So lets game out what happens, or what we think will happen.
US military could easily seize Panama. They already did so in 1989. It would be slightly harder as I don't think the US has any remaining bases in Panama (they were closed with the turn-over of the canal). Panama also has no standing army (following the example of Costa Rica).
Seizing Greenland would be even easier - they do have a military base, and the population is negligible.
Panama would certainly have Latin America outraged. It was one thing to seize Noriega and install the winner of the election that Noriega had over-ruled, but another to be a naked war of conquest. Would Panamanians enter into an insurgency? I suppose it might make a difference if US tries to control the entire country, or is content simply to seize the canal.
Greenland would have Europe outraged. NATO would be over, full stop. Presumably US would be told to leave all military bases there - Trump might see this as a benefit.
Canada - depends on what he does. Does he impose tariffs of 25%? 100%? It would drive Canadian economy into a deep recession, but would certainly hurt the US as well (in particular oil and car parts). It would not be popular. Trouble seeing any Canadian leader simply agreeing to some form of annexation though - probably preferring to wait it out.
What about straight up military conquest?
Canadian military is not Panama, or Greenland. We have 60ish thousand active personnel, roughly 80 CF-18s (hard to see the navy as being involved). None of these are stationed to defend Canada from the US - but I can't imagine the US could pull off an invasion without any notice or warning either.
So this is where I'm getting lost in the details. Does Trump try a surprise decapitation strike - sending in special forces to seize politicians in Ottawa together with key government buildings? They could probably do that by surprise. Or do they mobilize the military more broadly to cross the border and seize all major cities. If they do does Ottawa order our soldiers to defend?
And after that - do Canadians start an insurgency? We're a country of 40 million, and while we have less guns per capita than the US, we have a lot more than most other places. But do we have it in us?
Incidentally - I used to think the GOP would never want Canada because it would mean too many Democratic voters. But they don't have to give us statehood - just make Canada a US Territory (like PR or Guam). No voting rights unless you move to the US.
In all cases China wins
Let's burn the White House again!
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 12:32:54 PMLet's burn the White House again!
Burn all Trump properties might work better
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 08, 2025, 12:15:58 PMIn all cases China wins
Well China would have just been given the biggest green light to seize Taiwan, for sure.
It would still be difficult for them though - the PLA has no meaningful combat experience in decades, a naval invasion is very difficult.
But the US very clearly wouldn't be coming to their aid, so while Taiwan could resist for quite awhile it's hard to see them winning.
Serious answer: In a world where Tim controls probability and the US does invade Canada is screwed. A fight would be put up, but it's futile. We don't have jungle for a proper gorilla war like Vietnam, and while we have vast swaths of land, some of it inhospitable, we don't have population bases there like say Afghanistan. We're too urban. Take out three cities and our fight is gone.
As for insurgencies a large proportion of our conservatives base would happily quisling. Hell, they want to be America north of the border as it stands right now, an invasion would probably be their wet dream.
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 12:42:15 PMSerious answer: In a world where Tim controls probability and the US does invade Canada is screwed. A fight would be put up, but it's futile. We don't have jungle for a proper gorilla war like Vietnam, and while we have vast swaths of land, some of it inhospitable, we don't have population bases there like say Afghanistan. We're too urban. Take out three cities and our fight is gone.
As for insurgencies a large proportion of our conservatives base would happily quisling. Hell, they want to be America north of the border as it stands right now, an invasion would probably be their wet dream.
So always impossible to say how much of what happens online is real, but there are definitely online voices from Canada cheering on the possibility of annexation, for predictable reasons - lower taxes, second amendment, less wokeness.
As I understand it it was the urban areas that gave US forces in Iraq the most trouble. Now, Fallujah is pretty different from, say, Vancouver.
Oh, backing up to "economic pressure" - one threat Canada would have is to shut down energy exports - both electricity and oil. I think Doug Ford has floated this one.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 12:50:20 PMNow, Fallujah is pretty different from, say, Vancouver.
I saw Rumble in Bronx. Vancouver is a scary place, and anyone trying to conquer it will face the daunting challenge of getting through Jackie Chan and his motley multi-cultural band of fake New York kung fu fighting biker gangs.
Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto are a lot closure the americas army and toys then Fallujah though. Probably a lot easier to project force. I do say that as a complete military strategy novice, admittedly.
I'd also imagine there'll be a sizeable contingent of redneck joy riders joining in of their own volition. Don't know how effective they'd be, but they still mess some stuff up.
