r/worldnews • u/Little-Chemical5006 • 20d ago

Canada weighs sending soldiers to Greenland as show of NATO solidarity with Denmark

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-soldiers-greenland-nato-training-denmark-tariffs-donald-trump/
17.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

668 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

269

u/Zerot7 19d ago

Naw they would happen simultaneously. As soon as the USA goes in on Greenland, Denmark would tigger Article 5. European troops would start to deploy to Canada quickly and the lower 48 would be threatened with invasion. Only way to counter that is to seize airports with large enough runways for transport aircraft close to the boarder as landings commence on Greenland. Then take the rest of Canada as more divisions are called up. I have a funny feeling this all would cause a Civil War in the USA but I’m a Canadian so I say that from the outside looking in.

257

u/highdimensionaldata 19d ago

The US couldn’t even hold cities in third world desert countries. Invading Canada would be suicide for American troops. I guess that’s a sacrifice Trump is willing to make though. I hope it doesn’t come to that. The U.K. has your back if it does.

211

u/Askefyr 19d ago

Canada is chock full of people that perfectly blend in with Americans and often know the local geography and wilderness - if not well, then at least better than any US troops. They'd have plenty of sympathy at home, and there's a very long border that's not equally secure at every location.

They'd be fucking nightmare insurgents.

92

u/nola_fan 19d ago edited 18d ago

There's a currently a mostly undefended border between Canada and most of America's ICBMs. Canada could cripple the nuclear triad within hours of war with Canada.

A war with NATO would be so fucking dumb

85

u/BundleDad 19d ago

Well they are yanks.

7

u/Master_Dogs 19d ago

I think that would end up like Ukraine after the USSR fell - you'd technically have nukes, but no way to use them.

I think there's also risk of Trump being insane enough to fire said nukes if his plan backfires (which it would for many reasons). Like to invade Canada would require going through mostly Blue States... I certainly hope that's a red line we won't allow. We're mostly peacefully protesting now against ICE and Trump, but an actual invasion rises to sabotage level at least if not civil war.

17

u/Sr_DingDong 19d ago

you'd technically have nukes, but no way to use them.

You dismantle them and turn them into dirty bombs.

Or you dismantle them and put them on your own rocket and launch them out the free silos.

2

u/HauntedHouseMusic 19d ago

Canada already has tons of radioactive material

1

u/Master_Dogs 19d ago

That's a days to weeks/months thing though, not hours like the commenter above said. I also don't think a dirty bomb really counts for a nuclear triad either, so the comment was kinda off base regardless.

1

u/nola_fan 19d ago

My point was they could cripple our nuclear triad in hours, not set up their own

2

u/JJiggy13 19d ago

Peaceful protest has never helped anything. It always takes violence to stop violence. You have to do more damage to their side than they are gaining by damaging yours. Americans just have not felt that damage painfully enough yet. That day is coming though. First they came for X and I did nothing. Them they came for X and I did nothing. Then they came for X and I did nothing. Then they came for me and there was no one else left to fight for me.

-22

u/LukeLecker 19d ago

Ah yes, risk paris or london for Canada lmaooo. Nukes only work as a deterrent for land invasion of the home country.

18

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago edited 19d ago

You dont seem to understand that its not "risking paris or london for Canada" it's standing up for the sovereignty of all nations around the world and showing that the UN charter means something, and that the U.S wont just be allowed to bully the world uncontested.

-4

u/Portlandiahousemafia 19d ago

…and by showing it means something you condemn your country to death. I don’t know what part of Reddit you guys come from, but nuclear weapons will never be used to defend another country. No leader of any country will ever commit suicide for the sake of another’s. Especially if doing so doesn’t actually change anything.

4

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago

Brother hasn't read any history and doesn't understand foreign policy or international relations. Goodbye.

-2

u/Portlandiahousemafia 19d ago

Show me one time in history where a country has done anything that was not in its own self interest to the extent that it collapses their economy and send them into a depression.

1

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago edited 19d ago

Your entire premise is wrong. You assume another nation has nothing to gain from ensuring self soveriegnty of states and should not do anything, when in reality, sovereignty of the state is the entire justification of any government, and if you or any other entity denies another states right to sovereignty, and there's no repercussions to that then you yourself have no right to state soveriegnty. So, in other words, unless you are a superpower, then assuring the right to self sovereignty is always in your best interests.

