What is to stop the U.S. from invading Canada?

Factual Questions
41

What about NATO? Even without the US, NATO would still be the strongest millitary force on the planet. Since Canada is a member of NATO, anyone invading The Great White North would have to deal with most of Europe as well. The US would also have to leave/be expelled from NATO to declare war on Canada; its credibility and image would take a very long time indeed to recover (centuries).

By the way, I did hear once (I don’t have a cite on it) that Canada’s soldier are, on average, the best trained or almost the best trained in the world (better than american troops). I’m only talking about regular forces, though; I doubt we have any special forces that could compete with the navy SEALs or the british SAS.

Of course, Canada DOES have some pretty fancy nuclear technology (Isn’t the CANDU reactor the best nuclear reactor on the planet?). If things get desperate, a few covertly placed nuclear devices could make an example of america and show the world that Canada is in fact NOT a country that they wanna fuck with.

As for guns control…
The notion that guns in the hands of civillians would deter an invasion is ridiculous. For one thing, any resistance movement can get ahold of weapons quite quickly through the black market regardless of any gun control laws.

Second, even if your country were being invaded, what would you rather be: You could be harmless civillian; if an invading soldier kills you, it is an atrocity and will probably get the UN and NATO (even without the US) very angry at the invading country (NATO intervened in kosovo, didn’t it?). Either that, or you could be armed and dangerous. Since you’d likely have a gun, invading soldiers would shoot to kill on sight, no questions asked. Guns for civillians? Great plan.

42

Hate to bring it up but Canada is really a nuclear power in disguise. If it ever really looked like a truly possible US invasion we could probably have a decent set of bombs within a 2 weeks (having helped the US with their delivery systems and selling nuclear reactors for over 25 years). Trust me, Canada could find more than one suicide bomber to walk across the border and take out northern New York.

But to be more immediately realistic you could just as easily ask what is stopping the US from invading Luxemberg,Spain, or almost any other country in the world. The answer is that military conquest is not always the best way to economic prosperity. Trade talks would turn pretty chilly with Europe once you invade a 50 year old ally (of theirs as well BTW)

43

Ok, this ignores the equipment available, number of bodies that can be called into service, level of technology, training, etc. but let me throw some numbers at you:

NATO member nations’ defense budgets in $US (either 1994, 1995, 1996 as available):



Belgium:          2.8 billion
Canada:          11.0 billion
Czech Republic:   1.2 billion
Denmark:          2.8 billion
France:          39.8 billion
Germany:         32.8 billion
Greece:           4.0 billion
Hungary:          0.7 billion
Iceland:          0.0 (defense provided by U.S. forces)
Italy:           23.3 billion
Luxembourg:       0.1 billion
Netherlands:      7.0 billion
Norway:           3.1 billion
Poland:           3.2 billion
Portugal:         2.5 billion
Spain:            6.0 billion
Turkey:           7.3 billion
U.K.:            36.8 billion
U.S.:           353.4 billion

So.....Totals:
USA alone:      $353,400,000,000
Rest of NATO:   $184,400,000,000

Money is a fair indicator for our purposes. Looks like NATO ain’t all that if you take away the US, which accounts for about 65.7% of all defense spending by NATO countries.

Nuclear reactors do not mean military might. I don’t know canada’s actual nuclear weapons status, but I doubt it even shows up next to the US’s collection. But my personal what-if is with a conventional war.

My point was wondering how many guns are available for the taking, if there was an invasion. If they’re strictly controlled, there won’t be too many laying around for citizens to grab.

Guns in the hands of civilians do a lot more than you might think. Ask the British who have to stop the IRA or the Soviets who occupied Afghanistan.

Live free or die, my friend. (borrowed from New Hampshire. what a great motto!!) I’d rather be the pit bull who dies baring his teeth than the chihuahua lying down at the feet of his new master.

But, CarnalK has it right:

44

I’m sure that idea would go over well with the populace. “Hey everyone, we need to get killed so that world will be outraged at the atrocities taking place here!” :rolleyes: As for invading soldiers “shooting to kill on sight”; what are they going to do, kill the entire civilian population? Wouldn’t that be a mite bit inconvenient??