Also, blame global warming. Canada is a lot easier to invade now then it was 30 or 40 years ago :P
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 01:00:00 PMVancouver, Montreal, and Toronto are a lot closure the americas army and toys then Fallujah though. Probably a lot easier to project force. I do say that as a complete military strategy novice though, admittedly.
I'd also imagine there'll be a sizeable contingent of redneck joy riders joining in of their own volition. Don't know how effective they'd be, but they still mess some stuff up.
So US isn't going to really want to co-operate with irregular forces. For all that some people might love the idea of having the second amendment in Canada, at first US forces are more likely to seize weapons from groups like that.
The question would be whether Canadian institutions like municipal and provincial police forces co-operate with the new occupation authority. Ideally they'd want a decapitation strike and otherwise things proceeding as normal.
It's only if they don't get co-operation from ordinary Canadian institutions that they might look into a "Sunni awakening" redneck paramilitary.
The US military didn't seem to have that much difficulty projecting force in Iraq to be fair.
The redneck I was envisioning were the likes of Texan (sorry Valmy :P ) or Alabamans taking their pickup for a road trip :lol: not in concert with the army, but of their own twisted sense of patriotism and the joy of playing soldier with their pew pews.
And yes, getting institutions inline would be the easiest and most efficient route. Don't know if they'd get that. Probably enough sense of "Canadian-ness" that I think it's unlikely (Maybe in Alberta :D ). In my version of Timmyworld it'd be an all out invasion and occupation.
On the other hand: Ukraine has shown that invading might look easy but isn't necessarily so.
Unexpected things might happen. And it's not like the US isn't divided either at the moment.
In either Canada or Greenland cases Europe would have no other choice but to rearm even faster because we're still stuck with all the other crap on our borders (Europe being surrounded by hostile countries or hostile ideologies).
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 01:16:20 PMThe redneck I was envisioning were the likes of Texan (sorry Valmy :P ) or Alabamans taking their pickup for a road trip :lol: not in concert with the army, but of their own twisted sense of patriotism and the joy of playing soldier with their pew pews.
US Redneck Recon reaching Toronto. :P
Haha forgot about that movie. Maybe I was subconsciously informed by that movie :ph34r:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 08, 2025, 01:18:00 PMIn either Canada or Greenland cases Europe would have no other choice but to rearm even faster because we're still stuck with all the other crap on our borders (Europe being surrounded by hostile countries or hostile ideologies).
Well if expansionism is back, there's a market for it in Europe too :ph34r:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GguVgaGXkAAlkZy?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 08, 2025, 01:18:00 PMOn the other hand: Ukraine has shown that invading might look easy but isn't necessarily so.
Unexpected things might happen. And it's not like the US isn't divided either at the moment.
In either Canada or Greenland cases Europe would have no other choice but to rearm even faster because we're still stuck with all the other crap on our borders (Europe being surrounded by hostile countries or hostile ideologies).
Ukraine was in a low-intensity war with Russia for 10 years prior to the "full scale invasion" and was much more prepared. Russian military is fairly incompetent and corrupt.
Canada is utterly unprepared for a continental war of defence, and the US military is the world's best.
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 01:23:53 PMHaha forgot about that movie. Maybe I was subconsciously informed by that movie :ph34r:
Thinking more about this:
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_annexation_of_Canada (https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_annexation_of_Canada)
QuoteBackground
The primary reason for the annexation were Canada's natural resources, considered vital to the American military effort in the Sino-American War.[2]
:hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 01:27:31 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 08, 2025, 01:18:00 PMIn either Canada or Greenland cases Europe would have no other choice but to rearm even faster because we're still stuck with all the other crap on our borders (Europe being surrounded by hostile countries or hostile ideologies).
Well if expansionism is back, there's a market for it in Europe too :ph34r:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GguVgaGXkAAlkZy?format=jpg&name=medium)
Just imagine the Pikachu face of Orban when a deal between the Fourth Reich under Herbert Kickl and Putin's Neo-Tsarist Empire puts Hungary in the German sphere of influence.
I actually wonder what the endgame for these populists in smaller countries agitating against the EU is. Do they want to replace the fairly benevolent and constrained EU with a return to great power politics?
:lol:
I wish they'd asked the people who agree to expand on where precisely. I get that many Hungarians basically think most of the territory of their neighbours should be Hungary. But say, Italy?
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 01:13:01 PMQuote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 01:00:00 PMVancouver, Montreal, and Toronto are a lot closure the americas army and toys then Fallujah though. Probably a lot easier to project force. I do say that as a complete military strategy novice though, admittedly.
I'd also imagine there'll be a sizeable contingent of redneck joy riders joining in of their own volition. Don't know how effective they'd be, but they still mess some stuff up.
