9 ms·

24 000 reserves out of a population of 40 million seems like a rather small number. Norway has 40 000 in the Home Guard (Heimevernet) rapid reaction force of v

24 000 reserves out of a population of 40 million seems like a rather small number. Norway has 40 000 in the Home Guard (Heimevernet) rapid reaction force of volunteer part time soldiers and a further 20 000 reserves. All from a population of about 5.5 million.

gpm 1y ago
The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. Nukes might fly overhead and end the world as they struck targets on either side, but other than that we were safe and any significant military action we took part in would be overseas and thus not justify calling up a huge number of reservists. Meanwhile Norway was occupied in WWII, and after that spent the next decades next to the Soviet Union, and then Russia. There's clearly been a long standing risk of actual invasion.
- sandworm101 1y ago
  Except that there are several invasion risks, especially in the north. Canada maintains bases there (Alert) to protect its north from being taken by the likes of Russia, the USA and even Denmark (they have a longrunning dispute regarding an island near greenland). Canada also does not want the northwest passage to become an international waterway and so must maintain control over vessels in the north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War >> The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. The United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the United States signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation," that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all U.S. Coast Guard and Navy vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
  - asdff 1y ago
    outside edmonton and calgary the vast majority of the canadian population is within 100 miles of the US border. now imagine the logistics of a land invasion from northern canada. Shortest distance would be 1600 miles of wilderness. If you went from alert it would be more like 2500 miles of wilderness and several water crossings. All while you are being absolutely pummeled by US air support. It would be a suicide mission that would make the Kokoda Track campaign look like a boy scout trip. It is such a different situation in europe. Helsinki is 100 miles from the russian border with road, highway, and rail connectivity and within reach of most of Russias air power.
    - throwway120385 1y ago
      I think they might legitimately be worried about an invasion from the south.
      - paleotrope 1y ago
        They should worry more about the international flights from overseas.
        btf99 1y ago
        [dead]
      - asdff 1y ago
        I'd be surprised if they'd last longer than a week if the US were really committed.
        I-M-S 1y ago
        That's what Putin thought as well.
        asdff 1y ago
        Well, putins military is a little bit different than the american military industrial complex.
- bonesss 1y ago
  > Nukes might fly overhead Numerous Canadian sites, military and NORAD, were and surely are on first strike lists from the USSR and later Russia. The largest established combined bi-national military command in the world involves a fair amount of shared risk.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Agreed. Also, even if Canada were to shut down all NORAD radars and command posts on Canadian territory and to kick out every US soldier and to tear up all agreements with the US, Canadian cities and important Canadian infrastructure within 100 miles of the US border (i.e., most Canadian population and infrastructure) would probably get nuked in a nuclear war just so that the US cannot rely on those resources during the US's recovery from the attack. A large nuclear exchange between great powers (and currently there are 3 great powers, the US, China and Russia) would be followed by the use of conventional military forces. E.g., The US would try to capture and hold major ports of the power or powers that attacked it because holding ports is a very effective way of denying the power the ability to deploy its own conventional forces outside its own territory and the ability to rebuild its nuclear stockpile. Military planners in the power or powers that planned the nuclear strike on the US would know that and consequently would realize that it is essential to slow down the US's recovery from the strike as long as possible. In summary, if the US ever endures a large nuclear strike, it is very likely that Canada gets nuked, too. Canada's kicking out the US military and declaring the US to be its enemy might cause a minor reduction in intensity of the nuclear attack on Canada, but is very unlikely prevent it altogether. Yes, Switzerland was able to avoid any attacks from the UK, the US or the USSR during WWII despite sharing a border with Germany, but that was probably near thing. Also, Switzerland was very hard for Germany to invade because of how mountainous it is; in contrast, most of the cities and infra in Southern Canada is separated from the US by nothing but plains. Also, Switzerland invests very heavily in its military capacity, e.g., every Swiss male must do military service, e.g., every bridge in Switzerland is engineered to be easy for Swiss forces to blow up.
    - palmotea 1y ago
      > A large nuclear exchange between great powers (and currently there are 3 great powers, the US, China and Russia) would be followed by the use of conventional military forces. E.g., The US would try to capture and hold the major ports of the power or powers that attacked it because holding those ports is the most effective way of denying the power the ability to deploy its own conventional forces outside its own territory and the ability to rebuild its nuclear stockpile. Do you have a source for that? Because that's pretty unbelievable action to take after a full nuclear exchange that leaves every major city and military base in ruins. I'd expect most if not all the US's force-projection power would be gone immediately after a nuclear war. Sure, maybe there'd be aircraft carriers out in the ocean, but with limited ability to resupply, they'd probably lose their effectiveness sooner than later.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. The chance of Canada being invaded didn't change at all in November. The amount of hyperbole about Trump has been utterly astounding, and fears of an Canadian invasion are an instance of that. And my sense is that actually a fair amount of the bad stuff Trump has done (though definitely not all) is a direct result of the overreactions to him [1], so it's probably best not to overreact. [1] E.g. Democrats fear and loathe him, so they pursued all kinds of legal actions against him while he was out of office to damage and destroy him. They failed, he got re-elected, and now only in his second term, he's corrupted the Justice Department into a club to attack those very same people.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > Democrats fear and loathe him, so they pursued all kinds of legal actions against him while he was out of office So maybe he should'nt've have broken laws. Not give them anything to pursue.
    - palmotea 1y ago