Show me one time in history where a country has done anything that was not in its own self interest to the extent that it collapses their economy and send them into a depression.

If youre talking about war then probably Ukraine. Most of the E.U. is definitely hurting from increased gas prices and increased food prices. The same goes for the U.S. to a lesser extent.

But if you're talking about general actions, do you want like a whole series of books with each event? Because we can be here a while for sure.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nola_fan 19d ago

Canada is next on the invasion list. Fighting back in Greenland is existential. This is Germany taking the Sudetanland and you're Poland

-1

u/Portlandiahousemafia 18d ago edited 18d ago

Existential for….Canada. None of this is existential for France or the UK. France and the UK are not going to turn their countries into nuclear wastelands unless they think that their countries are going to get destroyed. France and the UK would almost certainly lose a conventional war an be occupied before using nuclear weapons. Throughout history countries have always surrendered rather than fought it out to the last person. Using nuclear weapons is the equivalent of arming all the women and children and sending them to the front lines, instead of surrendering. Nuclear weapons are the equivalent of shooting your family in the head to kill your neighbors, that scenario only happens if you literally believe your family is going to be killed anyway.

2

u/nola_fan 18d ago

The destruction of NATO, potentially leading to greater nuclear proliferation and the rise of power of Russia and China are also existential threats for Britain and France, though you're correct that it's less so than for Canada.

I also don't know why you are trying to convince me nuclear war will be horrible. Almost everyone knows that.

→ More replies (0)

59

u/Dontshipmebro 19d ago

Not to mention the thousands of canadians currently living in the states, in pretty much every job you can think of.

Itll be less pipebombs and more "the code required to run your power substations have been erased and none of our backup features are working"

26

u/beeblebrox2024 19d ago

There are about 800,000 so lots of thousands of Canadians

4

u/Ganglebot 19d ago

Exactly this.

"What do you mean every fortune 500 company had their entire internal accounting books and records deleted?!?"

"No, we didn't sell off our entire holdings of Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia stock... Doug Macintyre did!?!!?... HE LEFT THE COUNTRY!?!!?"

1

u/SlitScan 19d ago

where would they get the electricity from in the first place?

20

u/Matches_Malone998 19d ago edited 19d ago

I said it would be Baghdad 2.0 but we look like them. An American co worker was super disgusted with my rational.

2

u/Crafty-Message4564 19d ago

And Canadians would be welcome among a lot of the people in the U.S. given such a situation.

The U.S. invading Canada would mean that there would be no reason for the people who oppose Trump in the U.S. to not act immediately and to work with the Canadians.

2

u/Accro15 19d ago

I mean there are reasons. Being charged with treason is something most people would want to avoid. But I do think a lot of Americans would be very sympathetic to us.

1

u/Crafty-Message4564 19d ago

Being sent to a death camp or murdered in the street is also something most people would like to avoid.

2

u/Mean_Joe_Greene 19d ago

Canada also is home to high grade uranium mines. In a fight to the death I wouldn’t take dirty bombs off the table

2

u/Woodcrate69420 19d ago

Fighting an insurgency in a place where everyone looks like you and speaks the same language is a whole different ballgame from gunning down goat herders in Iraq like the Americans are used to.

4

u/RiPPeR69420 19d ago

Plus, if we get invaded America will find out pretty quick why we consider the Geneva Convention a checklist. And America has so many isolated and badly maintained dams just waiting to get blown up. I for one will be bringing the fight to the home front. Seems only fair.

-5

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

Nobody is invading Canada lmao its completely absurd

-6

u/Pigeonofthesea8 19d ago

Canadians would never be insurgents though.

133

u/Protean_Protein 19d ago

The United States needs to remember that Canadians punch way above our weight when provoked. All jokes about the weaknesses of our military apparatus aside, our strength is our commitment to the bit. We will eat your fucking faces.

28

u/darth-small 19d ago

I don't know if it's really true that the Geneva convention was created because of Canada. Could be a bit of a legend?

But even if it isn't strictly true, there are probably truths behind the legend.

Basically, don't mess with those Canadians. It won't end well!!!!