So US isn't going to really want to co-operate with irregular forces. For all that some people might love the idea of having the second amendment in Canada, at first US forces are more likely to seize weapons from groups like that.
The question would be whether Canadian institutions like municipal and provincial police forces co-operate with the new occupation authority. Ideally they'd want a decapitation strike and otherwise things proceeding as normal.
It's only if they don't get co-operation from ordinary Canadian institutions that they might look into a "Sunni awakening" redneck paramilitary.
The US military didn't seem to have that much difficulty projecting force in Iraq to be fair.
Your only hope of survival is to trigger a Second Civil War and ally with anti-Trump States.
Quote from: Zanza on January 08, 2025, 01:37:09 PMJust imagine the Pikachu face of Orban when a deal between the Fourth Reich under Herbert Kickl and Putin's Neo-Tsarist Empire puts Hungary in the German sphere of influence.
Putin would love nothing more than to give Transcarpathia to Hungary, and areas around L'Viv to Poland, as part of wiping Ukraine from the map. It would make those other countries complicit in his own crimes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 01:42:04 PM:lol:
I wish they'd asked the people who agree to expand on where precisely. I get that many Hungarians basically think most of the territory of their neighbours should be Hungary. But say, Italy?
Dalmatian coast & Savoy I would imagine would be the bits Italians still think of theirs.
An interesting scenario is if the USA left NATO before invading Canada. In which case NATO (if it still existed of course) could invoke Article 5.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 01:42:04 PM:lol:
I wish they'd asked the people who agree to expand on where precisely. I get that many Hungarians basically think most of the territory of their neighbours should be Hungary. But say, Italy?
Revanchists can exist anywhere.
Italy? That's easy. Areas around Trieste that were given to Italy after WWI, but then given to Yugoslavia after WWII.
Sweden puzzles me though. Does anyone seroiusly want Finland as part of Sweden? Or the Baltics?
And the UK - surely nobody wants Ireland back. The question says "neighbouring countries" so I'm assuming it just isn't Imperial nostalgia. Claims on Normandy?
HUngary, Greece, Bulgaria - I get. Almost surprised Germany isn't higher. Same for Spain.
Much of the anti-EU sentiment in the Nordic countries is based on "paying too much into the system", as in sponsoring the development of infrastructure etc in southern and eastern parts of the EU. And not getting enough back. Except, you know, the aquaducts, sanitation, roads, the baths etc.
:uffda: :swiss:
During the 1994 referendum, my grandmother was mostly afraid papists would gain power in Norway. So there is of course that. :pope:
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 01:51:32 PMRevanchists can exist anywhere.
Italy? That's easy. Areas around Trieste that were given to Italy after WWI, but then given to Yugoslavia after WWII.
Sweden puzzles me though. Does anyone seroiusly want Finland as part of Sweden? Or the Baltics?
I agree. I had rather hoped we'd beaten that out of ourselves in Europe.
For that matter - Canadians. Is that fully seizing Hans Island or, like, Alaska? :hmm:
QuoteAnd the UK - surely nobody wants Ireland back. The question says "neighbouring countries" so I'm assuming it just isn't Imperial nostalgia. Claims on Normandy?
The dull answer is probably Ireland - and quite possibly (given that a surprising numbers of Brits think Ireland is part of the UK, or that Northern Ireland isn't) just Northern Ireland.
But I like to think that at least some of it is the natural yearning for Aquitane.
Similarly I hope that at least some of those French just want the First Empire (objectively correct borders for France :ph34r:).
QuoteHUngary, Greece, Bulgaria - I get. Almost surprised Germany isn't higher. Same for Spain.
Germany is interesting because I think discontent with the borders/disputing where Poland had moved to was a part of politics in the CDU right up until reunification.
And I'd be interested to see updated numbers as I suspect Poland is now far less interested in Lviv given their solidarity with Ukrainians.
QuoteI actually wonder what the endgame for these populists in smaller countries agitating against the EU is. Do they want to replace the fairly benevolent and constrained EU with a return to great power politics?
I think it's like small state populists in the US running against DC - a thinly veiled (and often successful) venture for pork. I always think of Salvini and Lega Nord on this which started off as specifically Padania moaning that their interests were being overlooked in Italy and money just going to the South, then it became a party for the entire North against Italy, then it became just Lega and it was Italy making the same complaint :lol:
But I think France and Britain are the only countries that have ever had significant parties pushing for a referendum or leaving - I don't think any of the smaller countries actually have (I think Greece maybe came closest during the Eurozone crisis).
