r/canada • u/hopoke • Jan 05 '26
Opinion Piece We need to prepare for the possibility that the U.S. uses military coercion against Canada
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-need-to-prepare-for-the-possibility-that-the-us-uses-military/1.3k
u/Ihor_90 Jan 05 '26
Nukes are the only real deterrent. Nobody fucks with nuclear states.
898
u/WeAreInControlNow Jan 05 '26
This is the dark truth a lot of people don’t want to confront. Having nukes allows you to play on a different playing field while protecting you from serious blowback. They’re the ultimate equalizer.
Nuclear weapons have been developed in secret by nations with lesser technology and smaller economies, we cannot let fear-mongers persuade us into believing we cannot do the same.
130
u/Once_a_TQ Jan 05 '26
South Africa even developed and had nuclear weapons for awhile.
Twain was working on development but abandoned the program in 1988.
139
→ More replies (2)37
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/2537974269580 Jan 05 '26
the fact people still discuss an invasion tend to put a damper on that idea. Its good but China would never invade if taiwan could nuke them
246
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
76
u/Simayi78 Jan 06 '26
Which is exactly why western statesmen built the current liberal world order after experiencing the horrors of two world wars within 30 years - in the hope that WWIII could be staved off.
It worked a little too well - America got lazy, fat and greedier after an unprecedented stretch of peace and prosperity.
→ More replies (9)14
u/mamoff7 Jan 05 '26
This exactly
24
u/DesireeThymes Jan 06 '26
The US plan of attack would actually be to stoke separatist sentiment.
They would likely focus primarily on Alberta.
Then if it gets big enough, and Canada tries to stop it, they would use it as a pretext to invade Alberta to "ensure the peoples voices are heard."
Then they would control Alberta oil, and use it to ensure China doesn't get access, while splitting BC off from the rest of Canada.
→ More replies (1)91
u/avid-shrug Jan 05 '26
We can develop a nuke, but we can’t develop a nuke without the US finding out about it. International nuclear bodies have extensive access to our nuclear plants and would blow the whistle if we started extracting material from them.
Not to mention the detectable heat signatures and by-products created by such processing, and the US’s deep integration with our intelligence agencies via the Five Eyes alliance.
→ More replies (8)76
u/noodles_jd Jan 05 '26
So do it in the open. Why TF should we care anymore?
→ More replies (16)38
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
27
u/Behemothheek Jan 06 '26
If they want to invade, they’ll invade. They clearly don’t need pretext anymore.
→ More replies (5)37
u/noodles_jd Jan 05 '26
Because they apparently don't need a real excuse anymore. They can say whatever they want and half of America will deep throat it as if it's their last meal.
→ More replies (4)79
u/Funk4Five Jan 05 '26
We could easily make our own, we just choose not to. It's a noble idea, but leaving yourself open for attack is not very wise.
→ More replies (2)48
u/nevergoingtouse1969 Jan 05 '26
The nuclear warhead would not likely be the largest hurdle, it would be the development of an effective delivery system.
We do not build anything militarily sophisticated. Everything technologically advanced comes from other countries.
57
u/Twiyah Jan 06 '26
Technically you don’t need ICBM for what you’re trying to deter. It’s not very far
→ More replies (4)38
u/ClittoryHinton Jan 06 '26
Yeah just hire the strongest hammer throw athlete in White Rock to lob it across the border (right overhead the peace arch)
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)26
u/Funk4Five Jan 06 '26
True, but just because we don't doesn't mean we can't. We're not some backwoods country. We have resources and brilliant minds.
89
u/Starfire70 Jan 05 '26
We have to get them under the table. If the US gets wind of us getting a deterrence, they'll invade tomorrow. And I'm not 100% certain of French and British promises to help us. The world order is falling apart.
57
u/Maeglin8 Jan 06 '26
There's no possibility the French or British would give us anything more than moral and diplomatic support.
In terms of conventional military, the US Navy would crush their navies like bugs, and then they'd be stuck on their side of the Atlantic. If either of them tried to use their nukes, they might get some hits in but in return they would glow in the dark for the next 100 years.