Take the movie “Red Dawn,” which was already mentioned, for example. The teenagers in the movie were able to take some Soviet soldiers by surprise and kill them using civialn weapons. They then took the soldiers’ more effective military weapons. The teenagers would’ve been in no position to fight back at all had they been unarmed in the first place. I never could understand how any nation on the European mainland could be so gung-ho for gun control, after the Nazis swept in and slaughtered significant parts of their population at will. I personally would rather die while shooting back than on my knees begging for mercy.

And NATO only intervened in Kosov because it was a strategically significant region. You didn’t see NATO do a damn thing for Rwanda, did you?

45

Reminds me of the movie “Canadian Bacon” where John Candy and the US wage war on Canada to stop the launch of a Canadian missile in the CN tower.

Ok, here’s what I think would happen if the US attacked Canada unprovoked.

-Canada hold borders pretty well for the first while (our population is concentrated along the border, while the US’s is all over the place.
-The UK and the Commonwealth come to Canada’s aid
-The US invades good chunks of Canada
-NATO goes to Canada’s defense
-The UN goes on Canada’s side
-The US, while gaining significant territory in the Candian West, is attacked from other directions, probably NATO forces originating from Mexico.
-China, Korea, Iraq and whoever else who currently has a grudge against the US sees an oppurtunity and attacks.
-US, under public pressure, withdraws from Canada.

46

Where do you think all that high tech crap comes from? we make it down here. A large percentage of the us military is made up of Texas. Chuck Norris and the rest of the Texas Rangers could probably take care of the situation.

47

HAHAHAHA!!!
“They sent only one Ranger?”
“One hostile invasion force, one Ranger.”

48

Canada is completely dominated by US capital to the extent that it can be and still be nominally independent. Therefore, there is no reason for the US to invade Canada.

If the Canadians decided to overturn the current state of affairs by reclaiming their resources and industries from the hegemony of US capital and refusing to follow US dictates in foriegn policy, then the situation could change, depending on the depth and breadth of the social/economic/political changes the new regime in Canada was pursuing.

If the US ruling circles decided that the changes had gone too far, a program would be devised to deal with it. Such a program has contingencies ranging from mild grumbling to all out war.

Initially, the US would raise its “concerns” through diplomatic channels. If these were rebuffed, the US would make a public protest through various channels. The press would be mobilized to start a campaign of propaganda about the “intransigence” of the Canadians. Editorial writers would rail about the rights of “American” property owners in Canada. At some point, the CIA would organize “dissident” groups in Canada. The press could then speak of “human rights violations” in Canada. The CIA would support, or organize if none existed, extreme nationalists in Canada who would demand the annexation of Alaska.

Soon the front pages of Time and Newsweek would be posing questions such as: “Canada, time to act?”

At some point economic sanctions would be imposed. Canadian industry would be squeezed and the economy strangled. Canadians would be outraged. The CIA would use its extreme nationalist front thugs to attack US citizens on the streets, leading to more strident editorials the US press. Polls, real or otherwise, would be concocted to show support for military action. Eventually the US is “forced” to act.

Anyway, that’s generally how these things progress.

49

Galen is partly correct.

The thing is, we’d have to get to a position where invasion of Canada is deemed to be a good idea by US leadership. Why would we do that right now? Anything we want from Canada can be bought, we have access to Canadian talent, Canadian markets, etc. What would we gain by attacking Canada, even if we assume it’s a walkover?

So to really answer the question, we have to construct a scenario where US-Canada ties have broken down so heavily that “we” feel an invasion might pay off. And even if there was an “invasion” it would almost certainly have to be a Germany-Austria sort of Anschluss. We’d have to arrange enough support in Canada for the invasion, a party of Quislings who’d invite us in. Even if the majority of Canadians opposed it, they have to feel that there was nothing they could do.

And of course, this would assume that the US government has essentially turned fascist to begin with. If anyone thinks that the US is currently fascist then they don’t understand the meaning of the word.

This hypothesized Canadian invasion won’t happen without some sort of political/economic meltdown that destroys our current system of intergovernmental relations, chaos in the streets, and megalomaniacs who rise to take advantage of the situation.

But Galen, please. You are saying that since Canada is already our slave there is no need to attack it. Don’t be stupid. Yes, American companies operate in Canada, Canadian companies operate here. Millions of Canadians live and work in the US. How is that US hegemony? Are you saying that Canadians are scared to stop trading with the US 'cause we’d attack them if they don’t? I seem to remember the Candians signing NAFTA voluntarily, joining NATO voluntarily, etc. Maybe you live in some alternate dimension?