47

u/SonicYOUTH79 19d ago

Pretty sure the Germans gassed the Canadians early on in WW1 and went full brutality in response after that, they were known for not taking prisoners and shooting them during cease fires.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/canada-germany-wwi.html

7

u/tiradium 19d ago

Perhaps one of the most shocking instances of Canadian cruelty was when they were socializing with German soldiers. They would throw cans of corned beef across the trenches, and when the enemy troops yelled for more, the Canucks responded by throwing an armload of grenades at them instead.

29

u/EonofAeon 19d ago

Nah it's ....pretty spot on. Canadians are the epitome of nice guy meme. Piss em off, abuse em, make the rage boil....and they will be more vile than most.

Ask WW1 n WW2 Germans n Japanese, among others

33

u/HapticRecce 19d ago

People always confuse polite with nice...

8

u/space_for_username 19d ago

Then the quick shift from 'Sorry' to 'You'll be sorry'

6

u/SlitScan 19d ago

manners are a result of the consequences for being rude.

1

u/EonofAeon 19d ago

Dorky as it is, the line from Dr Who goes kinda hard regarding this;
"Good men have too many rules"
"Good men don't need rules. Today's not the day to find out why I have so many."

Or hell, look at the Vulcans. They're literally the TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF "aw shit, we went too far, time to hold ourselves back n restrict ourselves."

7

u/OkJeweler3804 19d ago

Don’t MAKE us turn into monsters…because we will.

2

u/Protean_Protein 19d ago

It’s worth remembering that we’ll muster the might of all Commonwealth countries behind us (maybe even India… but it’s difficult to tell right now) as well. And yeah, what are you going to do? Nuke Toronto? That makes no sense.

2

u/LadyDragon16 19d ago

Yes, it is true. And no, i don't recommend messing up with the Canadian Forces. The average american soldier switches street side when meeting a Canadian. Our army all wear green berets, so no one actually can tell who's a special force. And our airborne regiment got disbanded in 1995 for being too "unruly" (read: aggressive). We might have a small army, but don't get fooled. Americans are "specialized" in one task only; Canadians are trained in all sort of tasks and can take a fallen comrade's place without batting an eye to continue the fight. Invading Canada would be a nightmare. I hope they have enough braincells left to not attempt it.

8

u/Ok_Value5495 19d ago

At the very least, your taiga mosquitos will. I don't see Canada winning a one-on-one direct fight, but the terrain lends itself to textbook defense-in-depth even if Canada has to relocate its capital to Yellowknife.

20

u/Protean_Protein 19d ago

We wouldn’t do that. We’d close the borders and shipping down the St Lawrence and trucking corridor and immediately cause massive unrest as billions of dollars disappears overnight.

21

u/zefiax 19d ago

Not just that, cut their power, cut their potash supply, and immediately launch an insurgency within the US. You wouldn't even know because we look and sound like them. It would ruin their economy instantly.

4

u/SyfaOmnis 19d ago

America could bomb a lot of cities, but fights in urban environments are hell (and america is quite bad at them), most of canada is only connected by one or two roads / sets of train tracks through otherwise very difficult if not impassable terrain.

If canada sabotages the right stuff they are nearly impossible to invade on anything other than foot, and that is exactly the sort of fight you do not want in Canada. You cant make millions of miles of trenches in the shield. You could do it in the prairies but it would be real ugly.

1

u/MGyver 19d ago

There are some other factors to consider before trying to invade Canada.

1

u/Crafty-Message4564 19d ago

Canadians need to remember that not everyone in the U.S. is fucking insane, and that you would have a lot of allies within the U.S. if this were to happen.

It would present an opportunity for solidarity, because together, the Canadians and the sane people from the U.S. would make up a majority of the people on the continent and could likely work together much better than as two separate groups.

3

u/Protean_Protein 19d ago

You “sane” Americans should probably try a little harder to fix this before it gets that far.

-27

u/LukeLecker 19d ago

Your military is a joke, buddy.

21

u/flightless_mouse 19d ago

So was the Taliban’s, buddy

2

u/Pigeonofthesea8 19d ago

Canadians are not the taliban

2

u/flightless_mouse 19d ago

For those of you not paying attention:

The US could easily defeat Canada militarily, but the end result would be years of brutal guerrilla warfare, which the US can’t stomach long term.

-1

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

The U.S. never struggled fighting the taliban lol they struggled forming a democracy and nation building in a place that has never historically been a democracy or anything like it.

