4 ms·

> 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'v

> 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.
generj 2y ago
The entire point of NATO and other treaties is that every signatory is willing to risk their country to protect the other signatories. It makes the game theory choice to attack stupid. But it’s all academic anyways. The US military would eagerly lead a coup before willingly attacking the UK or Canada, particularly if non-conventional means are threatened. Consider that nearly every officer has done several war games or exercises alongside UK or Canadian officers. This is true both of NCOs and senior leadership. Being friendly with their armed forces is institutional. It would be easier to convince the Marines to attack the Army than to convince them to attack their Canadian counterparts.
- throaway89 2y ago
  The us military is also too professional to consider following orders to attack Canada. They would not accept the risk and reputational damage that would come with breaking the NATO treaties and undermining the general security of the west.
- ExoticPearTree 2y ago
  Armed forces are friendly to who they are being ordered to be friendly. And they don't have a an issue with any other armed forces unless being ordered to have an issue.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - generj 2y ago
    And US armed forces have been ordered to be friendly to UK and Canadian armed forces since WWI over 100 years ago (and even more friendly since WWII). That doesn’t go away quickly without good reason even with new orders. An attack on a Anglophone Five Eyes NATO member is militarily close to a civil war and could rapidly lead to a civil war.

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.

generj 2y ago

The entire point of NATO and other treaties is that every signatory is willing to risk their country to protect the other signatories. It makes the game theory choice to attack stupid. But it’s all academic anyways. The US military would eagerly lead a coup before willingly attacking the UK or Canada, particularly if non-conventional means are threatened. Consider that nearly every officer has done several war games or exercises alongside UK or Canadian officers. This is true both of NCOs and senior leadership. Being friendly with their armed forces is institutional. It would be easier to convince the Marines to attack the Army than to convince them to attack their Canadian counterparts.

throaway89 2y ago
The us military is also too professional to consider following orders to attack Canada. They would not accept the risk and reputational damage that would come with breaking the NATO treaties and undermining the general security of the west.
ExoticPearTree 2y ago
Armed forces are friendly to who they are being ordered to be friendly. And they don't have a an issue with any other armed forces unless being ordered to have an issue.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- generj 2y ago
  And US armed forces have been ordered to be friendly to UK and Canadian armed forces since WWI over 100 years ago (and even more friendly since WWII). That doesn’t go away quickly without good reason even with new orders. An attack on a Anglophone Five Eyes NATO member is militarily close to a civil war and could rapidly lead to a civil war.