A war would be disastrous for both countries. Especially the US.

As President Donald Trump relentlessly threatens to annex Canada, some Canadians are worried that an American invasion could one day become a reality.

How would that scenario play out? Looking at the sheer size of the American military, many people might believe that Trump would enjoy an easy victory.

That analysis is wrong. If Trump ever decides to use military force to annex Canada, the result would not be determined by a conventional military confrontation between the Canadian and American armies. Rather, a military invasion of Canada would trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.

But in this nightmare scenario, could Canadians successfully resist an American invasion? Absolutely. I know this because I have studied insurgencies around the world for more than two decades, and I have spent time with ordinary people who have fought against powerful invading armies.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    The US would initially run over Canada. Let there be no mistake there, it always does. Saying this as a proud almost Canadian, this US armed forces will overwhelm any country in the world.

    Having said that.

    The US hasn’t won a single war since WWII. It’ll overwhelm whatever country it invades and then inevitably gets it’s ass kicked from here and back to the US again. Anyone remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq?

    If the US decides to invade Canada, it will sign it’s own death certificate.

    • Majorllama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The piece you’re missing is that all those wars after WW2 they weren’t fighting to save the world. They were fighting to line the pockets of the military industrial complex (and big oil) that sprouted up around post WW2 America. The goal wasn’t to “win” it was to funnel as much money into the pockets of several already rich and powerful cunts as possible.

      If there was actually a threat to American citizens and we wanted to delete that threat entirely we would have absolutely no issues completely leveling pretty much any foreign nation with or without nukes.

      Canada’s actually military would be a speed bump for ours. Nothing.

      But dealing with the global backlash and potential escalation to nuclear war would be an unmitigated disaster for not only the US but the whole world.

      We may not know exactly what would happen in the fallout after the hypothetical invasion but I think we can all agree it would be very bad for pretty much everyone on the planet.

    • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m a USian and was home schooled by conservative Christian parents, so please forgive my ignorance.

      If Canada was attacked, would the Crown be obligated to help defend you? Or are commonwealths on your own?

      • CalPal
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        24 hours ago

        To clarify: “The Crown” is often a short-handed statement for the executive government, which is basically the Cabinet for the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) - all the Ministers of different government departments. Symbolically, they work in the interest of the de jure (written in law) authority of Canada, which would be the Monarchy in Britain (who is also symbolically head of state for every other Commonwealth nation). Now, as to touch on the British Commonwealth (since “The Crown” in Canada would basically be decimated in a conventional confrontation with the US):

        It would turn into an existential crisis for everyone, I assume. A lot of “every man for himself” sort of mentality, but I assume there would be those who would want to fund a Canadian resistance (even if paltry) simply on the notion that an Imperial America is a FAR worse threat than anything Europe had faced before (expansionist policies, current global economic power, utterly disconnected from mainland Europe and the largest navy and airforce combined… kind of a worse situation than Fascist Germany, since it would be far more difficult to deal any direct damage to US infrastructure from the other side of the pond).

        I’ll be honest, I would have no idea if the Commonwealth would actually step up in a way that is remotely similar to what we have done for Ukraine. I would honestly expect more help from Mexico and Latin Americans than I would the Commonwealth, as they would see that the US would be a very tangible threat at this point and also share the all-too-important land boarder.

        • unscholarly_source
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I hate to say it, but I don’t actually think they would (I might be wrong)… For a country like the UK to jump in, it needs its population to be in support. If it jumps into an armed conflict without the support of its population, it will have its own revolution to deal with.

          I think we’ll see a similar, albeit more committed version of the type of response Ukraine received… Military equipment aid, sanctions against US, humanitarian aid.

          The same goes with NATO Article 5… US makes up the majority of NATO funding contributions, and European countries have to contend with a continuously brazen Putin… With US threatening to pull away from NATO, it would be countries like Poland and Germany that will step up against Russia, so no capacity to support Canada…

          I really really really hope I’m wrong.

          It fucking sucks all around.

  • CileTheSane
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 days ago

    First he’d need to convince the army to follow his orders. It’s a lot harder to paint Canadians as “evil minorities” in order to get the rank and file to “just follow orders”.

  • asg101
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Resistance is not futile, the USA has not prevailed (single-handedly) against resistance movements in any country of our size in their history. IEDs are cheap, effective, and relatively easy to make. Canada has farms with fuel oil and fertilizer, and lots of firearms.

