew Deal]

41. With what exactly?

[DrWeird]

43. Antiship missles.

nt

[Renew Deal]

44. Yeah right

And you don't think we would counter that?

[DrWeird]

52. With what? The Phalanx system?

Probably not fast enough for the Sunburn missle.

Patriot missles? LOL.

The US is having troubles with guerrilla fighters with RPGs and AKs. There's no way they'd be able to invade China.

[Renew Deal]

93. I don't know why you think the US wouldn't protect itself/attack?

You think they would allow that sort of thing? The US has 12 naval battle groups IIRC. I'm not sure what China has, but probably not as much. The US has more major weapons and more airplanes. It would be ugly, but what has worked for the US the last 70 years would help now. That's airpower. The US can drop a bomb through a window. It would be much harder if the US tried to invade China, but we have an advantage in sea and air.

[Marxdem]

111. We are having trouble killing guerrillas and not killing civ's

If the civilians aren't an issue with the U.S Military, we would kill just about every country on the planet combined.

Hey, with Bush in the white house you never know.

[Renew Deal]

28. One more thing

the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq is largely a Bush problem. He wasn't willing to do what it took to win clearly in both places.

[leftyandproud]

145. You really think the number of PEOPLE matter?

They don't mean jack...It's all about the technology and weapons, and USA is ahread of every other country in the world combined on both fronts. $450 billion a year.

[NewJeffCT]

148. the Chinese army ain't that big

It's definitely bigger than the US army, but it's not 300 million strong, or even 10% of that.

[mrbassman03]

58. Yeah, I hate fighting those gorillas...

:)

[Poppyseedman]

12. Is that even a valid question?

If I am not mistaken the entire Canadian military consist of around 60,000 soldiers.

[lenidog]

48. As of 2002

The last year I have info for the Canadian army consisted of 20,900 men and women with only 9,000 of them being combat arms. The entire Canadian army has fewer tanks than one US army armored division.

[Minstrel Boy]

75. As of 2004

The US is still fighting and dying in Iraq, and not against a conventional army.

Canada's territory is huge. And there are more of us than there are of Iraqis.

[Renew Deal]

120. That's barely true.

There are about 1million more military available canadians, but all Iraqi men were militarily trained. Is Canada's military volunteer or mandatory?

[tuvor]

135. And, according to Michael Moore...

...more firearms per capita than the USA.

Just thinking about those Iraqi "insurgents". Otherwise known as citizens who won't put up with foreign occupation.

[Maple]

14. The US hasn't managed it yet

and never will.

Lot of American bravado on here though.

[auntAgonist]

20. You noticed that too eh Maple? ..

[Maple]

45. I thought I was on Free Republic for a few minutes there

Sure sounds the same eh?

[GRLMGC]

69. Yes n/t

[auntAgonist]

96. I was thinking the same. Perish the thought.

a quick funny story,..
my son was 4 1/2 at the time, we were driving from Elmira Ontario to Niagara Falls NY to see Christmas lights, we were talking, his dad and I about the Cdn and USA having the LONGEST , BIGGEST unprotected "border" in the world. My 4.5 year old piped up from the back seat of the car and said , "mommy, how BIG IS HE? " .. hehe .. (boarder)

[Renew Deal]

116. There is a difference between what the US can do and what it has done.

Do you acknowledge that Bush has fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan? I do. I think we would have been better off with 150,000 troops in Afghanistan and 500,000 in Iraq. That's what the generals wanted. But Bush wanted his aircraft carrier photo, so we put 10,000 in Afghanistan and 150,000 in Iraq.

[glarius]

17. I'm sorry but this thread gives me the chills

Don't want to be a party pooper but I hate this kind of talk...:scared:

[President Kerry]

47. don't worry, we'd have Civil War here before

that could ever happen.. people are just talking out of their a$$

[auntAgonist]

25. Why would you

even have that discussion?

[Minstrel Boy]

26. "Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of US Military Preparations against

Canada"

Interesting and persuasive book by Floyd Rudmin, published 10 years ago.

From an address by the author:


The research in Bordering on Aggression was conducted, part-time, in publicly available libraries and archives. Almost 600 footnotes identify sources of information in U.S. military journals, U.S. and Canadian newspapers on microfilm, the Congressional Record, history texts, and personal letters. Les Aspin, now U.S. Secretary of Defense, read an early draft of this research and called it "a masterful piece of research," but nevertheless argued that Fort Drum does not threaten Canada because the U.S. could invade Canada with or without the assault troops located there.

