I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in the fact that the Americans would be fighting on two fronts - within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken. Plus there’d be international support at play. It would be a huge mess. Canada would just need to make the mess as big and as long as possible.
That said, preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal, so the more preemptive preparation to strengthen Canada’s position and weaken America’s the better. Shifting our military supply lines to European sources is a step in that direction for many reasons. I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken.
Given the current trajectory, I have little faith that they would mount an effective internal resistance.
I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in
No matter what, conventional war is horrific and wed be losing our families, homes, friends, and more. Effective strategic deterrents make it such that we would never reach that stage and as such, is far more economical and moral.
I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
You cant make nukes loudly in such a situation, but ass we’ve seen, you definitely cant make them under the gun. The only time is before the circumstances that you feel would necessitate them when we are still not viewed as enemies.
Disarming yourself as to avoiding presenting as a threat clearly does not work.
Right, it would be done before the US invades, to prevent them from invading. Nuclear weapons are deterrence, you don’t want to actually use them.
I fear my point is being missed.
My point was in response mainly to this last sentence:
I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
My point is that it cant be further down, because if you are down that far, its too late. We’ve seen this was most countries that became under the gun when they would benefit dearly from having nuclear weapons of their own.
Notably, if Ukraine did so before they would have been fine, but during, they have no chance.
Iran similarly has a difficult time.
Its not about the nation, its about the fact that if you are at a point where you feel the heat is on, its too late to build nukes. Now is the time to build them.
I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in the fact that the Americans would be fighting on two fronts - within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken. Plus there’d be international support at play. It would be a huge mess. Canada would just need to make the mess as big and as long as possible.
That said, preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal, so the more preemptive preparation to strengthen Canada’s position and weaken America’s the better. Shifting our military supply lines to European sources is a step in that direction for many reasons. I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
Given the current trajectory, I have little faith that they would mount an effective internal resistance.
No matter what, conventional war is horrific and wed be losing our families, homes, friends, and more. Effective strategic deterrents make it such that we would never reach that stage and as such, is far more economical and moral.
You cant make nukes loudly in such a situation, but ass we’ve seen, you definitely cant make them under the gun. The only time is before the circumstances that you feel would necessitate them when we are still not viewed as enemies.
Disarming yourself as to avoiding presenting as a threat clearly does not work.
Which is why I said “preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal”
Right, it would be done before the US invades, to prevent them from invading. Nuclear weapons are deterrence, you don’t want to actually use them.
I fear my point is being missed.
My point was in response mainly to this last sentence:
My point is that it cant be further down, because if you are down that far, its too late. We’ve seen this was most countries that became under the gun when they would benefit dearly from having nuclear weapons of their own.
Notably, if Ukraine did so before they would have been fine, but during, they have no chance.
Iran similarly has a difficult time.
Its not about the nation, its about the fact that if you are at a point where you feel the heat is on, its too late to build nukes. Now is the time to build them.