      > So maybe he should'nt've have broken laws. Not give them anything to pursue. It's not so simple: 1) everybody breaks laws, and 2) in at least one case those laws were stretched and abused in unusual ways to specifically target him (his felony convictions, which unsurprisingly were immediately turned into an electoral attack). I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm not a Democratic partisan either, and I think that prosecution was really, really gross.
      - triceratops 1y ago
        > laws were stretched in unusual ways to specifically target him Sure one man's campaign finance violations/embezzlement (I can't recall the details) are another man's politically motivated prosecution. That wasn't the only case against the guy though. It was the only case that concluded. Winning the election saved his skin. He was cooked otherwise.
- wyldberry 1y ago
  "ending last November" - Is the implication that a Trump presidency implies a risk of invasion from the South? Canada has relied greatly on the United States providing a blanket defense guarantee of the continent. The Canadian military is currently operationally worthless across the board, save the cyber domain. There are many reasons for it that I'm not here to list out. However, that does come with grave consequences geopolitically and the Canadian government has been living in the 1900s. The USA, via Alaska, provides Canada against Russian provocation on the West Coast[0]. This is similar to the near constant probing of NATO states airspace, especially countries near Ukraine [1][2] The Canadian Navy is severely underfunded (along with the rest of the Canadian Armed forces)[3] with not enough ships to actively patrol and protect it's waters, especially in the North. The North passages are incredibly important, and will become more important as trade routes. The entirety of the US wanting to buy Greenland is as a part of having an Atlantic outpost to control those shipping lanes. Those trade lanes can be significantly shorter than routes using Suez or Panama canals. In addition to the trade routes, the US fears a Russian and Chinese alliance because of the access that grants to the North Atlantic. Point blank: Nato cannot build ships anymore, and the PLAN capacity is staggering. This is already independent of CN and RU intelligence probing of the entirety of the west coast. The world has changed dramatically, and the only thing that really changed in November is that the USA is no longer pretending it can defend the mainland, defend NATO countries, and police shipping lanes on their own. The USA doesn't have the capacity to replace ships, nor do they have the knowledge anymore to do so. [0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter-jets-intercept-bomber-fighter-jets-adiz/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter... [1]- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm [2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_into_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i... [3] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-why-us-interest/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-wh...
  - AnotherGoodName 1y ago
    There were literal statements of annexation. Brushed off by some "that was a joke" but they were made. Lets not downplay that fact.
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  Hilariously wrong take - first, Canada does not have a chance if the US wanted to take it. Second, the US does not want to own Canada for a bunch of reasons, starting with the demographic and economic mess that Canada finds itself in.
  - btf99 1y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hammershaft 1y ago
    Then why did Trump threaten to annex Canada over and over again while declaring a trade war?
    - rogerrogerr 1y ago
      He says stuff. If you haven’t figured out by now that the stuff he says and the stuff he does are different, I dunno what to tell you.
- kyle_forest 1y ago
  [dead]
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
I mean Canada just depends on the USA for nearly all it's defense. The USA isn't going to let anyone invade Canada or Mexico.
- mig39 1y ago
  I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the head of the USA has threatened on numerous occasions to invade Canada.
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    I mean yeah we've famously even had full on invasion war plans drawn up in the past that leaked. Canada isn't going to do anything that changes the USA's ability to steam roll over the country.
    - rogerrogerr 1y ago
      Yep - the US is bad at fighting insurgencies, but a state military? Over in days. This does not materially change between Canada’s current military vs 5x their current military. But fighting pissed-off indigenous Canadians? I wouldn’t sign up for that part. None of this is relevant because the US does not want to own Canada.
      - mig39 1y ago
        > None of this is relevant because the US does not want to own Canada. Why does your president keep saying the opposite?
        rogerrogerr 1y ago
        He says stuff. If you haven’t figured out by now that the stuff he says and the stuff he does are different, I dunno what to tell you.
      - amrocha 1y ago
bell-cot 1y ago
Vs. Finland has reserves of 870 000 from a population of about 5.6 million. Via the magic of universal male conscription: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Conscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Conscri...
- scotty79 1y ago
  Not teaching your son a second language so he can escape the country with draft as soon as he's 18 is evil. You are obligated to give your child tools to choose his future if your government is trying to deny him that choice.
  - retr0rocket 1y ago
    [dead]
  - kulahan 1y ago
    Did you respond to the wrong comment or is this flying way over my head? I'm not actually sure how you arrived at talking about children needing to learn another language from this article that doesn't discuss language?
    - pavement_sort 1y ago
      They are starting a new discussion about the ethics of drafting because you mentioned "universal male conscription". In that discussion they are saying that it's unethical to have a child in a country that will draft him unless you prepare him (via learning another language, etc.) to leave as soon as he is 18. (Just explaining, not putting forth any take on the matter).
  - wagwang 1y ago
    No you have a duty and obligation to the society that raised you.
    - scotty79 1y ago
dylan604 1y ago
How well would 24000 reserves fare against a smaller but well trained group of regular military units? Aren't they pretty much canon fodder? I guess it depends on the opposition. The counter is look at the quagmire the US military found itself against insurgent opposition because they were not willing to use the same plays as Russia leveling cities. Israel leveled Gaza with the same mentality.
- ungreased0675 1y ago
  When Russia invaded Ukraine, thousands of rifles were handed out in Kyiv. Why? In a straight up fight the reserves have no chance, but they also have the choice to fight differently. In Ukraine, the Territorial Defence forces have absolutely put in work against regular Russian units. Reserve units can be very useful under the right circumstances.
philipallstar 1y ago
Canada, like Europe, has had an easy time of it by letting the US taxpayer pay for most of its defence.
- Podrod 1y ago
  >like Europe, TIL The US pays for the defence of Russia and Belarus and Serbia.