Quote from: Norgy on January 08, 2025, 02:00:38 PMDuring the 1994 referendum, my grandmother was mostly afraid papists would gain power in Norway. So there is of course that. :pope:
That strand definitely existed in the UK in the 1975 referendum, particularly (as you'd expect) in Northern Ireland. E.g. a poster from Dr Ian Paisley's church:
(https://preview.redd.it/261j5giyynt21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=dd6ef251e21b2455cd0417cbaa8ed9a0c86d5ae4)
:ph34r:
Ended up as an MEP - where he had to be removed from the chamber while John Paul II was giving a speech for heckling that he was the Antichrist...
Edit: Just watched the news clip "Mr Paisley quoted a 16th century anti-Papist slogan" :lol: :bleeding:
US forces arrive in Vancouver - Most defect shortly after arrival after realizing life here is better.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 02:10:27 PMQuote from: Norgy on January 08, 2025, 02:00:38 PMDuring the 1994 referendum, my grandmother was mostly afraid papists would gain power in Norway. So there is of course that. :pope:
That strand definitely existed in the UK in the 1975 referendum, particularly (as you'd expect) in Northern Ireland. E.g. a poster from Dr Ian Paisley's church:
(https://preview.redd.it/261j5giyynt21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=dd6ef251e21b2455cd0417cbaa8ed9a0c86d5ae4)
:ph34r:
Ended up as an MEP - where he had to be removed from the chamber while John Paul II was giving a speech for heckling that he was the Antichrist...
Protestants :rolleyes:
Quote from: PJL on January 08, 2025, 01:43:57 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 01:42:04 PM:lol:
I wish they'd asked the people who agree to expand on where precisely. I get that many Hungarians basically think most of the territory of their neighbours should be Hungary. But say, Italy?
Dalmatian coast & Savoy I would imagine would be the bits Italians still think of theirs.
Istria more likely than Savoy.
Plus Nice (Nizza) and Corsica. The latter might be freely given by France, given time. :P
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 08, 2025, 02:11:42 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 02:10:27 PMQuote from: Norgy on January 08, 2025, 02:00:38 PMDuring the 1994 referendum, my grandmother was mostly afraid papists would gain power in Norway. So there is of course that. :pope:
That strand definitely existed in the UK in the 1975 referendum, particularly (as you'd expect) in Northern Ireland. E.g. a poster from Dr Ian Paisley's church:
(https://preview.redd.it/261j5giyynt21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=dd6ef251e21b2455cd0417cbaa8ed9a0c86d5ae4)
:ph34r:
Ended up as an MEP - where he had to be removed from the chamber while John Paul II was giving a speech for heckling that he was the Antichrist...
Protestants :rolleyes:
Yeah, mixing up oecumenism with catholicism would really trigger the anti-Vatican II schismatics, not to mention the sedevacantists. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 02:06:29 PMSimilarly I hope that at least some of those French just want the First Empire (objectively correct borders for France :ph34r:).
La France des 130 départements ? :lol:
Marine expressed interest for Wallonia once but really right-wing/nationalist people are not that interested, given Wallonia votes PS no matter what, in general.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2025, 02:30:13 PMQuote from: PJL on January 08, 2025, 01:43:57 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 01:42:04 PM:lol:
I wish they'd asked the people who agree to expand on where precisely. I get that many Hungarians basically think most of the territory of their neighbours should be Hungary. But say, Italy?
Dalmatian coast & Savoy I would imagine would be the bits Italians still think of theirs.
Istria more likely than Savoy.
Plus Nice (Nizza) and Corsica. The latter might be freely given by France, given time. :P
probably just in time for a new Napoleon to appear.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2025, 02:38:03 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2025, 02:06:29 PMSimilarly I hope that at least some of those French just want the First Empire (objectively correct borders for France :ph34r:).
La France des 130 départements ? :lol:
Marine expressed interest for Wallonia once but in general really right-wing/nationalist people are not that interested given Wallonia votes PS no matter what, in general.
the voted for the MR this time around (30%) but all of the walloon parties love suckling on the flemish teet. And they'd love suckling on Paris' teet equally well.
that said: regardless of they party the walloon vote for: they're broke. Utterly and completely broke.
Being drafted to fight a war in Canada would result in thousands of Americans fleeing to Vietnam.
Canada ends, Quebec petitions to become le 102e Département. Vive La France en Amérique!
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2025, 02:10:47 PMUS forces arrive in Vancouver - Most defect shortly after arrival after realizing life here is better.
:lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 03:13:51 PMCanada ends, Quebec petitions to become le 102e Département. Vive La France en Amérique!
