5 ms·

It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land

It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.

dylan604 2y ago
A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them. Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ExoticPearTree 2y ago
  And who in their right mind would come to defend Canada against the US if it comes to it? It would be suicide on any country's part, plain and simple.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Any country or group with a grievance. It would be open season. Lots of soft targets in the US that could give people pause in their support for Operation Canadian Bacon
  - throaway89 2y ago
    Who in their right mind would not? If im the leader of a European country, and I see the US go rogue and annex their closest neighbour and longest ally, thats a clear message that the US can not be trusted.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Sure, but in that case you might be more preoccupied with securing your own position rather than risking intervention on a continent you have no foothold in.
      - throaway89 2y ago
        Securing your own position is contingent on having a proper deterrence to US invasion or belligerence. Unless you are thinking of appeasing them, but I doubt that European defense minds would consider that.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        You realize most European armies have tons of US equipment right? They are barely able to hold back Russia, with US help. Now they're supposed to build up their domestic DIB, hold off Russia, and fight a war on unfamiliar territory? I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
        throaway89 2y ago
        I do realize that. The war in Ukraine is not being supported by Nato. They are sending supplies but the alliance is not entering Ukraine against Russia so as to not create a wider conflict. Note that Ukraine is not a NATO signatory while Canada is. In the case of the US annexing Canada,the strategic analysis would give two options. Either immediately oppose US aggression and form a bloc independent of them, or tacitly approve of it and leave yourself open to the same thing happening to you and your neighbours.
        ExoticPearTree 2y ago
        Sending munitions/equipment to one side means that you support that side ;) I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics you make when you say NATO doesn't support the war in Ukraine, but it actually does - with the NATO SG going to Ukraine in a show of support. AFAIK, there is no precedent to what will happen if a NATO country attacks another NATO country - we came close to that when the Turks and the Greeks almost started fighting a few years back.
  - Lio 2y ago
    The King of Canada would probably want to defend his people regardless of the cost. The British Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to the King not the British government. If he says go, they go. It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh). This conversation is so stupid though.
    - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      > It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh) As I initially asked: would you be willing to end your own country just because you feel like you need to defend another country on another continent against an adversary you have no chance of beating?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Lio 2y ago
        Me personally? Doesn't matter what I'd do. I'm just some gobshite on the internet. In this hypothetical situation the opinions that matter are those of the men in the subs that have just seen their family and friends wiped out. They've got roughly 120 active warheads to play with and realistically no one is going to stop them all. So if you add up the damage from that plus the loss of a major trading partner and military ally it kind of seems unlikely to be a profitable venture for anyone involved.
        ExoticPearTree 2y ago
        Yes, it's the internet and we can discuss of a lot of outcomes if Trump decides Canada is too big for the Canadians to have all for themselves. I think it would be a bigger loss for the UK to do something stupid than for the US do to something stupid. I guess we have to see how it plays out with Greenland - most likely scenario would be he'd go after Greenland first if it ever comes to that.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    Well... if we're living in a imaginary/video game world where US invades Canada it wouldn't be too far fetched to expect Britain and France to intervene? I mean which is more absurd?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      At that point, Mexico could run up the middle and take back what was taken from it. That would be chef's kiss response to Trump
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Kuwait is nowhere near comparable. Btw that coalition of countries... Who led it?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    If the rest of the world refused to trade with the US over this, the US would have a helluva time and struggle. No bullets need to be expended. Why is this hard to comprehend?
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Russia is an even smaller economy than the US, and even then many countries continue to trade with them despite their aggression. Sanctions hurt everyone involved. If China stopped trading with the US, their economy would tank too. Furthermore, there are ways around sanctions. The US is much more self-sufficient than Russia. It is not hard to comprehend, but it is also not a surefire way to deter an invasion. And of course remember that not all actors on the stage will behave "rationally"... US leadership especially.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        If the US were in this position, any country that had sanctions that were only there at the urging from the US would be dropped. Even if they were not dropped, those that were sanctioned would immediately start ignoring them. Hell, most of Europe would probably immediately starting buying oil/gas from Russia.
    - 8note 2y ago
      if the world was going to cut trade with the US, it would have over the iraq invasion.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think there would be a military intervention, and if there were, I dont think it would be verry successful. NATO would be crippled without the US. That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.
themaninthedark 2y ago
They could invoke Article 5 of NATO; that would trigger Article 8;, expelling USA from NATO and requiring all remaining member to come to Canada's aid. >In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.
- dylan604 2y ago
  > expelling USA from NATO which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
- polishdude20 2y ago
  Would anyone really want to oppose America though?
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Words on a page don't put boots on the ground. The treaty would be invoked, US would be expelled (and sanctioned), and nobody would dare try to break the blockade. The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
  - mlekoszek 2y ago
    Even if they achieve it, the reputational damage would be hard to understate. I think anyone with a bone to pick with the States would happily and repeatedly point to us Canadians as an example of what happens when you trust Americans. And that would be enough to achieve a lot of their regional policy goals, if not much more. Mexico would probably seek other political partners to make sure they're not next.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
badc0ffee 2y ago
Come on. Canada grows, and is a major exporter of, food, and has all the infrastructure and fuel needed to process and distribute it. There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.

