You know, as an interested but unbiased Australian friend, I think I should point out a few statistical realities about invading foreign countries.
Every where I’ve ever read states that the rule of thumb to overwhelmingly occupy and subdue a foreign country against her will requires an invasion force ratio of roughly one soldier per 15 members of civilian population. Yes, it’s true that in Iraq at the moment, the invasion force of some 150,000 (all totaled amongst contributing forces) is way out of kilter with the Iraqi population of 22 million, however, the regular drip drip drip of geurilla insurgency reflects the inherent shortcomings of too few men on the ground.
Consider a more realistic example of Germany’s efforts in Norway in WW2. At the war’s end, some 300,000 German soldiers were expatriated - but it’s accepted wisdom that at least another 100-150 thousand were in Norway prior to 1945 and they kinda dribbled out during the last 3 months. My point here is that now you’re starting to see the amazing numbers of men and supplies which are needed to occupy a relatively small country such as Norway for just 5 years - and apparently guerrilla activity was just wild during that time.
Accordingly, let’s all take off our “hysteria hats” for a second, and put on our “reality strategic hats” instead. Are you starting to get an idea of the sort of logistical magnitude required to take on Canada, and totally subdue her? I mean seriously… think about the sort of invasion forces you’d be talking about to make it even remotely successful. You would easily be talking about an invasion force on a par with d-day. And where would you land? Let alone, where would you commence your embarkation point from? All of these issues would show up like massive bright red flags on satellite surveillance. It would be an utterly impossible thing to organise in secret.
Hence, the next question is, who would be so crazy as to launch a military attack on Canada, in the knowledge that anything less than an invasion force of 300,000 men is going to ultimately fail? To attack Canada with just airborne assaults would be madness. The ability of the Canadian airforce alone would probably rise to the occasion. Sure, some madman might unleash a volly of missiles, but ultimately they would achieve the same effect as Saddam’s volley’s towards Israel in 1991 - a lot of terror certainly, but almost zero in terms of military gain. Possibly, a nation-state might decide to launch a series of nuclear warheads purely out of hatred and spite, but the sheer threat to the US from radio-active fallout born via the wind would result in the aggressor nation becoming toast within 30 minutes.
Ergo, the final arguement that potentially the heathen hordes might descend down through Alaska across from Siberia is also pretty unlikely too. That in effect would be an attack on US Soil, which would be even greater madness. And realistically, it would be icredibly easy to defend, and further it essentially means that Russia would be declaring war on North America and I utterly can’t see that ever happening - like ever.
Nope, I’m sorry Airman - I love ya to death and I respect your philosophy’s to the 'nth degree, but in this instance the anxiety is unfounded. Canada is definitely in an infinitely safer neighbourhood than my country is - as evidenced by the Bali Bombing of 2002.
Honestly, I rather think the USA should be seriously considering doing everything in her power to raise the general wealth per capita of Mexico to bring it up to the level of her northern neighbours in Canada. A wealthy, prosperous Mexico is infinitely more in the USA’s interests than demanding that Canada spend more on HER military. The threat is from the south, guys. Not from the north.