    • Dearche
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s even worse. The US hasn’t won against an insurgency ever in its entire history. And really, it hasn’t won a single conventional war since WWII either to be honest.

      While one side would be forced to fight for its right to exist, the other would be forced to weigh the costs of doing an occupation for decades. Not to mention the hit to moral and public support, which in turn translates to support from your own military.

      Frankly speaking, I think the US’s own military would refuse to move if ordered, and Trump’ll have to replace most of the leadership to make them comply. And even then, there’s the thought that most of the soldiers themselves wouldn’t want to raise arms against their longest standing ally.

    • BCsven
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I have always been a peaceful and patient person, but there is no way I’m letting a fascist foreign government take over. I would gladly even suicide bomb a foreign invader if it thrwarted their advance and protected my adult kids , and fellow country members, future.

        • Rob Bos
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          Who’s radicalizing? There’s no US invaders on Canadian soil, what are we radicalizing against?

          A fascist takeover of Canada would inevitably result in a guerilla war. This is just a fact.

        • BCsven
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          There’s no religious agenda here, just defending my own country, the same as a military enlisted would do. How do you think we are here today and not living a Hitler regime; people gave their lives for their country. Is Remembrance Day a poppy celebration of radicalism?

          • lobut
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I dunno, I look and sound just like an American. I know I’ll die in a real takeover but it doesn’t mean I won’t do some homemade devices and grab an arm to defend my country.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Many of Canada’s firearms are outdated in a military sense and the government has been continuing to ban more guns. Many fire arms currently owned by canadians would have already been considered obsolete by the cold war, especially if we are comparing our stockpile to America’s.

      • Rob Bos
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        You’re just as dead if you’re shot by a Ross rifle or Lee-Enfield as by a whizbang gizmo-addled wank-rifle with 10 attachments and a CDROM drive.

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Sure, but a magazine of 5 in a semi automatic is still a lot less shots than a magazine of 30 in a fully auto rifle. Modern military body armor has come a long way and being a neighbour, america has many naval and air bases already built and fully loaded within striking distance. A surprise strike could significantly cripple canadian military resources.

          • Rob Bos
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            Yeah, I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Canadian military wouldn’t get roflstomped in hours. It’s more about the insurgency afterwards, I’d say.

            Not all the American occupiers can be armed and wearing body armour 100% of the time. They have to sleep and piss occasionally.

            • asg101
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Asymmetric war is just so asymmetrical.

  • LostXOR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yep, people will fight hard to defend against a foreign invasion. We’re seeing it with Russia and Ukraine right now.

  • grey_maniac
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you think about it, all we have to do is each Canadian has to eliminate 10 Americans. Not necessarily kill, just remove from combat. That can be through befriending so they stop fighting, incapacitating through a biological agent against which, as Canadians we have been vaccinated, diverting to another enemy, or actually taking out. And really, we’d only have to target the white combatants, the way they’re going nowadays.

    Facetiousness aside, I agree with your point. And thanks for sharing. What we probably have to watch out for is thd cultural warfare that recruits Canadians against Canada.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nah

      Canada has to kill only a few thousand soldiers and the US population will be ready to revolt

      • corsicanguppy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Oh yeah – thin the invaders just a bit and then

        RELEASE THE GEESE

        it’ll be over in a day.

      • grey_maniac
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Which part is the fantasy? A US invasion, Canadians fighting back, or me eliminating 10 Americans? I see two as medium probability, and one as high probability.

          • grey_maniac
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            It seems like you didn’t read the article. On top of that, as an experienced veteran, third in my sniper course, with a background working with and training insurgents (which should tell you what kind of veteran I am), and time in intelligence, I am certain that 10 soldiers is well within my capacity. And I come from a family that includes five ex-military, two ex-intelligence, three connected to undercover work, and other creative fields. There are also several people in my family experienced on cybersecurity red teams, and there are even two with banking systems experience. One of my cousins has been consulting on counter drone warfare, and several of us work with electeonic counter-measures techniques. My family alone could do serious damage.

            We certainly wouldn’t be stupid enough to engage in frontal combat with american troops. We’re talking insurgent and resistance warfare. Extremely brutal variations. In the extreme, since we can pass for the current ideal american, we would likely engage in infiltration and sabotage activities.

              • GreyEyedGhost
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 days ago

                Here’s the thing. How well did America do in its first guerilla war, Vietnam? How well did it do in its last guerilla war, Afghanistan? How well do you think it would do if those guerilla soldiers looked pretty much like them, talked pretty much like them, and had a similar culture? Why are you banking on better? Was it the longer supply lines that lost the two wars I mentioned? Was it the lack of troops on the ground? Because those are the only two advantages America would have in a war with Canada as opposed to the other two I mentioned.