It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.

dylan604 2y ago

A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them. Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ExoticPearTree 2y ago
And who in their right mind would come to defend Canada against the US if it comes to it? It would be suicide on any country's part, plain and simple.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Any country or group with a grievance. It would be open season. Lots of soft targets in the US that could give people pause in their support for Operation Canadian Bacon
- throaway89 2y ago
  Who in their right mind would not? If im the leader of a European country, and I see the US go rogue and annex their closest neighbour and longest ally, thats a clear message that the US can not be trusted.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Sure, but in that case you might be more preoccupied with securing your own position rather than risking intervention on a continent you have no foothold in.
    - throaway89 2y ago
      Securing your own position is contingent on having a proper deterrence to US invasion or belligerence. Unless you are thinking of appeasing them, but I doubt that European defense minds would consider that.
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        You realize most European armies have tons of US equipment right? They are barely able to hold back Russia, with US help. Now they're supposed to build up their domestic DIB, hold off Russia, and fight a war on unfamiliar territory? I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
        throaway89 2y ago
        I do realize that. The war in Ukraine is not being supported by Nato. They are sending supplies but the alliance is not entering Ukraine against Russia so as to not create a wider conflict. Note that Ukraine is not a NATO signatory while Canada is. In the case of the US annexing Canada,the strategic analysis would give two options. Either immediately oppose US aggression and form a bloc independent of them, or tacitly approve of it and leave yourself open to the same thing happening to you and your neighbours.
        ExoticPearTree 2y ago
        Sending munitions/equipment to one side means that you support that side ;) I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics you make when you say NATO doesn't support the war in Ukraine, but it actually does - with the NATO SG going to Ukraine in a show of support. AFAIK, there is no precedent to what will happen if a NATO country attacks another NATO country - we came close to that when the Turks and the Greeks almost started fighting a few years back.
- Lio 2y ago
  The King of Canada would probably want to defend his people regardless of the cost. The British Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to the King not the British government. If he says go, they go. It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh). This conversation is so stupid though.
  - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    > It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh) As I initially asked: would you be willing to end your own country just because you feel like you need to defend another country on another continent against an adversary you have no chance of beating?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lio 2y ago
      Me personally? Doesn't matter what I'd do. I'm just some gobshite on the internet. In this hypothetical situation the opinions that matter are those of the men in the subs that have just seen their family and friends wiped out. They've got roughly 120 active warheads to play with and realistically no one is going to stop them all. So if you add up the damage from that plus the loss of a major trading partner and military ally it kind of seems unlikely to be a profitable venture for anyone involved.
      - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
        Yes, it's the internet and we can discuss of a lot of outcomes if Trump decides Canada is too big for the Canadians to have all for themselves. I think it would be a bigger loss for the UK to do something stupid than for the US do to something stupid. I guess we have to see how it plays out with Greenland - most likely scenario would be he'd go after Greenland first if it ever comes to that.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  Well... if we're living in a imaginary/video game world where US invades Canada it wouldn't be too far fetched to expect Britain and France to intervene? I mean which is more absurd?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    At that point, Mexico could run up the middle and take back what was taken from it. That would be chef's kiss response to Trump
NewJazz 2y ago
Kuwait is nowhere near comparable. Btw that coalition of countries... Who led it?
- dylan604 2y ago
  If the rest of the world refused to trade with the US over this, the US would have a helluva time and struggle. No bullets need to be expended. Why is this hard to comprehend?
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Russia is an even smaller economy than the US, and even then many countries continue to trade with them despite their aggression. Sanctions hurt everyone involved. If China stopped trading with the US, their economy would tank too. Furthermore, there are ways around sanctions. The US is much more self-sufficient than Russia. It is not hard to comprehend, but it is also not a surefire way to deter an invasion. And of course remember that not all actors on the stage will behave "rationally"... US leadership especially.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      If the US were in this position, any country that had sanctions that were only there at the urging from the US would be dropped. Even if they were not dropped, those that were sanctioned would immediately start ignoring them. Hell, most of Europe would probably immediately starting buying oil/gas from Russia.
  - 8note 2y ago
    if the world was going to cut trade with the US, it would have over the iraq invasion.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think there would be a military intervention, and if there were, I dont think it would be verry successful. NATO would be crippled without the US. That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.

themaninthedark 2y ago

They could invoke Article 5 of NATO; that would trigger Article 8;, expelling USA from NATO and requiring all remaining member to come to Canada's aid. >In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.

dylan604 2y ago
> expelling USA from NATO which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
polishdude20 2y ago
Would anyone really want to oppose America though?
NewJazz 2y ago
Words on a page don't put boots on the ground. The treaty would be invoked, US would be expelled (and sanctioned), and nobody would dare try to break the blockade. The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
- mlekoszek 2y ago
  Even if they achieve it, the reputational damage would be hard to understate. I think anyone with a bone to pick with the States would happily and repeatedly point to us Canadians as an example of what happens when you trust Americans. And that would be enough to achieve a lot of their regional policy goals, if not much more. Mexico would probably seek other political partners to make sure they're not next.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

badc0ffee 2y ago

Come on. Canada grows, and is a major exporter of, food, and has all the infrastructure and fuel needed to process and distribute it. There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.