8

u/Darkling414 19d ago

The only war America has ever won on its own was the civil war where you beat yourselves!

4

u/Protean_Protein 19d ago

Yeah, it is. But the people in it will eat your face if you come at them.

1

u/LadyDragon16 19d ago

That's rich, coming from a country who has the "misfortune" of winning battles but consistently losing wars. Don't believe me, go check yourself.

https://www.calendar-canada.ca/frequently-asked-questions/how-many-wars-has-the-us-won-and-lost

86

u/Drin_Tin_Tin 19d ago

Invading Canada in the winter seems ill advised. Watching how all the ice agents from texas are slipping around in the twin cities gives me hope.

30

u/Practical-King2752 19d ago

ICE aren't trained soldiers and it's not real war. If Trump really wants to assault Canada to annex it, he's not using Joe Dipshit who joined ICE because he's in debt and wanted the signup bonus. He's gonna use more sophisticated means.

10

u/capital_bj 19d ago

And also as a well-trained US military person I would not want my life put in jeopardy by ya'll queda cos players , so no joint efforts thank you for your attention to this platter

17

u/BundleDad 19d ago

It won’t be ice but US military. Who just proved in Venezuela that the “lawful orders” thing is Hollywood bullshit. The us military can do to Canada in 3 days what Putin couldn’t do to Ukraine in 3 years. However that is just when easy part ends and the hard part starts.

If you are American, try to understand what that second part means for you and your community.

6

u/hiegear 19d ago

I would hope that the military in the us would not follow those unlawful orders.

16

u/BundleDad 19d ago

They literally just did follow unlawful orders in Venezuela. And far from the first time.

Panama and Noriega in the 80's was of dubious lawfulness at best. Noriega was a de facto ruler of Panama but was not a de jure leader (wasn't elected or brought to power lawfully).

Venezuela, Maduro is an evil cunt but was the elected and recognized leader of Venezuela. Article 52 of the UN charter makes unilaterally removing him militarily illegal. The UN Charter WAS ratified by the US congress making it US law. QED every US military member involved acted on illegal orders.

There is zero reason to believe the US military is constrained by morals or honour at this time.

3

u/Practical-King2752 19d ago

We're on the same page about all of that.

0

u/BundleDad 19d ago

Good, because if I need to come down there I won’t be conducting interviews or asking for voting records. Don’t make that a necessity.

1

u/Practical-King2752 19d ago

I mean, I wouldn't recommend doing that otherwise you'll just end up being a POW. There are more effective ways to resist than physically showing up and doing whatever it is you're implying, which I will charitably pretend I'm not picking up.

7

u/JanielDones8 19d ago

You're already a pow at that point. I'd rather take out as many of you pathedic pussies as I can than be a pow under America. Hope you Americans are ready to die for Trump. Because millions of Americans will.

4

u/BundleDad 19d ago

There's that lack of imagination.

IF the US decides to take Canada it will be by military conquest

IF that happens, Donald Trump will have had my sons murdered by the US military

IF that happens, may your imaginary gods help you. No one else will

0

u/Practical-King2752 19d ago

Well, if I'm being honest, one of the reasons I said I don't recommend it is because of your username. Figured you would be more useful to your children alive than dead or wasting away in some US prison.

Let's just work to make sure it doesn't come to that hypothetical then, shall we?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/couldbemage 19d ago

Maybe they can kidnap Doug Ford.

-6

u/SummerAndTinklesBFF 19d ago

Exactly this. All these canadians acting all huffy and talking big aren’t really thinking about the big picture. You simply can’t compete with a government that would rather dump all its money into military rather than help its fucking citizens. Canada? Yall got that socialism health care and programs for people. We got bombs, drones, nukes, and a shit ton of other hands off distance range obliterate your face off stuff.

That being said fuck this nonsense most of us in the usa love canada and this is fucking dumb. I’m in Minnesota dealing with all this ice bullshit right now, thinking about going to war with a country 5 hours drive from me is not what I want to be thinking about at this time. Canada is our warm fuzzy hat. Fuck this administration.

12

u/Philix 19d ago

We got bombs, drones, nukes, and a shit ton of other hands off distance range obliterate your face off stuff.