In 1984, Fort Drum housed only an engineering battalion, but now it commands a rapid assault light division and a reserve armored division-for a total of 30,000 troops. The expansion of Fort Drum was the largest Army construction project ever undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers. It was given unprecedented advanced budget authorization, even though the U.S. had surplus military bases at the time.

...

Capability, or rather incapability, also weighs against accepting the official line for these new forces. They do not have the sustained firepower to fight guerrilla warfare. They do not have an airfield capable of handling intercontinental transport planes and thus they cannot get the entire division overseas in four days, as Congress was told they could do. Even if there were an adequate airfield at Fort Drum, the Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the base's chronic had weather would hamper deployment. Thus rapid deployment to Third World insurgency seemed to be a no-go from the start, and the Army knew it.

However, the division's helicopters and light vehicles could easily bring the forces into eastern Ontario or southern Quebec. Furthermore, the 50th Armored Division is now headquartered at Fort Drum. Though a reserve unit, which would require a day or more to activate, the heavy equipment and the integrated command are ready and in place at Fort Drum. Although Fort Drum is overcrowded, there are plans to bring in a mechanized infantry brigade and to create a centre for urban warfare training.

This brings us to geography. Fort Drum has fierce winter weather that would make rapid deployment to Third World conflicts-the official mission-unrealistic if not impossible. The average snowfall there is 10 feet and a nearby village holds the New York State record of 40 feet. The Army Corps of Engineers classified the base as an Arctic weather training site. A 1978 environmental assessment of U.S. military bases by the Army Corps of Engineers concluded that Fort Drum has the worst weather in the eastern United States.
http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v09n2p20.htm

Canadian poet Milton Acorn anticipated the next US invasion, writing 30 years ago in an essay titled "What are the Odds?" (That is, what are the odds of Canadians defeating US forces in a guerilla war.)

I'll transcribing a bit here from his collection "More Poems for People":

The first attempt of the United States to become an imperialist power was stopped in its tracks by the supposedly inefficient Canadian yokels. In the War of 1812-14, the American armed forces along outnumbered the whole Canadian nation. The British had little to do with our successful defense. They were fully occupied with Napoleon in Europe.

...

Unlike the movement against the Vietnam War, which took years to gather steam, an Anti-Imperialist movement inspired by a war against Canada could spring up in weeks. It would spring up as soon as Canadians showed themselves able and willing to defend themselves.

...

We stand a chance, a chance amounting to a certainty... I'm not guaranteeing that the war would be short. I'm not predicting it'd be long. It could possibly be a series of short wars punctuated by and ended by revolutionary uprisings in the Heartland of Imperialism.



The folk song "Secord's Warning," about a famous act of Canadian heroism in the War of 1812:

Come all you brave young soldier lads
With your strong and manly bearing
I'll tell you a tale of a woman bold and her deed of honest daring
Laura Secord was American-born in the state of Massachusets
But she made her home in Canada and proved so faithful to us

There's American guns and 500 men
So the warning must be given
And Laura Ingersoll Secord was the stalwart heart
Who braved the heat and the flies and the swamp
To warn Colonel Fitzgibbon

There's soldiers pounding at the door
And they come from across the border
American officers march inside
It's food and drink they've ordered
In comfort they have dined and drunk
Their own success they've toasted
But they pay no heed to the woman who hears their plan so idly boasted

Oh, James I've overheard it all
A surprise attack they're making
Fitzgibbon they intend to smash
His men for prisoners taking
And James a warning never you'll take with your wounded knee and shoulder
I myself must carry it past the sentries and the soldiers

It's an all-day tramp to the British camp
By way of Shipman's Corners
There're snakes and flies and sweat in her eyes
There is no respite for her
She's lost her shoes in the muck of the bog
Her feet are torn and blistered
But there's many a soldier lad to be spared if the message be delivered

So all you Yankee soldier lads who dare to cross our border
Thinking to save us from ourselves
Usurping British order
There's women and men Canadians all
Of every rank and station
To stand on guard and keep us free
From Yankee domination!

[Skink]

37. The question is which side would you fight for

If we preemptively invaded for no reason that could be a tough one.

[Minstrel Boy]

53. well, speaking as a Canadian,

I hereby declare I would insurge America's motherf*cking ass.

[realisticphish]

130. speaking as an american

id insurge our asses too :)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. I suspect the 1984 buildup was Reagan paranoia about the

potential breakup of Canada, if Quebec seceeded from the nation. American forces would have swept in to save it from itself, rather than have a fragmented Canada vulnerable to the soviets.

Obviously, it never happened, but I'm sure there were any number of neo-imperialists getting all hard at the thought.

[ComerPerro]

51. If you use Bush's definition of "winning", then hell fucking yes

We would kick Canada's ass.

