7 ms·

Just a heads-up, the US is 0-2 for invading Canada...there were failed incursions during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. In the bizarro-event o

Just a heads-up, the US is 0-2 for invading Canada...there were failed incursions during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. In the bizarro-event of an invasion, Canada could just go scorched-Earth and dump nuclear waste into the Great Lakes and obliterate the habitability of the northeast. Or just create a Chernobyl-like disaster at a nuclear plant to coincide with weather patterns blowing southward. If the US retaliated with nuclear weapons, it would just blanket itself with more fallout. Protip: a nuclear neighbor is not a good invasion target.

douche 10y ago
Bringing up events effectively prior to the founding of the standing US Army is not a particularly effective point. If you thought Operation Desert Storm was quick, don't even think how fast the USAF could dismantle a smaller military when operating from their own home bases.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Given that Canada is mostly barren, air power isn't that useful. If you'd like to bomb Nunavut, go nuts.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    US population centers on the coasts and plenty of military/air force bases are well within reach of most major Canadian population centers and throw in a blockade at sea it would be a very assymetric war. This isn't the early 19th century. But what's the point? The US doesn't need tundra and tarsands... or a French Canadian resistance. It would also probably through the UK into play in a really awkward position.
Zardoz84 10y ago
Stupid game. The only movement to win it, is not play it.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  How about a nice game of chess, Joshua?
dogma1138 10y ago
I doubt that Canada would dump nuclear waste or go into a scorched-Earth, this isn't North Korea. Any normal country would surrender in order to prevent further casualties and likely a complete destruction of its civilian infrastructure. The most dangerous thing one can do is force the enemy to a position in which they cannot surrender, one of the main reasons the US did not want to invade Japan is that it knew that an invasion regardless of how devastating it was would make surrender impossible, for this same reason it did not nuke Tokyo, this is also why you do not usually go after the government during a war you need some one to be able to surrender or negotiate a truce. P.S. Dumping nuclear waste is effectively worse than getting nuked, Canada is probably better off with getting every major city nuked than dumping nuclear waste anywhere. Nuclear weapons, especially modern ones are not as "dirty" as people think, yes there will be some lasting effects due to fallout and radiation but it's not that bad, most of the isotopes created by a nuclear bomb are pretty unstable and decay fairly quickly which is bad because it releases a lot more secondary radiation but it's not as bad as dumping nuclear waste which will not decay for millenniums to come.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Well to be precise, the earth I am talking about scorching would include the Northeast US as well, which relies on the Great Lakes even more than Canada. The Northeast US also buys a lot of power from Canada, so you'll be drinking radioactive water in the dark while the fallout drifts over. Having fun yet? Oh by the way since the lights are out, you might have to deal with riots in cities like Baltimore...lots of Americans in the 99% who will use unrest to their advantage Anywho, this is all sci-fi...most of Canada is barren and not worth invading. It's not clear what invading it would even get you.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Oh good grief. If the US invaded Canada the war would be over before the Canadians had a chance to notice there was a war.
    - acveilleux 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
PerfectDlite 10y ago
> Protip: a nuclear neighbor is not a good invasion target. Tell that to Russia - they've invaded Ukraine recently.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway_xx9 10y ago
The capital of Canada, Ottawa, was chosen because it was too far North to invade in the 1800's. And Parliament is built on a cliff. :)

douche 10y ago

Bringing up events effectively prior to the founding of the standing US Army is not a particularly effective point. If you thought Operation Desert Storm was quick, don't even think how fast the USAF could dismantle a smaller military when operating from their own home bases.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Given that Canada is mostly barren, air power isn't that useful. If you'd like to bomb Nunavut, go nuts.
- akiselev 10y ago
  US population centers on the coasts and plenty of military/air force bases are well within reach of most major Canadian population centers and throw in a blockade at sea it would be a very assymetric war. This isn't the early 19th century. But what's the point? The US doesn't need tundra and tarsands... or a French Canadian resistance. It would also probably through the UK into play in a really awkward position.

Zardoz84 10y ago

Stupid game. The only movement to win it, is not play it.

selimthegrim 10y ago
How about a nice game of chess, Joshua?

dogma1138 10y ago

I doubt that Canada would dump nuclear waste or go into a scorched-Earth, this isn't North Korea. Any normal country would surrender in order to prevent further casualties and likely a complete destruction of its civilian infrastructure. The most dangerous thing one can do is force the enemy to a position in which they cannot surrender, one of the main reasons the US did not want to invade Japan is that it knew that an invasion regardless of how devastating it was would make surrender impossible, for this same reason it did not nuke Tokyo, this is also why you do not usually go after the government during a war you need some one to be able to surrender or negotiate a truce. P.S. Dumping nuclear waste is effectively worse than getting nuked, Canada is probably better off with getting every major city nuked than dumping nuclear waste anywhere. Nuclear weapons, especially modern ones are not as "dirty" as people think, yes there will be some lasting effects due to fallout and radiation but it's not that bad, most of the isotopes created by a nuclear bomb are pretty unstable and decay fairly quickly which is bad because it releases a lot more secondary radiation but it's not as bad as dumping nuclear waste which will not decay for millenniums to come.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Well to be precise, the earth I am talking about scorching would include the Northeast US as well, which relies on the Great Lakes even more than Canada. The Northeast US also buys a lot of power from Canada, so you'll be drinking radioactive water in the dark while the fallout drifts over. Having fun yet? Oh by the way since the lights are out, you might have to deal with riots in cities like Baltimore...lots of Americans in the 99% who will use unrest to their advantage Anywho, this is all sci-fi...most of Canada is barren and not worth invading. It's not clear what invading it would even get you.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Oh good grief. If the US invaded Canada the war would be over before the Canadians had a chance to notice there was a war.
  - acveilleux 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

PerfectDlite 10y ago

> Protip: a nuclear neighbor is not a good invasion target. Tell that to Russia - they've invaded Ukraine recently.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

throwaway_xx9 10y ago

The capital of Canada, Ottawa, was chosen because it was too far North to invade in the 1800's. And Parliament is built on a cliff. :)