Make France Great again! :hmm:
During even the fist Trump presidency this thread topic would have seemed silly, now a lot less so. <_<
I was thinking of starting a poll on the rank and service of the first US serviceman to refuse a Trump CinC order, but given this thread topic I'll post here, so what do you think?
If Trump goes for any of these silly season daytrips I can see quite a view junior officers refusing to take part, though I'm not sure if anyone really senior would do it?
I can see the four top brass pushing back nearly all the way against such orders, but not so sure one would actually resign or refuse orders.
Though maybe if Greenland is swallowed the Coast Guard boss might stand his ground, given that service's affinity to those waters? :)
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2025, 04:02:36 PMI was thinking of starting a poll on the rank and service of the first US serviceman to refuse a Trump CinC order, but given this thread topic I'll post here, so what do you think?
If Trump goes for any of these silly season daytrips I can see quite a view junior officers refusing to take part, though I'm not sure if anyone really senior would do it?
I see it the other way, honestly.
I could see some senior general refusing orders to invade Greenland as being unconstitutional. But that person has earned their pension, or is close to it.
Some junior lieutenant - they have a long career ahead of them. Lots of downside to refusing an order.
It is worth noting that the US military (and Canadian) does have a tradition of training to refuse illegal orders.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 04:06:25 PMI could see some senior general refusing orders to invade Greenland as being unconstitutional.
I don't see the constitutional basis for doing so. The War Powers Act has not been tested in a court, and even that only applies for deployments longer than 90 days IIRC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2025, 04:12:11 PMQuote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 04:06:25 PMI could see some senior general refusing orders to invade Greenland as being unconstitutional.
I don't see the constitutional basis for doing so. The War Powers Act has not been tested in a court, and even that only applies for deployments longer than 90 days IIRC.
No idea. I'm not a military lawyer.
More just looking practical. I could see someone who is more established going "I'm not invading fucking Canada" more so than a junior officer.
Of course all of it, Greenland/Pananma/Canada, could just be this president/presidency's raison d'être, trolling to be the centre of attention.
Oh and the rating, otherwise there'd be plenty of considered network coverage of Carter's funeral, Trump ain't letting anyone else steal the limelight.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2025, 04:19:33 PMOf course all of it, Greenland/Pananma/Canada, could just be this president/presidency's raison d'être, trolling to be the centre of attention.
So just to be clear - all of this I think has a low probability of happening.
It's just not zero.
It's still worthwhile to game it all out though - see what you think might happen.
Ukraine/Zelenskyy were apparently convinced Russia would not launch a full-scale invasion - until they did.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 04:17:58 PMNo idea. I'm not a military lawyer.
More just looking practical. I could see someone who is more established going "I'm not invading fucking Canada" more so than a junior officer.
I think it's part of the institutional culture of the of the officer corps to a) not participate in coups and b) obey every single order that comes down the chain of command. I personally can't think of examples of disobeying orders that were considered illegal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2025, 04:24:13 PMQuote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 04:17:58 PMNo idea. I'm not a military lawyer.
More just looking practical. I could see someone who is more established going "I'm not invading fucking Canada" more so than a junior officer.
I think it's part of the institutional culture of the of the officer corps to a) not participate in coups and b) obey every single order that comes down the chain of command. I personally can't think of examples of disobeying orders that were considered illegal.
I think it's well beyond "not participate in coups". They're trained to respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
I can't think of such examples either, but after situations like Kent State and My Lai it's been emphasized.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 04:32:44 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2025, 04:24:13 PMQuote from: Barrister on January 08, 2025, 04:17:58 PMNo idea. I'm not a military lawyer.
More just looking practical. I could see someone who is more established going "I'm not invading fucking Canada" more so than a junior officer.
I think it's part of the institutional culture of the of the officer corps to a) not participate in coups and b) obey every single order that comes down the chain of command. I personally can't think of examples of disobeying orders that were considered illegal.
I think it's well beyond "not participate in coups". They're trained to respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
I can't think of such examples either, but after situations like Kent State and My Lai it's been emphasized.
I feel I should read up on these two, but off the top of my head, wasn't Kent state a national guard unit deployed by the governor/state authorities and did anyone of them do time for the crimes?
My Lai took a good couple of years to come out, Colin Powell not withstanding, it needed some good journalism to push it into the public arena, even then after the trials what was the net effect, one day in prison followed by some house arrest and a few others with wrapped knuckles ??
Incidentally IIRC one of the helicopter pilots did intervene, to save some villagers from being massacred, but that was the most notable example of 'not following orders', most went along with the institutional/battalion plan for pinkville, some hung back and didn't take part. I don't know if that helicopter pilot faced any disciplinary action.
