Recent searches
Search options
So, here's my defense plan for Canada. Basic philosophy: it is unsafe to wait for an attack.
1. Get public confirmation from NATO that Article 5 applies even if the aggressor is also a NATO member.
2. Send an ultimatum to Washington demanding a public acknowledgement of Canadian sovereignty by the President and confirmation of non-aggression.
3. In the absence of that acknowledgement, sever diplomatic ties, close the borders, and embargo trade. Blow bridges, tear up roads and rail lines.
4. Evacuate Canadian civilians from the border area; probably 300km or more. Yes, this is where most Canadians live.
5. Declare a security corridor of 300km on the other side of the border, in US territory. Any military activity in that area is a sign of imminent aggression and will prompt a defensive strike.
6. If anything occurs, surge forward and take territory. Keep any war on US soil, not in Canada.
The goal is to get Canadians out of harm's way for a shooting war with short-range missiles (500km-1000km); keep something like an economy running, although severely curtailed by the loss of US trade and any facilities near the border; and bring the maximum pain to the US economy, civilian morale, and government.
@evan I don’t think 300km from the border and keep the economy running is possible. That’s the entire Montreal to Windsor corridor, and half the country’s population.
@preinheimer @evan …where even would we put 20 million(?) people?
@sean @preinheimer as far as I can see it, it's move north, or get occupied. Is there another option?
@sean @preinheimer another option is calling on our fellow Commonwealth nations to take in children, seniors, and non-combatants, like we did for the UK in WWII.
@evan @preinheimer Those both sound like the same outcome to me. In the case where we nearly-all need to give up all of our homes, schools, hospitals, jobs, and other infrastructure, we'd just be occupying ourselves—we'd be so demoralized, malnourished, and disease-ridden, that we'd be easy to conquer.
I think I'd rather lose in the first wave than suffer all of that and lose anyway because we're trying to huddle into tents and hope the wheat delivery isn't droned again.
@sean @preinheimer oh, yeah. Sorry, my plan is to win. Surrendering is always an option if you're willing to give up sovereignty. Maybe in a generation or two, there'd be an opportunity to rebel.
@preinheimer I think if you give up 2/3 of the population to bombardment or an occupying force, it's game over.
But, yes, you can't keep most of the economy going this way. I'll change the post.
@evan I’m concerned that we wouldn’t be able to feed that much of a displaced population. We’re also abandoning a lot of fertile soil.
@preinheimer true, but we produce a lot of food. And we would have to count on our allies for aid.