                There is no way Canada’s military can stand against America’s, you’re absolutely right. If America decides to, they will invade Canada. That by no means guarantees a peaceful or successful occupation. And Canada’s military leaders aren’t idiots. I doubt they’d even meet America’s military in the field. But I bet you’d see a whole bunch of freedom fighters who used to have uniforms in their closets.

              • grey_maniac
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                Glad I could make you smile. Sounds like derision is your default mode. That must make you hard to hang out with for extended periods.

    • Darkassassin07
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      That was Trump v. The American legal system.

      If it comes to a head on confrontation; it’d be Trump v. Canada in gorilla warfare. We’ll bring our own justice, and probably add a few more pages to the Geneva Conventions while we’re at it. We’re good at that.

      • fourish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The next thing will be trump visiting Canada and another staged “assassination” to galvanize the less intelligent Americans into supporting “peacekeeping” in Canada.

        Or they’ll just dress someone up as what they think is Canadian in the US and try the same line down there.

  • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is a hopeful expression,but it’s written from a dreamers perspective.

    Canadian civilians don’t know what this means. Canadians don’t have a culture of resistance, there is only a dream that rights and values are immutable.

    Compare that to the Finnish, or to the Baltics. Ask a Finn what they will do when the Russians come, and you will get a detailed response, with both vigor and realism. Balts will either stand or falter, but with a true understanding of the reality of their situation. Those people have been defending their sovereignty for decades - like the Ukrainians.

    I’d love to see the Canucks resist, like I’d l9ve to see the Yanks hold … but they haven’t even seen the examples of Belarus and Hungary- they don’t even u.dersrand what they are fighting.

    In a fight, the Americans will roll in and take Toronto, and Montreal, they’ll bomb a few bases, they’ll blockade Victoria and Vancouver and the block the passes, then they’ll blockade the Eastern shipping lanes. The prairies will cheer, poorly treated migrants will shrug, sofa warriors will fizzle … them what is left? US supply routes will be stable and simple, and they’ll attack without risk. What can guerilla tactics do in that scenario?

    • Rob Bos
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Canada is five large cities, which are easy to capture, and an entire USSR-size back-country of rough terrain, which would be nearly impossible to patrol and hold in the face of even a mildly resentful populace. You don’t have to have the entire population actively fighting - passive resistance would make it difficult to do anything in the face of shrugs and "I dunno"s.

      Resistance fighting can be picked up pretty fast, and in the face of brutal American reprisals and repression, I think it would be. Their history in Afghanistan and Vietnam shows that they’d create an entire generation of people out for revenge VERY quickly.

      We would hide our insurgents, and they would fade into the mountains and forests. You don’t need a lot of active insurgents to cause a huge problem.

      We have cheap drones and abundant weapons. We’re one of the more gun-infested countries per capita, and have a porous border with the USA.

      It’d be a hell on Earth. They’d never hold the Rockies.

      Resource extraction operations. Forestry and mining are easy to disrupt, especially if the local labour doesn’t like the occupiers. There are a thousand ways to gum up the works, and a thousand more to attack them and fade away into the surrounding forest.

      • unscholarly_source
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Who will our insurgents comprise of? (Honest question). Aside from a small percentage of the population that has had weapons training (active and reserve military, police force, hunters) the vast majority have never touched a weapon before…

      • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I’ll give you the forest guerilla function. They can be close to the resource targets that the Americans will immediately move to appropriate. I will also give that they will get popular support, so they won’t starve.

        I do think that you underestimate the impact on rural and small town populations that the American propaganda has had. There’re full maga & 2A groups in Lindsay and Nelson who are flying their F Tr flags at this.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, you’d think it’s easy for the US.

      Just as people thought Iraq would be easy

      And Afghanistan

      And Vietnam

      And yeah, the initial invasion is easy, it waltzes over anything as a hot knife slices through butter.

      Then, however,.comes occupation. What is it worth invading and blockading if you can’t own it? And this is where the US always has failed and will continue to fail in the future too. You can bet your furry Canadian butt that Canadians will resist and hard.

      Same goes for Mexico btw. If the US decides to invade there as hinted as multiple time, expect US soldiers to be hanging from bridges with their private parts stuffed down their throats, they have quite a bit of experience with how to handle that.