I don't think any US general would defy the order to invade Canada, but a bunch of them would probably resign rather than participate.
That said there is zero chance Trump would order an invasion of Canada. Even under the most favorable circumstances it would require a massive military garrison to be effective.
Also little chance re Panama because it could easily create an Afghan-like situation with US troops at permanent risk of terrorist and hit-and-run attacks, not to mention seriously elevating risks to sabotage attacks on the canal itself.
The generals will talk him of those because they can show it is bad for business.
Greenland OTOH may be a risk because it could be easily done for not much dollar and cent cost. It would be catastrophic to US standing and transform the EU into a military alliance hostile to both the US and Russia; it would mean the end of Taiwan and many other awful consequences. But Trump doesn't give a crap about that stuff. Greenland is really really big and Trump likes big. It has stuff like "rare earth metals" which aren't particularly rare but it sounds really cool and impressive. It's just stupid enough for Trump to do t.
Although corrupted, the American political regime still has to render accounts to the population. The President may have considerable military powers, but such a decisions would still trigger a political crisis. Americans may be somewhat fine bombing countries they see as backwards or hostile. Canada would be different. Whether or not this would stop the insanity, I am less sure now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2025, 04:55:56 PMI don't think any US general would defy the order to invade Canada, but a bunch of them would probably resign rather than participate.
That said there is zero chance Trump would order an invasion of Canada. Even under the most favorable circumstances it would require a massive military garrison to be effective.
Also little chance re Panama because it could easily create an Afghan-like situation with US troops at permanent risk of terrorist and hit-and-run attacks, not to mention seriously elevating risks to sabotage attacks on the canal itself.
The generals will talk him of those because they can show it is bad for business.
Greenland OTOH may be a risk because it could be easily done for not much dollar and cent cost. It would be catastrophic to US standing and transform the EU into a military alliance hostile to both the US and Russia; it would mean the end of Taiwan and many other awful consequences. But Trump doesn't give a crap about that stuff. Greenland is really really big and Trump likes big. It has stuff like "rare earth metals" which aren't particularly rare but it sounds really cool and impressive. It's just stupid enough for Trump to do t.
Yes, a grim prospect, if so France and the UK really should work together to build a joint EU nuclear deterrent.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2025, 04:56:18 PMAlthough corrupted, the American political regime still has to render accounts to the population. The President may have considerable military powers, but such a decisions would still trigger a political crisis. Americans may be somewhat fine bombing countries they see as backwards or hostile. Canada would be different. Whether or not this would stop the insanity, I am less sure now.
Why would we need to bomb Canada? You don't even have an army, not really. New York City has more police then you do active duty soldiers. Hell, they're probably better armed.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 06:56:46 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2025, 04:56:18 PMAlthough corrupted, the American political regime still has to render accounts to the population. The President may have considerable military powers, but such a decisions would still trigger a political crisis. Americans may be somewhat fine bombing countries they see as backwards or hostile. Canada would be different. Whether or not this would stop the insanity, I am less sure now.
Why would need to bomb Canada? You don't even have an army, not really. New York City has more police then you do active duty soldiers. Hell, they're probably better armed.
And the SS also had pretty neat uniform.
You don't need to bomb if there is no resistance.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 07:17:09 PMYou don't need to bomb if there is no resistance.
Well sign up for the invasion then dumbass.
You should be ashamed even talking about this garbage. Especially bragging about how easy it is going to be.
All I want is to not be lumped in with the RoC into, again, the same state.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2025, 07:24:04 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 07:17:09 PMYou don't need to bomb if there is no resistance.
Well sign up for the invasion then dumbass.
You should be ashamed even talking about this garbage. Especially bragging about how easy it is going to be.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2025, 07:24:04 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 07:17:09 PMYou don't need to bomb if there is no resistance.
Well sign up for the invasion then dumbass.
You should be ashamed even talking about this garbage. Especially bragging about how easy it is going to be.
I'm not bragging, I'm admonishing the Canadians for not having a military.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 07:25:15 PMAll I want is to not be lumped in with the RoC into, again, the same state.
The Taiwanese-Quebec confederacy would be strong!
As an inevitable part of the American invasion force, I will start planning which colonial plot of land/spoils to stake out in the vicinity of Ucluelet.
I wonder if Trump will take credit for Trudeau resigning.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2025, 04:48:47 PMMy Lai took a good couple of years to come out, Colin Powell not withstanding, it needed some good journalism to push it into the public arena, even then after the trials what was the net effect, one day in prison followed by some house arrest and a few others with wrapped knuckles ??