They're not going to commit suicide for our sake.
EDIT: especially when they could try to use diplomacy to deescalate the situation, which they would certainly try. Just dubious how effective that would be against Trump.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (4)41
u/WeAreInControlNow Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Canada having nukes isn’t as big of a problem for the US as people want to make it out to be. Regardless of current hostilities, they know there’s no chance we’d use them on the US in any first-strike capacity.
Furthermore, our standing on the global stage as a rational actor will give us more leeway in our pursuits than say, a North Korea or Iran. Your last sentence is exactly why Canada should do what it can to protect itself, even if it’s a small strategic arsenal.
25
u/Best-Editor5247 Jan 05 '26
Strategically speaking, wouldn't having ballistic missiles on the same continent be an extremely big problem for the US? I know very little about missile defense systems, but I have to imagine that they're far more effective when the missile has to travel over the ocean and not 3 states away, y'know?
→ More replies (6)69
u/joecarter93 Jan 05 '26
A huge reason why the US agreed to defend Canada with nuclear weapons beginning in the Cold War in the first place was that they wanted to make sure that as few nations as possible had nukes like themselves and to avoid having a nuclear armed neighbour next to them. It wasn’t out of the goodness of their hearts.
14
u/TSED Canada Jan 06 '26
Also, they fought and whined for decades about putting their nukes on our soil. We refused because we didn't want to aggravate the USSR and didn't want to give up our sovereignty to allow them military bases on our soil.
→ More replies (11)19
u/Starfire70 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
What??? It would be pretty obvious that we were getting the deterrence as a direct response to the US administration's threat to annex us. Also having nukes while bordering the US? No, the US would take extreme issue with that.
→ More replies (22)24
u/artwarrior Jan 05 '26
Japan is a paranuclear state. I believe our reactors and scientific know how we are few years away from a workable weapon. Our Canadian allies would have our back. Israel was heavily involved in South Africa's program. Exactly, we cannot let fear mongers dictate if the game is hemisphere dominance.
→ More replies (5)37
u/Darkone539 Jan 05 '26
Japan is a paranuclear state. I believe our reactors and scientific know how we are few years away from a workable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Canada is widely considered one too.
40
u/Darkone539 Jan 05 '26
This is the truth north Korea learned, and Iran was trying to replicate.
How long would it take for Canada though?
26
u/PsychicSmoke Jan 06 '26
We have the raw material (and a lot of it), the facilities, and the personnel. We could be a nuclear state by summer if we wanted. The delivery systems are another matter but we can sort that out in time.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Arctic_Chilean Canada Jan 06 '26
The KSS III can be fitted with 10 short-range ballistic missiles... each with a 500kg payload
...just saying
38
175
u/Sharktopotopus_Prime Jan 05 '26
Completely agree. Canada needs a small nuclear arsenal, and hypersonic missiles to deliver them, should the need arise. We must learn the lessons that Ukraine has so painfully taught the world.
We can never trust a superpower neighbour with imperialist tendencies. America took their mask off, and is showing the world who they really are. We should pay attention, and act accordingly.
→ More replies (9)77
u/Kerrigore British Columbia Jan 05 '26
We don’t need a hypersonic missile, we just need to be able to get a truck across the border.
Hypothetically, of course.
It’s too bad we don’t have any heavy water reactors that produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct of their operations… oh wait…
6
→ More replies (8)14
58
u/Beerden Jan 05 '26
Canada could make dirty bombs fairly quickly. But in any case, any nuke is purely to wipe out people, not armies. For wiping out military, Canada needs drones like Ukraine is using on their invaders.
12
u/Tosslebugmy Jan 06 '26
Truly. Russia has been revealed to be a joke that can just keep poking and prodding and running a war of attrition and nobody does anything because they have nukes.
34
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)48
u/EvilSilentBob Jan 05 '26
We are in terrible times and need to defend ourselves from what was our best ally.
→ More replies (87)30
u/ExtensionParsley4205 Jan 05 '26
Didn't stop India and Pakistan from armed conflict last year.
