What are the US war aims in invading Canada? What do we hope to accomplish? Are we planning on annexing Canada by force and incorporate Canada into the US and make Canadians US citizens? Are we going to annex Canada and ethnically cleanse it? Are we going to set up a puppet government? Are we going to go in, defeat their military, hang a few politicians, and then head home?
The question itself is nonsensical because a war between today’s Canada and today’s US is impossible. Any future scenario where a war between the US and Canada is possible would require both the US and Canada to change so completely that there’s no point in speculating about what our military would be or what our war aims would be. If you want to imagine a particular scenario, ala Harry Turtledove, then we could talk about it.
But these “line up country A’s military on one side of a giant football field, and country B’s military on the other side, who would win?” scenarios miss the whole point, which is that scenarios like that never happen. If you put 1939 Germany’s military on one side of the field and 1939 France’s military on the other side, France would crush Germany. Except in real life, Germany crushed France, and France was helpless until US and British and Commonwealth troops landed on D-Day. Heck Czechoslovakia’s 1937 military could have given Germany’s 1937 military a very difficult time on the football field. Except in real life, Germany rolled into Czechoslovakia without a shot being fired.
As Napoleon said, in war the moral is to the physical as 10 is to 1. In a scenario of a fascist US invading Canada, are confused conscripts lead by politically connected incompetants using equipment provided by the dictator’s cronies invading a prepared and fortified country prepared to fight for Freeeeedom! Or are seasoned fascist fanatic veterans marching virtually unopposed into a country convinced it cannot win against the tide?
Do the invaders believe that the invasion is justified, do they believe it can succeed? Do the defenders believe the invasion will succeed, or are they sure it will fail, what will happen to the defenders if they surrender, can the defenders hope to counterattack? Can the defenders make the populace of the attacking country feel so much pain they give up? Or are the invaders fanatics, and every counterattack just makes morale on the home front that much higher? What does it mean to “win”, what does it mean to “lose”?
Any remotely realistic scenario in which US invades Canada is also one in which relations between the two countries have deteriorated dramatically over a substantial period of time - a period of time lots long enough for Canada to build a nuclear arsenal. We have large uranium reserves, a very substantial existing nuclear energy program, and lots of nuclear physicists.
I really think your wrong there. The German army defeated armies that looked stronger on paper because their tactics and equipment were so far superior.
Other factors, such as morality and justification, were trivial compared to that. The defenders in France and Czechslovkia only started to beleive the invasion could succeed because they were so outmatched demoralized by the german blitzkreig.
We didn’t win the Gulf War in 1991 because out justification for war was suppior, we won because our technology and tactics were so far in advance of the iraqi occupying troops.
Of course theres more to judging the capability of an army than numbers of tanks/planes/soldiers. But the idea that the reson for the war has a major effect on the effectiveness of an army is very dubious (and not supported by the facts).
My bad… this should have read “France and Poland”. The Czechoslovakia was taken over without a fight because the polictical leadership decieded it was not worth while (after the betrayal at Munich, and the occuptaion of the Sudentenland). It had nothing to do with the size or otherwize of the army (of course its possible the Cadanian Government might decide the same thing).
That’s not really what the OP was asking-- ie, lining up militaries. And my WWII history is bit weak these days, but I thought Germany (in defiance of it’s treaty after WWI) built up a formindable army by 1939. Did France really have superior hardware?
I’ve posted in the past how Canada would over come this. Once it becomes obvious that the US is massing troops for an invasion, the Canadian Government would buy up every minute of air time on every US TV station. Once the airtime is secured, we then start airing hockey games and images of seal clubbing to the sounds of duets by Ann Murray and Celine Dion.
It would be overwhelming victory on the part of Canada.
Oh, c’mon. We’d be able to spot you by your flannel. Plus while you might sound like us there is no way you could act as arrogant as us. I mean really.
Gun ownership is certainly in the millions. Which it doesn’t have to be; you don’t need that many weapons. Weapons can be imported, bombs built. One decent shot with a good rifle can raise a lot of hell.
No offense, but the United States is barely in control of its own borders, you know. Given current U.S. military capabilities, there is no possible way it could seal off its borders AND Canada’s. All you need to fuel an insurgency can be trucked across the border from the good ol’ USA.
You are way, way underestimating the geographic issue. If the U.S. abandoned most of its current overseas commitments it MIGHT be able to commit 350,000 Army and Marine troops (if my math is correct) to an occupation force. Gosh, that ain’t nearly enough. 150,000 troops are having trouble controlling a country twenty times smaller with a smaller population that doesn’t have thousands of miles of coastline and near-indefensible border with the USA.
Of course, it wouldn’t be all bad for Americans. Once they master ‘zed’ and learn the proper spelling of colour and centre, they would be rewarded with Tim Horton’s.
According to the Research Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, 29% of Canadian households own guns, and there are anywhere between 9 million and 20 million firearms in Canada. Canada is 3rd, behind the US and Norway, among the developed western countries in civilian ownership of firearms. He also claims that 20% of non-aboriginal Canadians hunt (and the percentage would be higher if people from the First Nations were included)
And you’re right, the US doesn’t have anywhere near the manpower to seal the US-Canadian border. Weapons are going to get through, and Canadian resistance groups and terrorist cells are going to manage to get into the US and raise hell.
How many Canadians are going to fill their cars with explosives and drive them into crowds of American schoolchildren? How many Canadians are going to sneak over the border, break into the houses of American civilians, tie them all up and shoot them all in the back of the head? How many Canadians are going capture International Red Cross workers, hack their heads off with butcher knives, and send a video of the whole thing to the BBC?
That’s a good point. A very large number of Canadians look and sound like a very large number of Americans. No racial profiling would work unless the US simultaneously took all its Blue States prisoner.
Which brings up an interesting thought: what if it was Jesusland versus Canada? There’s enough of a cultural difference there to provide some real friction.
I can’t see many Canadians doing that sort of stuff. But a small minority of Canadians, if convinced of the injustice of the invasion, could do considerable damage to US government buildings, power stations, bridges, airports, etc.
None, I hope. What does this have to do with anything?
As I said, if we are hypothesizing an invasion tomorrow, a likely Canadian response would be government in absentia running a guerrilla WAR, not a terrorism campaign. You do know the difference, yes?
If by “Jesusland”, you mean those states that voted for Bush, it still doesn’t work. Remember that all of the rural American Midwest except for Minnesota voted for Bush, and Dakotans and Montanans don’t sound much different than Albertans or Saskatchewans.