I was thinking about My Lai. Is it really all that different than declaring a free fire zone?
BTW, crop your quotes you lazy git.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 07:25:15 PMAll I want is to not be lumped in with the RoC into, again, the same state.
You'll be merged with Ontario specifically :console: :P
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 07:29:37 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 07:25:15 PMAll I want is to not be lumped in with the RoC into, again, the same state.
The Taiwanese-Quebec confederacy would be strong!
You don't visit the Canada thread often? It means Rest of Canada.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2025, 08:13:09 PMQuote from: mongers on January 08, 2025, 04:48:47 PMMy Lai took a good couple of years to come out, Colin Powell not withstanding, it needed some good journalism to push it into the public arena, even then after the trials what was the net effect, one day in prison followed by some house arrest and a few others with wrapped knuckles ??
I was thinking about My Lai. Is it really all that different than declaring a free fire zone?
BTW, crop your quotes you lazy git.
I'm not sure, besides I think someone like Grumbler might point out that there weren't free fire zones, that's my guess, I don't think they were explicit military policies?
And besides in My Lai there were plenty of explicit close range killings of civilian women and children, something that some of the murders have admitted to on video.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2025, 04:24:13 PMI think it's part of the institutional culture of the of the officer corps to a) not participate in coups and b) obey every single order that comes down the chain of command. I personally can't think of examples of disobeying orders that were considered illegal.
Having been part of that culture, I could not disagree more. The duty to disobey unlawful orders is deeply ingrained in the officer culture, even though it isn't exercised very often. Committing a war crime by engaging in behavior that got people hanged at Nuremberg is dishonorable and the moral officer has to resist an order to do so.
The enlisted men's oath includes "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The officer oath does not contain the obligation to obey orders:
QuoteI (state your full name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
Does the average soldier know what is or isn't a lawful order?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 08:54:48 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 07:29:37 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 07:25:15 PMAll I want is to not be lumped in with the RoC into, again, the same state.
The Taiwanese-Quebec confederacy would be strong!
You don't visit the Canada thread often? It means Rest of Canada.
I like mine better.
Valmy and mongers are taking this way too seriously. Trump is thinks this is some kinds of brilliant strategy to get
some sort of concession. Canada will agree to buy 2% more American fish or lumber or whatever and Trump will claim a big victory. We've been through this bullshit before.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 08, 2025, 07:54:41 PMAs an inevitable part of the American invasion force, I will start planning which colonial plot of land/spoils to stake out in the vicinity of Ucluelet.
My advice is to go a little further North into Tofino.
You and the rest of the invasion force will spend so much time surfing that Vancouver will likely be spared.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 10:29:59 PMValmy and mongers are taking this way too seriously. Trump is thinks this is some kinds of brilliant strategy to get some sort of concession. Canada will agree to buy 2% more American fish or lumber or whatever and Trump will claim a big victory. We've been through this bullshit before.
Even if it's just "for funsies" or as negotiation tactics, it's a huge breach of norms to casually threaten ostensibly friendly countries with invasion and/or annexation. It's like "joking" about raping a good friend during a dinner party conversation.
I mean, Trumps probably done that too.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2025, 02:38:03 PMLa France des 130 départements ? :lol:
Correct France.
QuoteYes, a grim prospect, if so France and the UK really should work together to build a joint EU nuclear deterrent.
I'm not sure if the UK can - I think we're in too deep with the Atlantic alliance/reliant on the US on nuclear stuff.
France could but I'm not sure, in that context, that they'd want to Europeanise their power.
(But we should have done Franco-British union as proposed by Churchill or Mollet :( :P)
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2025, 11:23:40 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 10:29:59 PMValmy and mongers are taking this way too seriously. Trump is thinks this is some kinds of brilliant strategy to get some sort of concession. Canada will agree to buy 2% more American fish or lumber or whatever and Trump will claim a big victory. We've been through this bullshit before.
Even if it's just "for funsies" or as negotiation tactics, it's a huge breach of norms to casually threaten ostensibly friendly countries with invasion and/or annexation. It's like "joking" about raping a good friend during a dinner party conversation.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying we shouldn't get too worked up about it. Still, I will remember the rape thing next time I see someone put up a picture of the Middle East with the Palestinian flag covering Israel. Though that might be a bit too much on the nose...
Let it go Raz.
Whatevs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2025, 04:55:56 PMI don't think any US general would defy the order to invade Canada, but a bunch of them would probably resign rather than participate.
