3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWould anyone really want to oppose America though?
- NewJazz 2y agoWords 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 agoEven 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.
- throaway89 2y agoYes, an American invasion of Canada would immeidately set the stage for a worldwide rationale for opposing US interests.
- philistine 2y agoAnnexation of Canada would mean the end of the soft power for the Americans. The only way anyone would let them in would be through hard wars. At least China and Russia only forcibly attacked independent countries that were once united with them.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoWhich wouldn't matter much because Canada and Europe rely on US military, equipment, and IT and the US is an ocean away.
- dylan604 2y agoThe US imports most of its oil while exporting the oil it produces. Ooops. The US imports pretty much everything consumers consume. Ooops The US would have nobody to sell anything to. Ooops The US is now in a local conflict that a very large % of citizens does not support. What happens after the next election?
- NewJazz 2y agoThese are good points, but I have to comment that all of these suggest the physical resistance to an annexation would come from domestic actors rather than international.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoLet me be clear, there are 1,001 reasons why annexing Canada would be a bad idea. I'm just saying that military impossibility is not one of them. It is a fun fictional exercise, ala Man in the Highcastle
- dylan604 2y agoI think it would be closer to Handmaid's Tale than Highcastle since it's a modern day than a twist WWII ending
- s1artibartfast 2y agofun and interesting either way. I hear netflix potential