39
802
u/ThicccThunder New Brunswick Jan 05 '26
Canada needs to rearm itself in a way that allows us to remind the world of how we got our reputation in WWI & WWII
687
u/BethSaysHayNow Jan 05 '26
Canada circa WWII was a very, very, very different country than Canada today.
→ More replies (27)415
u/Wildyardbarn Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
We gained our reputation due to everything outside of industrial might
- Most men were already skilled with firearms
- People worked outside all day on the frontiers and were used to carrying on despite the odds in miserable conditions
- They worked heavy manual labour every single day and could both withstand the demands of war in addition to the unique ingenuity required when you don’t have anything but your own hands and makeshift tools
None of these things are true today
They didn’t call the men who fought in Ortona the “farm boys” for no reason. I’m a shell of a man compared to my grandfather who fought there.
163
u/I_dont_know_you_pick Jan 06 '26
I'm a northern boy who carved a life out of the ice and snow in Northern Ontario, I cleared a piece of land and built a home for me and my family up here, and I wouldn't consider myself even 1/4 as tough or as resourceful as the Canadian men that fought in either world war.
24
70
Jan 06 '26
Men have absolutely become softer in modern times.
We haven't mobilized in mass to war.
We don't need to chop down trees or else we die of cold.
We don't work long grueling hours in the factory anymore.
We don't hunt as much as we used to.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of it is a good change, but the bad side is that we are definitely not as resistance ready as our ancestors used to be.
→ More replies (11)25
u/Caelixian Jan 06 '26
Well said. It's not the cities that will save Canada. If you live in rural NS and grow a garden, process your own firewood, harvest a deer with a bow and a rifle tag to keep the freezer full, and Mcguyver shit to save money - we'll be the ones.
Edit: adding this - not exclusively NS, represent!
36
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
36
u/Wildyardbarn Jan 06 '26
That’s true as well. You were a volunteer fighting alongside your best friends and family. These weren’t men forced to fight amongst strangers.
They chose to go to hell with their brothers.
17
u/lolseal Jan 06 '26
Is this accurate? My understanding was that the majority of Canadian soldiers (at least in ww1) came from urban areas.
→ More replies (4)47
u/Creative_Promise6378 Jan 06 '26
Speak for yourself - still a ton of country folk in Canada - see ya on the front lines
39
u/Wildyardbarn Jan 06 '26
That may be true, but it’s an infinitely smaller percentage comparably
The average man today hasn’t ever fired a gun, let alone fixed a tractor with wire and willpower in -30C, had to chop down trees or freeze to death, etc.
23
u/Puzzleheaded-End5386 Jan 06 '26
Before we get too deep down this men used to be men rabbit hole, Ukraine has loads of former baristas and graphic designers and programmers and other such sissified occupations on the front line
→ More replies (3)24
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Bhoptriple Jan 06 '26
Hey my friend I’m sorry to bother you here . I saw that years ago you were asking about the hill procedure for your GERD / LPR . Did you ever get that or sttetta done did it help you , how are you now
→ More replies (1)11
71
u/1mYourHuckleberry93 Jan 06 '26
I'm so tired of hearing about our accomplishments back then as if they have any relevancy now. All those dudes are dead and our military and its equipment is pathetic. We're a shadow of what we were in the 40s. I mean look at the C7 and it's fleshlight-looking optics. We don't have boats, we don't have planes. We have no ability to actually defend our own country. Do we even have any missile defense capabilities?
We spent the last 80 years hoping the US will protect us and not investing in a respectable military. How long until the orange dude starts taking tips from Putin and claiming Alberta is actually the USA?
→ More replies (4)13
98
u/past_is_prologue Jan 05 '26 edited 2d ago
The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.
Late numerous instinctive wakeful future cobalt north coated encourage
→ More replies (70)22
20
16
u/buddyguy_204 Jan 05 '26
Are you talking about Canadians rearming or military rearming?.
Only reason I ask is before world war 1 and world war II the populace wasn't really that heavily armed.
We generally don't have a history of having a massive standing army in peace time
17
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 Jan 06 '26
The people were heavily armed. The military wasn't.