Trump will just appoint the kind of generals Hitler had.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2025, 06:09:46 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2025, 04:55:56 PMI don't think any US general would defy the order to invade Canada, but a bunch of them would probably resign rather than participate.
That said there is zero chance Trump would order an invasion of Canada. Even under the most favorable circumstances it would require a massive military garrison to be effective.
Also little chance re Panama because it could easily create an Afghan-like situation with US troops at permanent risk of terrorist and hit-and-run attacks, not to mention seriously elevating risks to sabotage attacks on the canal itself.
The generals will talk him of those because they can show it is bad for business.
Greenland OTOH may be a risk because it could be easily done for not much dollar and cent cost. It would be catastrophic to US standing and transform the EU into a military alliance hostile to both the US and Russia; it would mean the end of Taiwan and many other awful consequences. But Trump doesn't give a crap about that stuff. Greenland is really really big and Trump likes big. It has stuff like "rare earth metals" which aren't particularly rare but it sounds really cool and impressive. It's just stupid enough for Trump to do t.
Yes, a grim prospect, if so France and the UK really should work together to build a joint EU nuclear deterrent.
Invading Greenland would be a great way to drive the EU into the arms of China.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2025, 07:17:09 PMYou don't need to bomb if there is no resistance.
Why don't you sign up in the new Republican Army?
It's a sure way of not ending up homeless once they cut your social benefits. Might be a good way to garner some protection too once they start their witch hunts for former Democrats.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2025, 12:48:24 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2025, 02:38:03 PMLa France des 130 départements ? :lol:
Correct France.
If so, have it your way:
(https://histoire-itinerante.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/800px-Map_administrative_divisions_of_the_First_French_Empire_1812-fr.svg.png.webp)
134 with the Catalonian départements (1812-1814) ; the Illyrian provinces being in an undefined status (not départements).
Unacceptable form of France.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 09, 2025, 12:24:02 PMUnacceptable form of France.
No Milan, right? Louis XII would be furious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2025, 12:48:24 AMI'm not sure if the UK can - I think we're in too deep with the Atlantic alliance/reliant on the US on nuclear stuff.
Between Skybolt, Polaris and Trident, I think that's been the case since before most Languishites were born.
QuoteFrance could but I'm not sure, in that context, that they'd want to Europeanise their power.
I can't imagine that they'd ever wish that to be the case.
Quote(But we should have done Franco-British union as proposed by Churchill or Mollet :( :P)
You got the EU instead.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2025, 12:12:40 PM134 with the Catalonian départements (1812-1814) ; the Illyrian provinces being in an undefined status (not départements).
Wait, if we get a huge France, does Britain have to take back the Irish?
Quote from: Neil on January 09, 2025, 02:30:33 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2025, 12:48:24 AMI'm not sure if the UK can - I think we're in too deep with the Atlantic alliance/reliant on the US on nuclear stuff.
Between Skybolt, Polaris and Trident, I think that's been the case since before most Languishites were born.
I don't disagree with you and Shelf and I'm aware that UK nuclear weapons design experienced a sudden uptick in effectiveness once relations warmed with the US and IIRC later the French may also have enjoyed some technology transfers.
One approach if to have several European countries with independent nuclear forces, granted the UK might have to resort to lobbing trident warhead off of aircraft, but the French might reconstitute a three-part Force de Frappe.
And German, Italy, Spain and some of the Nordic countries could come up with workable devices quite rapidly.
Given the general incompetence of the Russia Army/border/security forces, I can see the Nordic special forces running rings around them, as they hand-deliver nukes to all top tier addresses in the Far north and St. Petersburg regions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2025, 12:48:24 AMI'm not sure if the UK can - I think we're in too deep with the Atlantic alliance/reliant on the US on nuclear stuff.
Necessity is the mother of political improvisation.
Or the UK can start prep work now on transfer of sovereignty for Bermuda and the Caymans.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 09, 2025, 04:19:46 PMNecessity is the mother of political improvisation.
Yeah - sadly I've been hoping that for the last 8 years...But here we are, again.
QuoteOr the UK can start prep work now on transfer of sovereignty for Bermuda and the Caymans.
Meh.
I had always hoped that blowing up Bermuda or the Caymans' sovereignty would be in order to crush their shady tax haven-ing, money laundering economy. With Trump I feel like that may be precisely the attraction.
Quote from: HVC on January 08, 2025, 08:15:43 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2025, 07:25:15 PMAll I want is to not be lumped in with the RoC into, again, the same state.
You'll be merged with Ontario specifically :console: :P
We have a precedent : 1841.
Upper and Lower Canada, together again.
Hi Rex :)