gpm 1y ago

The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. Nukes might fly overhead and end the world as they struck targets on either side, but other than that we were safe and any significant military action we took part in would be overseas and thus not justify calling up a huge number of reservists. Meanwhile Norway was occupied in WWII, and after that spent the next decades next to the Soviet Union, and then Russia. There's clearly been a long standing risk of actual invasion.

sandworm101 1y ago
Except that there are several invasion risks, especially in the north. Canada maintains bases there (Alert) to protect its north from being taken by the likes of Russia, the USA and even Denmark (they have a longrunning dispute regarding an island near greenland). Canada also does not want the northwest passage to become an international waterway and so must maintain control over vessels in the north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War >> The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. The United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the United States signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation," that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all U.S. Coast Guard and Navy vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
- asdff 1y ago
  outside edmonton and calgary the vast majority of the canadian population is within 100 miles of the US border. now imagine the logistics of a land invasion from northern canada. Shortest distance would be 1600 miles of wilderness. If you went from alert it would be more like 2500 miles of wilderness and several water crossings. All while you are being absolutely pummeled by US air support. It would be a suicide mission that would make the Kokoda Track campaign look like a boy scout trip. It is such a different situation in europe. Helsinki is 100 miles from the russian border with road, highway, and rail connectivity and within reach of most of Russias air power.
  - throwway120385 1y ago
    I think they might legitimately be worried about an invasion from the south.
    - paleotrope 1y ago
      They should worry more about the international flights from overseas.
      - btf99 1y ago
        [dead]
    - asdff 1y ago
      I'd be surprised if they'd last longer than a week if the US were really committed.
      - I-M-S 1y ago
        That's what Putin thought as well.
        asdff 1y ago
        Well, putins military is a little bit different than the american military industrial complex.
bonesss 1y ago
> Nukes might fly overhead Numerous Canadian sites, military and NORAD, were and surely are on first strike lists from the USSR and later Russia. The largest established combined bi-national military command in the world involves a fair amount of shared risk.
- hollerith 1y ago
  Agreed. Also, even if Canada were to shut down all NORAD radars and command posts on Canadian territory and to kick out every US soldier and to tear up all agreements with the US, Canadian cities and important Canadian infrastructure within 100 miles of the US border (i.e., most Canadian population and infrastructure) would probably get nuked in a nuclear war just so that the US cannot rely on those resources during the US's recovery from the attack. A large nuclear exchange between great powers (and currently there are 3 great powers, the US, China and Russia) would be followed by the use of conventional military forces. E.g., The US would try to capture and hold major ports of the power or powers that attacked it because holding ports is a very effective way of denying the power the ability to deploy its own conventional forces outside its own territory and the ability to rebuild its nuclear stockpile. Military planners in the power or powers that planned the nuclear strike on the US would know that and consequently would realize that it is essential to slow down the US's recovery from the strike as long as possible. In summary, if the US ever endures a large nuclear strike, it is very likely that Canada gets nuked, too. Canada's kicking out the US military and declaring the US to be its enemy might cause a minor reduction in intensity of the nuclear attack on Canada, but is very unlikely prevent it altogether. Yes, Switzerland was able to avoid any attacks from the UK, the US or the USSR during WWII despite sharing a border with Germany, but that was probably near thing. Also, Switzerland was very hard for Germany to invade because of how mountainous it is; in contrast, most of the cities and infra in Southern Canada is separated from the US by nothing but plains. Also, Switzerland invests very heavily in its military capacity, e.g., every Swiss male must do military service, e.g., every bridge in Switzerland is engineered to be easy for Swiss forces to blow up.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > A large nuclear exchange between great powers (and currently there are 3 great powers, the US, China and Russia) would be followed by the use of conventional military forces. E.g., The US would try to capture and hold the major ports of the power or powers that attacked it because holding those ports is the most effective way of denying the power the ability to deploy its own conventional forces outside its own territory and the ability to rebuild its nuclear stockpile. Do you have a source for that? Because that's pretty unbelievable action to take after a full nuclear exchange that leaves every major city and military base in ruins. I'd expect most if not all the US's force-projection power would be gone immediately after a nuclear war. Sure, maybe there'd be aircraft carriers out in the ocean, but with limited ability to resupply, they'd probably lose their effectiveness sooner than later.