50

Keep in mind, if a NATO member is attacked, the countries would probably crank up spending. And since the US spends a large amount of its budget on defense already, its budget wouldn’t increase as much as others who currently spend less on defense.

51

Sorry, got here late. LanceTurbo, are you suggesting we need Canadian men to screw our women?

52

Lemur I don’t think you understand the scope of US ownership in Canada. I’ll combine it with a possible Canadian unrest scenario:

Virtually the entire Canadian auto industry is US owned. The deal negotiated under the Auto-Trade pact was(very roughly) that an equal number of cars sold in Canada had to be produced in Canada. In exchange, large and established US firms were allowed unfettered access to the Canadian market. Under Canada’s WTO agreements, such “performance requirements” (like having to hire locals or buy local materials) will be deemed illegal. Massive auto and related layoffs could lead to the election of a non-“traditional” federal party.
How would the US react to Canada’s pulling out of NAFTA & the WTO and then immediatly begin protectionist policies?

(ps i wouldn’t toss the word “stupid” around too much if I were you)

53

I think that it is more complex than that. I think that there is a web which binds the US and Canada in a thousand ways and that Canada is definitely the junior partner. Canadians feel that, anyway.

54

What could stop the US?
one word: losses
They would never allow the US army to just invade Canada because they would suffer some casualties, and I think it could be a lot. Think about the estimates for the invasion by the UN of Yugoslavia. They estimated 60 000 losses [i think]
Also they would never ‘just invade Canada’ they would have to have a long bombing campaign to try to minimise losses. In that time the UN would stop them.

Also, why would they want Canada in the first place. Yes, it has oil but it is not profit making yet as it is buried under loads of rock. The US has enough problems of its own without having to worry about governing Canada as well.

55

One more point.
History has shown that the underdog is very good at causing large losses to the enemy. For example, the 1812 invasion of canada,
but also in the second world war the Italians invaded Greece with a much larger army and were defeated by the Greeks who used Geurilla tactics against the Italians, and were only beaten properly when the panzers rolled in.

Also, for those of you who are thinking ‘But America is so much BETTER than Italy’ You had your ‘asses’ whipped in the Vietnam war by the vietcong etc who, again, used Geurilla tactics. Keeps coming up this one doesnt it?

Reccomendation to the Canadian troops if america invades, take a few tips from the Vietnamese and the US will soon pull out with its tail between its legs.

56

Someone, at some point in this mess, would remember that, even if the other states won, refugees tend to spread out and away from the conquered land. The fear of having Texans next door is a good deterrent. :slight_smile:

57

It seems some areas of Canada are moving toward easing up
on the savage drug laws, that were mostly put in place following America’s lead. At least with respect to marijuana. Is it possible that the specter of Canadian adults being allowed to smoke pot unmolested, will rile the
American government into a takeover?

58

According to this article Canada already lost the war.

59

Sailor, that article assumes one major thing: That the US has a distinctive culture. There’s no such thing as american culture! Whether you’re in america, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, South Korea… pretty much anywhere in the “north” part of the world, it’s pretty much all the same. You don’t have to look very hard to find Coca-Cola for sale anywhere. The US just has so-called WESTERN culture.

Modern Countries have little (nothing?) to gain by conquering more land. Pretty much all that modern democratic governments influence is the rate of taxation, amount of social spending, and relatively unimportant laws (pretty much national by-laws) that its citizens are subject to. The US has no influence to speak of over how it’s natural resources are distributed; corporations do that. Corporations obviously don’t work like countries, so they don’t need to conquer land to get resources.

Actually, maybe “What’s to stop the US from invading Canada?” isn’t the question; a better one would be “What’s to stop Sprint from invading Telus territory?” (answer: nothing; it is trying to take over Telus “territory”)
…What was I saying again?..

60

I’m surprised this hasn’t made it’s way out of General Questions. As with any war, the outcome would depend largely on the context in which it was fought. If a large percentage of Canadian citizens felt their gov’t was repressive and called for U.S. military assistance, I suppose there could be some sort of successful intervention. I think the U.S. would ultimately fail in the “Aggressive President” scenario unless there was both an agreement in popular opinion in the U.S. and a Canadian willingness to give in. Those conditions seem highly unlikely in the near future.

Never underestimate the ability of a nationalistic and determined nation to fend off a the military force of a larger but less motivated nation.