We would attack, the UK would get very pissed off, the EU, the UN, and NATO would all come out against us, thousands and thousands of people would die, and eventually we would have an all out nuclear war.

But the Carlyle Group and Haliburton would make millions.

So, according to Bush and the Republicans, that is a win.

[AngryAmish]

60. Easy. Nuke eastern population centers.

Annex western oil fields (Alberta wants to join us anyway.)

Vancouver gets blockaded by sea and from the east. Starve them out.

Just leave me my fishing lakes and I'm cool.

[Maple]

78. Gee, all that radiation

pouring down all over the US.

Clever strategy.

[GRLMGC]

88. Exactly n/t

[Renew Deal]

102. You don't need to nuke anyone.

The US has a problem with really fighting dirty. You want to solve the insurgent problem in Falujah? Blow the place to bits. Kill them all. I don't think we are willing to face the global uprising.

[DrWeird]

103. Yes, they said the same thing about Vietnam.

We lost that one too.

[Renew Deal]

107. There were more military/political mistakes there.

Of course, it's easy to say that looking back 30+ years. We didn't need to nuke anyone. I can't imagine you advocating dropping nukes on anyone in these times (without provocation).

[Minstrel Boy]

114. "The US has a problem with really fighting dirty"

100,000 Iraqi souls beg to differ.

[Renew Deal]

117. It could be a lot worse.

Don't you think? We aren't carpet bombing Iraqi cities.

[Minstrel Boy]

123. "We aren't carpet bombing Iraqi cities."

You may as well say, at least we aren't using claymores and trebuchets.

You aren't carpet bombing Iraqi cities because it is inefficient, not because the Pentagon has a heart as big as all outdoors.

[Renew Deal]

125. I don't think they have a heart

But they aren't doing it because there would be an global uprising. I don't think we care about the Iraqi people otherwise.

[chenGOD]

150. Trust me, there are many Albertans who would fight American forces tooth

and nail. Speaking as a native Albertan, who is still in touch with many of his native Albertan friends.

[Valerie5555]

100. I am sure the US could probably kick our Canadian asses eh but you never

know, we may do a Skittles and kick your ass big time. :D


On edit If revenge is a lemonade drink best served SOUR, I bet we'd have the satisfaction of Bush puckering up at the sour lemonade drink of at least there being 29 MILLION more DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

[Maple]

109. Hilarious thread !

I enjoyed it. Thanks for the fun.

PS. Let us know when those White House window sills stop smouldering. ;)

[nickshepDEM]

128. USA vs Canda....is like....

Muhammad Ali vs Gary Coleman....

And Im not just saying this as an American. On the other hand, I think it would be very hard and almost impossible to occupy to Canada.

For any of you guys/gals who are interested in this type of Military talk I have a great website and Ill link you striaght to the thread on the 10 ten Super Powers in the world. Its a pretty good message board for military discussions. Alot of the guys there are retired military from all different countries and for the most part the rest of them really know their stuff. I mean they got inventory on every ship and missle of every military in the world (j/k but you get the point). *WARNING* Not to many democrats over there.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=3726

[Downtown Hound]

121. The U.S. military

would smash the Canadian in a matter of weeks. After that, the Canadians would wage such a fierce guerrilla war that Vietnam would look like Grenada. They have the terrain, the technology, and the will to do so. Imagine trying to fight modern guerrillas in a land composed of forest and mountains, and with winters that make ours look like a summer day in Hawaii.

But they bombed the Baldwin brothers dammit! I say, take 'em out!

[realisticphish]

133. and the arquettes

:)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[nine23]

126. What a stupid, dumbass, FReeper-like question to be posing DU.

As a Canadian, I like to think I can come here to DU and avoid such juvenile shite. Apparently not. Is this poster really Tucker Carlson having some sort of late night wank on the qwerty after the wife put the kids to bed?

Get with the program, kids. Bush was re-elected for another four years. That's just over 1400 days. Suck it up. As stupid as this retard is, as fascist as the US has become, it's not as if the country has "lost it" to this extent. Focus on 2008.

RE: "Could Canada fend off America long enough for the U.N. and NATO to intervene?"

My answer? When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941, Canada declared war on Japan EXACTLY FIVE HOURS after the fact. I suspect this is how long it would take for the "free" world to respond MAX.

Now, if you'll excuse me, "Trailer Park Boys" is on.

[realisticphish]

131. The point everyone is missing

is that we are stricktly talking about a US invasion of Canada. They're not trying to invade here. So, in other words, we are talking about a well-entrenched, well-trained, modern army, not to mention a vast territory available for guerrilla warfare. The invasion would be long and bloody, and an occupation would be much longer and much bloodier


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[President Kerry]

134. interesting how many us americans harbor delusions

of US universal might and righteousness.. even on this f-ing SITE!!! never expected to see some of the shit that came out on this thread..