palmotea 1y ago
> The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. The chance of Canada being invaded didn't change at all in November. The amount of hyperbole about Trump has been utterly astounding, and fears of an Canadian invasion are an instance of that. And my sense is that actually a fair amount of the bad stuff Trump has done (though definitely not all) is a direct result of the overreactions to him [1], so it's probably best not to overreact. [1] E.g. Democrats fear and loathe him, so they pursued all kinds of legal actions against him while he was out of office to damage and destroy him. They failed, he got re-elected, and now only in his second term, he's corrupted the Justice Department into a club to attack those very same people.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > Democrats fear and loathe him, so they pursued all kinds of legal actions against him while he was out of office So maybe he should'nt've have broken laws. Not give them anything to pursue.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > So maybe he should'nt've have broken laws. Not give them anything to pursue. It's not so simple: 1) everybody breaks laws, and 2) in at least one case those laws were stretched and abused in unusual ways to specifically target him (his felony convictions, which unsurprisingly were immediately turned into an electoral attack). I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm not a Democratic partisan either, and I think that prosecution was really, really gross.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > laws were stretched in unusual ways to specifically target him Sure one man's campaign finance violations/embezzlement (I can't recall the details) are another man's politically motivated prosecution. That wasn't the only case against the guy though. It was the only case that concluded. Winning the election saved his skin. He was cooked otherwise.
wyldberry 1y ago
"ending last November" - Is the implication that a Trump presidency implies a risk of invasion from the South? Canada has relied greatly on the United States providing a blanket defense guarantee of the continent. The Canadian military is currently operationally worthless across the board, save the cyber domain. There are many reasons for it that I'm not here to list out. However, that does come with grave consequences geopolitically and the Canadian government has been living in the 1900s. The USA, via Alaska, provides Canada against Russian provocation on the West Coast[0]. This is similar to the near constant probing of NATO states airspace, especially countries near Ukraine [1][2] The Canadian Navy is severely underfunded (along with the rest of the Canadian Armed forces)[3] with not enough ships to actively patrol and protect it's waters, especially in the North. The North passages are incredibly important, and will become more important as trade routes. The entirety of the US wanting to buy Greenland is as a part of having an Atlantic outpost to control those shipping lanes. Those trade lanes can be significantly shorter than routes using Suez or Panama canals. In addition to the trade routes, the US fears a Russian and Chinese alliance because of the access that grants to the North Atlantic. Point blank: Nato cannot build ships anymore, and the PLAN capacity is staggering. This is already independent of CN and RU intelligence probing of the entirety of the west coast. The world has changed dramatically, and the only thing that really changed in November is that the USA is no longer pretending it can defend the mainland, defend NATO countries, and police shipping lanes on their own. The USA doesn't have the capacity to replace ships, nor do they have the knowledge anymore to do so. [0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter-jets-intercept-bomber-fighter-jets-adiz/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter... [1]- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm [2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_into_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i... [3] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-why-us-interest/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-wh...
- AnotherGoodName 1y ago
  There were literal statements of annexation. Brushed off by some "that was a joke" but they were made. Lets not downplay that fact.
rogerrogerr 1y ago
Hilariously wrong take - first, Canada does not have a chance if the US wanted to take it. Second, the US does not want to own Canada for a bunch of reasons, starting with the demographic and economic mess that Canada finds itself in.
- btf99 1y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Hammershaft 1y ago
  Then why did Trump threaten to annex Canada over and over again while declaring a trade war?
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    He says stuff. If you haven’t figured out by now that the stuff he says and the stuff he does are different, I dunno what to tell you.
kyle_forest 1y ago
[dead]

tick_tock_tick 1y ago

I mean Canada just depends on the USA for nearly all it's defense. The USA isn't going to let anyone invade Canada or Mexico.

mig39 1y ago
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the head of the USA has threatened on numerous occasions to invade Canada.
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  I mean yeah we've famously even had full on invasion war plans drawn up in the past that leaked. Canada isn't going to do anything that changes the USA's ability to steam roll over the country.
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    Yep - the US is bad at fighting insurgencies, but a state military? Over in days. This does not materially change between Canada’s current military vs 5x their current military. But fighting pissed-off indigenous Canadians? I wouldn’t sign up for that part. None of this is relevant because the US does not want to own Canada.
    - mig39 1y ago
      > None of this is relevant because the US does not want to own Canada. Why does your president keep saying the opposite?
      - rogerrogerr 1y ago
        He says stuff. If you haven’t figured out by now that the stuff he says and the stuff he does are different, I dunno what to tell you.
    - amrocha 1y ago

bell-cot 1y ago

Vs. Finland has reserves of 870 000 from a population of about 5.6 million. Via the magic of universal male conscription: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Conscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Conscri...

scotty79 1y ago
Not teaching your son a second language so he can escape the country with draft as soon as he's 18 is evil. You are obligated to give your child tools to choose his future if your government is trying to deny him that choice.
- retr0rocket 1y ago
  [dead]
- kulahan 1y ago
  Did you respond to the wrong comment or is this flying way over my head? I'm not actually sure how you arrived at talking about children needing to learn another language from this article that doesn't discuss language?
  - pavement_sort 1y ago
    They are starting a new discussion about the ethics of drafting because you mentioned "universal male conscription". In that discussion they are saying that it's unethical to have a child in a country that will draft him unless you prepare him (via learning another language, etc.) to leave as soon as he is 18. (Just explaining, not putting forth any take on the matter).
- wagwang 1y ago
  No you have a duty and obligation to the society that raised you.
  - scotty79 1y ago

dylan604 1y ago

How well would 24000 reserves fare against a smaller but well trained group of regular military units? Aren't they pretty much canon fodder? I guess it depends on the opposition. The counter is look at the quagmire the US military found itself against insurgent opposition because they were not willing to use the same plays as Russia leveling cities. Israel leveled Gaza with the same mentality.

ungreased0675 1y ago
When Russia invaded Ukraine, thousands of rifles were handed out in Kyiv. Why? In a straight up fight the reserves have no chance, but they also have the choice to fight differently. In Ukraine, the Territorial Defence forces have absolutely put in work against regular Russian units. Reserve units can be very useful under the right circumstances.

philipallstar 1y ago

Canada, like Europe, has had an easy time of it by letting the US taxpayer pay for most of its defence.

Podrod 1y ago
>like Europe, TIL The US pays for the defence of Russia and Belarus and Serbia.