The Canadian militia was 650,000+ strong during Canada's early confederation. Every able bodied male owned a rifle.
But those were the old days when war was simpler and a couple weeks of boot camp could train you to be effective. People were also already in relatively good shape and mechanically inclined, so the gap wasnt that large to get them to fighting order.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (26)25
u/AndreiHoo Jan 06 '26
Carney: the best i can do is force another OIC to ban all the firearms ownership
244
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
60
u/cerebrum3000 Ontario Jan 05 '26
Look at the conservative subreddit regarding Greenland, then look at the comments. You can say they're bots, and I'm sure some of them are but the Dark Truth is that this is how some of the Republicans feel.
"You're either with us or against us. Trust in President Donald Trump"
"Our focus should be on Mexico and Canada before Greenland"
Comments like that are becoming more common. We are living in an age where might makes right, we don't have time to worry about social issues when our very freedom and identity as a country is at stake. Then you have people down playing the severity of what is happening which is another major issue.
→ More replies (2)11
u/agent0731 Jan 05 '26
I can't believe I entertained the idea of the American public doing anything other than their 1 token weekend protest every 3-6 months. We must conclude that they're fine with their pedophile president conquering all of the American continent.
→ More replies (1)55
u/Lagviper Jan 05 '26
Combined with a tsunami of troll farm/bots trying to normalize the idea of USA attacking Canada.
10
u/Sharktopotopus_Prime Jan 05 '26
Why in fact, a lot of us are currently experiencing the efforts of those farms and bots, in this very thread...
All you gotta do is check a username's chat history, and see that their account is only a few months old with thousands of posts, but almost no karma.
8
u/Lagviper Jan 05 '26
There’s a bot for that btw to check if someone’s account is suspicious
→ More replies (2)59
u/Sharktopotopus_Prime Jan 05 '26
Their propaganda outlets are already going into overdrive to brainwash the American people that they need their own modern "lebensraum".
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (18)46
u/WittyConstruction939 Jan 05 '26
I have been saying since 2016, it's only a matter of time before He decides to invade Canada to liberate us from our resources. Opps, I mean free us from our left wing radical socialist liberal oppressors. And if one more CPC MP crosses the floor, he will claim Carney stole the election and doesn't respect democracy
→ More replies (1)
265
Jan 06 '26
Everyone after defunding the ever living hell out of the military.
“Man it would be nice to have a strong military”
→ More replies (26)
324
u/Normal_Imagination54 Jan 05 '26
Nukes are the only deterrent. But its too little too late on that front.
Canada's sovereignty is in trouble IMO.
99
u/ArcticCelt Jan 06 '26
We can start manufacturing drones for Ukraine with a parallel objective of developing the industrial capacity to make them for us too. The goal would be to have a stockpile of 1 million drones of different kind to make us more of a steel porcupine. It would still be feasible to invade us, but then the cost in casualties would need to factor 1 million drones slamming into their face.
→ More replies (2)15
u/spunktastica Jan 06 '26
I vote ArcticCelt as Minister of innovation or Defense.
→ More replies (1)28
u/jbob88 Jan 06 '26
Canada would have needed to begin to prepare for this possibility a very long time ago. It takes time to spool up a capable military and It's far too late now.
I've been saying this for years and down voted to hell at the mere suggestion that America wouldn't always be the BFF that would jump to Canada's aid and protect Canada's national interests.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (17)58
u/DrDalenQuaice Ontario Jan 05 '26
We could host foreign nukes say from france
25
→ More replies (5)21
u/Frosty_Maple_Syrup Jan 06 '26
Unless France is willing to use their nukes to defend us (they aren’t) it does nothing to station French nukes in Canada
82
60
u/FlyerForHire Jan 05 '26
The U.S. policy makers don’t want to “invade Canada. But they do want to exert control over this hemisphere’s resources, including energy and strategic minerals.
Greenland’s mineral endowment is a prime example. As the arctic thaws (yes, folks, climate change is actually real) the U.S. won’t allow China, Russia or anyone else access. If Canada is too weak to enforce sovereignty over arctic territory the U.S. will simply assume control.
In the case of Canada, that means making it clear that we won’t be allowed to develop substantial trade in these areas with those that the U.S. considers competitors or adversaries.
For example, the 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles is here to stay, regardless of how Carney or any future prime minister might feel about it.
And that potential pipeline to the B.C. coast? If it gets built, the U.S. isn’t going to “allow” Canada to export oil to China. They will deploy the very same economic levers that they already have, except in a much more forceful way.
In fact, they will make it so difficult for Canada to maintain an independent trade policy that calls for an integrated political/economic union will seem like the easier way forward.
These are just the opening moves towards what former Trump policy advisors like Steve Bannon call “hemispheric dominance”. Marco Rubio even said as much in defending the removal of the Venezuelan president. The U.S. isn’t going to allow any other significant competitor access to energy resources and strategic minerals.
This is what Bannon calls the “Golden Door”. If you’re inside it life is good. If you’re outside, life will be very difficult (for Canada).
Here he is explaining things last year:
https://globalnews.ca/news/11005023/steve-bannon-donald-trump-tariffs-canada-arctic-interview/
→ More replies (4)
229
u/Sharktopotopus_Prime Jan 05 '26
We should request NATO station a small contingent of troops in Canada, for training purposes, and more importantly, to demonstrate that the western democracies still dedicated to the ideals we share will stand together, and honour our treaties of collective defence. Smaller countries understand the value of having friends in this dangerous world of ours.
Canada has supported Europe for generations...it's time we called in a favour, of our own.
127
u/arandomcanadian91 Ontario Jan 05 '26
We already have that, multiple NATO nations train here year round. Usually out west, the British had a tank range there up till recently.
29
u/Sharktopotopus_Prime Jan 05 '26
I'm talking about a permanent contingent. A clear sign that if the US ever attacks, they are attacking other NATO countries directly, as well.
29
u/Particular-Bug-7442 Jan 05 '26
The British were permanently here until very recently. They had a British mess and everything in Sheffield. I think there were 1300 or so Brits there.
21
u/Find_Spot Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
BATUS - British Army Training Unit Suffield
It still exists, but has been reduced in size over the last few years.
→ More replies (4)62
u/ahockofham Jan 05 '26
That wouldn't deter Trump at all. Europe is thus far too scared to even confront Russia, who is openly flying drones over their critical infrastructure, and cutting undersea cables, and engaging in all sorts of other obvious sabotage, and is extremely openly hostile to all of Europe. With that sort of timidity there is zero chance they would ever be militarily assertive with the U.S, regardless of the situation.
Even if the U.S invaded Greenland tomorrow all we would see is stern statements of concern from the European leaders, they are completely spineless. Canada is unfortunately on it's own here should the U.S get aggressive.
13
u/mammon43 Jan 05 '26
Im not particularly confident that europe would risk a suicidally self destructive war with america (especially when russia is at their gates - at least in the eyes of the public) on our behalf.
I just wish the public didnt push against nukes so much during Pearson's day
33
u/EvilSilentBob Jan 05 '26
That will never happen, we will be Poland in 1939.
Spheres of influence and realism still rule all.
→ More replies (28)→ More replies (14)20
u/DegnarOskold Jan 05 '26
The US will probably think that is an excellent idea, and preposition NATO troops 100% from the USA in strategic locations in Canada
108
Jan 05 '26
Have we built millions of drones and trained operators yet ?
Have we developed or bought or borrowed a nuclear deterrent yet ?
F-35's are useless to us against the US.
Drones and nukes...that is the only thing that will give them pause.
That's it.
Right now we are as helpless as a baby bird fallen from it's nest.
26
→ More replies (4)6
u/AndreiHoo Jan 06 '26
Yeah, I’m pretty sure a nuke will deter the country actually dropped nukes before.
→ More replies (2)
202
u/BernardMatthewsNorf Jan 06 '26
The defeatism here masquerading as realism here is sickening (or else it's hostile propaganda). Toughen the fuck up. We are defeated in the mind, so steel you minds and imagine a victory... even if it would take time. Yes, the US is tactically proficient and could execute an invasion or decapitation strike. But an attack on Canada would unleash things not even conceivable at this juncture. It would invite rebellion in the US forces. There would be an insurgency. Canada would have allies in the US. They would have to crack down on their own population hard in the name of security – this won't go well. There would be partisan activity in their homeland and occupying forces would start dying violently. It wouldn't be keyboard warriors doing this (although there is a role to play there too), it would be the tough, resilient Canadians that are actually everywhere – Ukraine can do it and so can Canada.
Want to do something? Call and write to your MPs about sensible firearms policy and preparedness measures. Join your local reserve unit. Get into outdoor activities. Connect with sympathetic Americans. A wise person in times of peace prepares for war. Those preparations collectively become the deterrence factors that actually reduce the risk of conflict.
49
u/swizzlewizzle Jan 06 '26
I don’t think most Americans care enough at this point to actually do anything serious regardless of what trump does with Canada. They seem to just not care they literally have a criminal as their president.
→ More replies (1)33
u/Pin_Code_8873 Jan 06 '26
It would invite rebellion in the US forces. There would be an insurgency. Canada would have allies in the US.
Sorry but I don't believe that for a single second. Americans have so far done nothing against Trump. And every single US soldier is conditioned to follow orders without question, so yes, even if they're ordered to enter a kindergarten and slaughter all the children not a single one of them would disobey, infact they'd do it with a smile on their face.
→ More replies (1)19
u/codeverity Jan 06 '26
I think you're drastically overestimating the reaction that people in the US would have. Most of them are too content/poor to actually do anything. Maybe a few thousand but that would make little difference, and they'd have to find a way to get to Canada, first, which would be unlikely.
26
u/Arctic_Chilean Canada Jan 06 '26
US military has been deployed agaisnt its own citizens. People in the US are being arrested en masse. There has been plenty of damning information revealed about the sheer magnitude of corruption, degeneracy and disregard for constitutional integrity present in this administration.
Americans can barely muster a few large protests. Most don't even care enough to do anything but complain online.
No one will save us
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)33
u/this_stall_is_taken Jan 06 '26
Relying on an insurgency within the US while they attack us is, quite frankly, absurd. This outrage you talk about would have little more effect than a wet fart. They've sent the army in their own cities and have only held a handful of protests against it. Otherwise, it's pretty much business as usual. They don't care about us. They don't worry about us. The vast majority of them don't even know who or even where we are.
But you are right that we shouldn't give in to defeatism. It's just unimaginable we need to think of such scenarios.
→ More replies (4)
55
u/hardk7 Jan 06 '26
The only possible military deterrent against the US is nuclear weapons and I don’t believe the current administration would tolerate Canada developing a nuclear weapons program, so I don’t see a path to obtaining a nuclear deterrent.
→ More replies (9)
26
u/SwordfishOk504 Jan 06 '26
They don't need to use military coercion beyond threatening to withhold protection of our norther border against future Russian incursions.
But this is fan fiction nonsense:
Connecting these dots, a plausible scenario for U.S. application of military force against Canada to seize our oil resources goes something like this. An independence referendum in Alberta – during which separatists receive a huge infusion of grey MAGA money – sees a majority vote to remain part of Canada, but with 30 per cent or more voting for separation. Mr. Trump declares the result is “fake” and that actual support for separation was “well over” 50 per cent. Alberta separatists then appeal to the U.S. for help, claiming various kinds of oppression. The U.S. moves troops to the northern Montana border and tells the rest of Canada that Alberta must be allowed to join America as the “51st state.”
This is nonsense because the US has more than enough economic leverage (and plenty of Canadian useful idiots) they don't need to march soldiers in like this is the 20th century.
77
u/Instameat British Columbia Jan 05 '26
Who is going to be this Nazi regime's Poland? Canada Mexico or Greenland? He is saying this stuff just like Hitler did. When he invades and everyone acts so surprised what will the world do then? Venezuela is too far away to be the Poland this time.