Enough of this FReeper crap!

[Lisa]

136. Canada has an enormous "fifth column" inside the US

There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians living and working in the US now (and vice versa). And because so many of us are able to blend into the US mainstream, it would be very difficult to ferret us "oot" (we don't all speak that way, you know!)

In all seriousness, a fight between our nations would be ghastly. If Canadians elected to take up arms rather than mount massive acts of civil disobedience (I know people who lived in occupied Europe during WWII, and the things they got up to -- urinating in the food being sent to the Nazi troops, etc.) ... things would get very nasty.

Reading accounts of what it was like the last time our countries were in large-scale military actions (check out Pierre Berton's work on the War of 1812, and Jimmy Carter's Revolutionary War novel) -- these were actually civil wars, with family members pitted against each other. There are millions of families that would be torn apart.

In his satirical film "Canadian Bacon", Michael Moore showed a rampaging mob bent on "national cleansing", gleefully hurling rocks at the cars of Canadians leaving the US. Mass relocations would be likely -- maybe even internment camps, and probably mass arrests, with people being pressured to carry out espionage and guerilla warfare on both sides.

Basically, this kind of conflict would destroy the national self-image of both nations. Both countries pride themselves on being idealistic and honourable, and doing the right thing. The realities of occupation and resistance warfare ... well, you don't have to look much farther than Israel and Palestine right now, to see what can happen, with the best of intentions.

Glarius said this is a terrible thing to contemplate, and I agree. I don't know which nation (or nations) would survive such a conflict and limp away, but I'm certain that I wouldn't want to live in either one, by that time -- the bitterness and horror would stain everyone.

May it never happen!



"...when I have been in Canada, I have never heard a Canadian refer to an American as a "foreigner." He is just an "American." And, in the same way, in the United States, Canadians are not "foreigners," they are "Canadians." That simple little distinction illustrates to me better than anything else the relationship between our two countries."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, during a visit to Quebec City, in the 1930s.

[Bombtrack]

140. In a hockey war? Yes. Conventional? No.

It's just dumb to throw in that the UN or NATO or other forces would join one side or the other, because that's a completely seperate argument. That argument is, could the US defeat NATO and "the UN".

[cmf]

153. I have very little to add, except

We were going through the Peace Arch border crossing this weekend, and we joked that if the US and Canada ever went to war, the Peace Arch would be the first thing the US would take out, for symbolic value of course. :D

[KSAtheist]

155. A strategy lesson.

Sad to say that Canada would last maybe a couple of days against the US wehrmacht. Then it's all over. The snipers and javelin nests would be chalked up to mopup duty. By the time NATO could intervene, the US would isolate all of the eastern canadian ports and landing zones. Hell, they don't even need to capture them; just wreck the ports, docks, and support mechanism.

The UN/NATO wouldn't actually defend, they would have to counterinvade. And the problem with the continental European armies is that most of their energies have been devoted to defense against the Soviets; very little in the way of troop transports. The Brits are a different matter, but they would mostly be a non-factor, since most of their Army is in Ee-rawk.

Now, gathering up the various disparate forces required for the invasion would take weeks...which would not go unnoticed. That would lead to further fortifications among the eastern seaboard, and increased US naval presence in the northern atlantic. You can guess what happens from there.

One thing needed for a successful invasion is air support. The USAAF spent the six months prior to D-Day eliminating the Luftwaffe just for effective air support. The US operates a giant fleet of aircraft carriers for this very purpose. The rest of NATO pretty much depends on this fleet, which is one of your problems right there. It's hard to invade when you have constant fighter-bomber overflights. Hell, the US could scramble bombers from any one of a number of ACC bases in the continental US, and it would be just a small hop.

But the main problem with a NATO counterinvasion is logistics. War isn't all just guns and bombs. It's about supply. Problems with supply greatly slowed the allied armies during 1944. The inability to keep their disparate holdings supplied is one of the things that ultimately killed the Japanese during WWII. Keeping an expeditionary force supplied over thousands of miles is a logistical nightmare...and that's without a dedicated submarine fleet engaging in wolfpack tactics against your merchant marine--as the US would most likely do. The likely counterinvasion would be running on empty in a couple of days.

[billyskank]

157. America would win the war but they would fuck up the aftermath

good and proper. Just like everywhere else Bush tries it.

[ArkDem]

158. The UN in a major operation without US forces.....

:wow: