Is it possible to fight the US?

Remove all ads!

1. Would the US ever attempt such a thing?

A: No, Britian wouldn't stand for it!

2. Would the rest of the world try to help Canada?

A: Britian would get involved. We always f*cking do! Sort out other countries problems then worry about ours .

3. Even if they did try, could they stop the US?

A: Not that such a war would ever happen (as it would likely end in a nuclear holocaust). But the US wouldn't be able to withstand the might of a united world. Even France would need to get involved if old Kofi told 'em to.

 

Well, theoretically, if the US was to invade Canada, it would threaten the existence of every other country of the world. So, the Japanese, British, Germans Mexicans and Indians would have to join together to secure their own future existence. So, Leviathan would suddenly be surrounded by a lot of hostile small fish angry about the swallowed Jonas. Nah, that wouldn't end good and it wouldn't be the first leviathan to inspire unlikely alliances. On the other hand, I would expect Australia to join the US in an attack on the UK, I mean the pacific security is higher on the list then historical ties.

 

You mong! I know Australia are America wannabees an all, but come on! Who'd be stupid enough to attack little old Ingerland?

Thats simply not cricket!

 

Well the problem of the Soviet attack to Finland was not really the winter or the forest, it was rather the poor tactics the soviets used, "charge blindly on" isn't exactly a great tactics to be used after the machine gun was invented, the winter and the forest surely helped Finland but it was not the main reason for Soviet losses, if the attack would have been done by the Germans I would dare to claim that we wouldn't have survived the war as independent.

If USA would attack Canada I think an occupation would assume very very quickly and after that it would really just depend on how much the Canadians would resist the occupation forces. I really doubt the rest of the world would attack USA, it would be way too risky and result in too many deaths, which might then end in a replay of WWII in a much much larger and deadlier scale.

Personally I think this kind of attack would be possible very far in the future when resources are starting to end and people grow desperate, and when people grow desperate their morales tend to get twisted.

 

@Duke Eltan

If this imaginery war between US and the rest of the world will take place in North American soil US would be the winner for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous post. If the war takes place in any other part of the world US will be defeated for the same reasons. It doesn't matter how much the tactics on the battlefield or the technology have advanced, there is one basic rule in the warfare and this is that infantry is the force that conquers a territory, airforce, artillery and navy are just helping the infantry, they cannot conquer. If the rest of the world wants to help the canadians, it has to bring troops to north american soil and the only way to do it is ships.

 

I agree with BOC.

Especially when you consider the speed that ships travel the U.S. forces would have days if not weeks to sink anything that was heading in their direction. With the U.S. being the only nation to truly have aircraft carriers any armada would be sitting ducks. About the only hope the armada would have would be if the U.S. ran out of munitions sinking everything.

Then even if troops made it to the shore, because of the second amendment we are a heavily armed society. People would flock to the coasts with weapons. Hmm, I may want to send this thread to the NRA (national rifle association), they may want to use it in a fundraiser

 

@ The Great Snook

Good point. The fact that Canada does not have self-protection rights, does make them particularly vulnerable.

[ March 10, 2004, 03:32: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

Oh good Lord.

There's two things Canada has to worry about. If the US closes it's southern border, and if our northeastern power grid ever craps out again.

If we close the border, all those gangs and druggies will run their boats up international shipping lanes, and use Canada as an entry point. Your towns will go to hell, just like ours have. We don't have the manpower to protect both the north and southern borders, unless we enlist the national guard and reserves.

The power issue should be obvious.

 

1. Would the US ever attempt such a thing?
-> Rather not, they don't need to as they cheerfully recruite canadian indians for the US armed forces already. And seriously, what would they win really?

2. Would the rest of the world try to help Canada?
-> NATO would have a major conflict here - it would not be obliged to intervene because with view on greece and turkey they stated the obligation for united defense against outside threat only.
Plus, NATO would be unable to move their troops to Canada in sufficient numbers - over the US controlled Atlantic. But France might help their francophone friends there against such a blatant agression

3. Even if they did try, could they stop the US?
-> No, but delay with good combat, it is likely that in arctic and mounatin terrain the Canadians would play out their superior expertise, as they did in Afghanistan. "We don't do mountains!" as the famous quote from US 10th Mountain goes.
Canada could try to make victory unbearable for the US. In case Canada would switch to a sort of combat denial and make their army go underground the US would face a very serious problem. As can be seen in Iraq, resistance of that kind cannot be overcome so easily. Though the US would have less of a problem in a country where people speak English and look caucasian - infiltration for counterinsurgency would be by far easier than in Iraq. But nontheless, they US are equipped to and excell at beating armies, but they are unexperienced and unprepared to pacify territory as an occupation power.

 

It seems a little strange that this topic is attracting so much serious speculation over the outcome of a US invasion of Canada. You guys are just going to make poor Jaguar more nervous! Canadians are our friends, and always will be...American people would never stand for an aggressive stance against Canada. Canadians will continue to winter in the desert southwest (just please, stop wearing those short shorts) and we will go skiing in Calgary.

The only reason for the US to take over Canada is if we truly wanted to be able to claim that the best hockey players in the world were American.

Of course...if the day ever comes that for some unforseen reason the US feels compelled to invade (shipments of Grade B maple syrup, border crossing by mad cows, 10 consecutive years of Stanley Cup victories)...then, resistance is futile!!!

 

I have a feeling it would be called the Great Bacon War, for some weird reason.

But seriously, in the long history of the World - when has a democracy gone to war with a democracy? I can't think of any. Of course, in the since democracy was restarted, in the U.S., in the 18th century (not that long ago), I'm not surprised that this hasn't happened.

 

It has happened in 1914. The democracies Imperial Germany (constitutional monarchy), France (republic) and Great Britain (constitutional monarchy) pounced upon each other in an attack of collective "Let's duke it out like men" idiocy and ruined each other.
I'm not sure about Hungaro-Austria and to a lesser degree Imperial Russia but iirc they were both constitutional monarchies too. I'm just too lazy to check.

And as till now no one has yet found a herb against idiocy it could happen again.

 

The common consensus among historians is that entangled alliances drew these nations into WWI, not a desire to increase their boundaries. Each nation had an agreement to defend some of the smaller nations in south eastern Europe. These alliances were honored and drew the major powers into the conflict.

 

Good point.

I'm not familiar with the details on the governments of these states before World War I. France was definitely a republic (they purged themselves of the taint of monarchy), but I'm not sure about Britain and Germany.

It all depends on the amount of control the monarch has on the government. If the power is only symbolic, then it can be safe to call the government a republic. If the monarch has power (and is therefore a dictator), I wouldn't classify the government as being a republic (and not even close to a democracy).

Anyway, I made a rather bad mistake and forgot a BIG exception to my previous statement: the United States Civil War!

Half the member states went to war with the other half. So, it definitely happened and we did it! Damn!

 

Just for the protocoll. I doubt that the USA "restarted" democracy.

On the other hand, actually the German Empire was one of the most democratic countries of its time. The introduced one man one vote shortly after founding. Yet, there where also by far the worst administrated country of its size. This may be, because greater Prussia head some internal difficulties with placing the political weight of Prussia in an all-German corsett. Declaring war without even notifying the foreign ministry about it, common.

I wouldn't dare too call the UK a "democracy" before 1945. I'm all with those who say, that as Hitler deemed that the UK would be weak because it's a democracy, he was just so plain wrong, thinking that the UK was a democracy. House of Lords, common. Ok, maybe one may say that after the constitutional crisis of 1911-14 they became somewhat democratic, but still not enough.

As for the First World War, I think the common agreement is, that it was, like the second, a cummulation of many different wars. For Europe, mainly the combination of the 3rd war of Ottoman succession (a.k.a. 3rd balkan war), which involved the dual-monarchy, Russia and Italy and the war about the German-question or war of European hegemony, mainly involving the vaining British Empire and the rising German Empire. On complete other parts of the world, you could also say, the war of Japanese expansion, which also saw some parts in the First World War, as all European powers, not only Russia, which did so after the defeat of 1905, had to make major concessions to the Japanese.

As for the 3rd war of Ottoman succession, I think it's funny, that the strategy of both, the Russians and the Austrian-Hungarians was to please the people of the Balkans. Austria-Hungaria tried to annexe some lands and put it into the Austrian part, to make a point that the people there would fare better under the Austrian then the disliked Hungarian part. Just another nice "what if" question.

 

Canada is both the largest importer of American goods and the largest exporter to American markets. Attacking them would be economic suicide.

 

When Germany invaded and occupied France in WW-II France was Germany's best customer and vice versa.

History indicates that wars aren't decided on a basis of prudence. Just look at World War I for another example.

 

Good point there, Ragusa. There's nothing like a captive market.

 

The difference being that Germany was in an economic nightmare and...well, run by Nazis.

 

Right, Nazi Germany invading France. I see some resembelence there. Two neighboring countries, both trade partners, with one country having a war mongering idiot for a leader. If Bush stays, I just don't know.