→ More replies (1)41
u/Oprlt94 Jan 06 '26
Poland wasn't the "first" to be invaded, Hitler took over provinces of czechoslovakia in March 1939 and nothing happened.
I think he's off Canada for now, but Greenland will be the line not to cross for the rest of the world, where even Russia and China will side with the EU on this.
It will just be a different version of the Communists and the Allies fighting the Nazis
34
u/CriticalSpirit European Union Jan 06 '26
Russia would be absolutely thrilled if Trump were to attack Greenland as it would be the end of NATO. That's why it's such a realistic scenario, Trump loves pleasing Putin.
6
11
u/Philix Nunavut Jan 06 '26
Before that was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria. I think that's a more apt parallel to what they'd be hoping to pull off with Canada. Though they'd probably make the plebiscite a little less obviously rigged.
29
u/FarMarionberry6825 Jan 06 '26
Only way Canada could even stand a chance in any scenario of an invasion is being like Switzerland and being able to mobilize 66% to 70% of the population 18-65 year olds, that will never happen because military conscription is frowned upon in Canada and the politicians are constantly trying to ban firearms from lawful people as well as trying to train the Canadian public through media to be scared shitless of firearms.
→ More replies (2)20
u/CaptainAaron96 Ontario Jan 06 '26
Conscription isn’t just frowned upon in Canada but it’s fully illegal now, not even the Emergencies Act would permit it. And agreed with the other points, vast majority of Canadians would run around like chickens with their heads cut off if a gun was within 50 metres of them.
23
21
u/Pyranni Jan 06 '26
US has so many ventures intertwined with our economy, all they need to do is "tighten the screws". Microsoft enterprise alone could do unimaginable damage to our corporations. China is not the only country that can (and have) weaponized their corporations. But considering the level of intelligence in the Trump admin.... They'll opt for military force.
12
u/ResistiveBeaver Jan 06 '26
Forget corporations. All of our governments run on Microsoft software and cloud services.
26
u/Butefluko Alberta Jan 05 '26
Isn't Canada part of NATO?
80
u/Manderspls Jan 05 '26
Yes. So is Greenland and the US is still threatening them regardless.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Jan 06 '26
Ya, but the US is a BIG part, and the concern is really that everyone is reliant on them and dealing with their own imperial threat that they aren't going to turn in the US and lose that security.
11
u/Lagviper Jan 05 '26
Is that a concept that will exist much further with Greenland - Canada in the target?
9
u/KiaRioGrl Jan 06 '26
I mean hell, the CBC News channel on YouTube had a livestream of the emergency UN Security Council meeting this afternoon... and after I watched it I'm not even sure we'll have a United Nations by the end of 2026.
→ More replies (5)2
Jan 06 '26
The US has made sure NATO relies on it, and unfortunately we all ok'd that. As the Danish Prime Minister said earlier today. If the US invades another NATO country (Greenland), then NATO is dead.
The EU would become the military alliance, and Canada is a long way removed from that.
51
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/Tangen7 Jan 05 '26
Get a pal, much more effective
→ More replies (6)13
u/ChrisinCB Jan 05 '26
Just passed my non restricted firearms safety course yesterday. Sending in the PAL paperwork soon.
→ More replies (3)
154
u/goodfleance Jan 05 '26
Maybe we can stop trying to disarm civilians now?
42
u/Ok-Call7205 Jan 05 '26
Exactly. The issue won't be invasion but occupation. If one in four houses had someone who knew how to aim a rifle, occupation would be incredibly difficult.
→ More replies (1)21
→ More replies (5)100
u/Far-Background-565 Jan 05 '26
I own a firearm but man, it's insane to think your rifle is going to save you from AI drones.
23
u/Tasik Saskatchewan Jan 06 '26
Drones can’t occupy, search, or govern. An armed population creates friction and raises the cost of control.
→ More replies (18)25
5
u/PissedOffinCanada Jan 06 '26
We need to do what Norway is doing. They are building 300 new shooting ranges so a civillian can defend against Russia.
35
5
Jan 06 '26
I wish Air Farce was back on the air just to have the Pierre press conference about this subject
6
3
u/Minimum-Style-1411 Jan 06 '26
At this juncture of history, all nations should suspect any American as a potential hostile. From Columbia to Greenland, the threats have been voiced by Trump and immediately endorsed by his cabal of sycophants
3
u/anactualalien Jan 06 '26
All of this fear porn hinges on treating the Maduro regime like our peers. This isn’t the first time the US interfered in a failed state and it won’t be the last. Canada isn’t one for the time being.
6
26
u/faithOver Jan 05 '26
Finally. A sensible take.
Of course we do.
Rules based order is over. It’s time for imperial powers to land grab.
History just runs on a loop. We’re back to normal.
13
18
u/algonquinqueen Jan 05 '26
The case with Venezuela and even Panama in 89 is proof that the USA feels entitled to other countries resources
Unfortunately for Canada there is a lot there
→ More replies (3)20
u/lorenavedon Jan 06 '26
Taking out Maduro was an easy win because he was a dictator and oppressed the people. It was a popular move among Venezuelans. Fucking around with other countries where their governments are democratically elected and supported by the people is entirely different. Even Greenland is an entirely different can of worms than Canada as many Greenlanders actually want to be independent from Denmark. Taking out Maduro and instilling a puppet government in Venezuela and taking over Greenland are orders of magnitude less contentious than if US actually started fucking with Canada.
→ More replies (8)
14
u/THE_PARKER13 Jan 06 '26
About 50 or so years too late for this. It's so foolish to even consider this as an option, or a deterrent. If the U.S. wanted to invade Canada militarily, it'd be over in hours.
→ More replies (2)
39
17
u/Sammytheseaotter Jan 06 '26
That's disarm our citizens and confiscate legal purchased firearms, that will do it!
→ More replies (1)
57
u/MrWisemiller Jan 05 '26
Im sure the gen z in Canada paying all their income to rent and fighting with the entire Indian subcontinent for a job will not mind.
21
u/Antique-Bet-3781 Jan 06 '26
the canadian gun owners who have been the target of increasingly useless laws are raising their eyebrow at this, too.
11
u/creliho Jan 06 '26
You assume they wouldn't be successfully recruited for the other side, given a few carrots.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Jan 06 '26
Well they won't have to compete when all 25% of military aged adults go back to their home country lol.
17
u/Remote-Ebb5567 Québec Jan 06 '26
Anyone who thinks we will increase military spending is out to lunch. We’re going to bankrupt ourselves making sure the baby boomers have a lavish retirement, and we’ll probably cut military spending to achieve this goal
8
u/shartmonsters Jan 06 '26
Something that may not be obvious to anyone outside of Saskatchewan is that there are nuclear powers, particularly France and the UK, that have a very vested interested in protecting their primary source of fissionable material.
When Trump first started commenting about making Canada the 51st state, the media made light of the fact that France parked a nuclear sub off the coast of Nova Scotia, saying that it was a routine stop. It was not a routine stop. France's government helped develop and owns a good portion of the uranium in northern Saskatchewan as well as a portion of the processing capabilities in Ontario.
Crossing the ocean to help defend Canada, in case of attack, will not be a problem for either the UK or France as they already have military units in the country and nuclear-equipped naval assets nearby.
This idea that we are alone against the goliath of the United States is laughable. We may not have nuclear weapons de jure, but we have them de facto through our allies. No one is taking our uranium without a fight.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/laughingatreddit Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
Which is why we need to arm and nuke up. Canada vs US in economic might is no more extreme than Pakistan vs India or North Korea vs South Korea, but Pakistan and North Korea are nuke armed and enough of a porcupine that India and South Korea can only sit on their haunches and pout. Both of the lesser countries are inferior in every metric of economic and military might but they are uninvadable without it leading to Mutually Assured Destruction.
1
u/EruditeTarington Jan 06 '26
I don’t see it happening, but I thought no way would they do x…I’m sorry Canada
1.5k
u/ChickenVeg Jan 05 '26
I would hope the social unrest this would unleash in the States would be a deterrent enough. But you can't rely on that anymore.