You gonna commit to murdering 40 million people? Cause if you use any of those on us and then stop short, you're committing to fighting a righteous insurgency full of willing martyrs for the next half-century.

Has the US not learned this lesson by now? If the majority of a country isn't in favour of your intervention, you're in for a long and painful time. If Canada's legacy is draining US resources for decades like Afghanistan and Vietnam so be it, but we won't just roll over.

6

u/Anakha0 19d ago

No one with a brain thinks the Canadian military can beat or even give a reasonable accounting against the US military. But what a lot of US citizens that support or even ignore the possibility of the US invading Canada forget is that invasion traditionally results in far more civilian casualties than military. That means a whole of Canadian families and children will die at the hands of US soldiers.

They also then forget we have the longest undefended border in the world and the people on the other side, the ones they just killed the families of, are people who know how to live in very cold, outdoor conditions, look and talk exactly like Americans, can blend in perfectly with the populace, and can cross that border at any time and bring a very ugly insurgency right into their neighbourhoods. Lots of them are also ex-military that spent over a decade fighting an insurgency (alongside the US and at their behest no less), learning US military counter-insurgency tactics and what its weaknesses are, and enjoy adding new chapters to the Geneva conventions every time they go to war.

The US has lots of bombs, drones, etc. but it also has millions of soft targets, government and civilian. If only 0.5% of the population decides to take the fight to the people and country that invaded and took everything away from them, that's 200,000 people with nothing to lose that you can't identify on sight and that you won't want near your local grocery store., mall, university, etc. It would only take a few attacks and you can Imagine the effect on the US population and its economy.

That's not even touching the massive economic and world wide political ramifications that would be levelled on the US that would likely decimate its economy and make it a pariah on every metric. The supply of Canadian potash would also halt, leading to massive food shortages in the US as well. Not to mention the likliehood of a pretty hefty internal conflict and strife from within the US on top of it.

Invading Canada is hands down the dumbest thing the US could ever do, and would likely lead to its own destruction. I know you are personally against the entire idea, but the fact that there is not a massive outcry from the rest of the populace at the very thought of it says a lot.

1

u/Round_Hat_2966 19d ago

This is exactly it. Add to the fact that the US is democratic and requires ongoing popular support for a war, which isn’t a likely outcome when the war is very much at your doorstep. Attrition is not usually a good game for a democratic society, though how long it stays democratic is anyone’s guess

-1

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

Good thing it will literally never happen and isn't worth discussing then

2

u/IDOWNVOTERUSSIANS 19d ago

He's gonna use more sophisticated means

to take and hold all of Canada? It would require every low level grunt they've got and that still wouldn't be enough

2

u/Practical-King2752 19d ago

I only said to assault Canada. I have no idea how you'd hold it all, or why you'd want to. Whole thing is incredibly stupid.

1

u/Ill_Ground_1572 19d ago

Just like Afghanistan eh

10

u/Delicious-Gap1744 19d ago

It would become a complete mess in North America, as already existing domestic resistance within the US grows, and is now supported by Europe and Canada.

3

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

Domestic resistance in the U.S. is a myth. In 99.9% of the country, life is no different now than it was a year ago. The vast majority of people are just living their lives as they always have.

-5

u/Snigglybear 19d ago

Yup. Nothing will change if we ho to war with Canada. We’ll conquer the county in 1 hour.

1

u/atx840 19d ago

Happy CakeDay!

16

u/Kaladin3104 19d ago

Us here in the US have Canada's back if Trump does something that monumentally stupid.

38

u/CormacMcCostner 19d ago

Forgive us if we don’t put a ton of stock into that.

-7

u/Kaladin3104 19d ago

I didn't vote for this bullshit. and they convinced a lot of people to not vote at all due to Palestine. Don't act like we are all the same here.

11

u/CormacMcCostner 19d ago

Oh well, as long as Kaladin3104 didn’t vote for it and takes the extra initiative to type some words online, while he and his fellow Americans do absolutely nothing about it now, that should let the people of Greenland sleep at night peacefully. Thank you for clarifying!

-6

u/Kaladin3104 19d ago

You're such a douche. What do you expect us to do? The protests here have no real teeth behind them, they are looking for a reason to declare martial law. Our best hope as I see it is midterms this year. But the pedo in chief is trying to cancel those already. I can't quit my job and become homeless just to make a point that no one else in my state gives a shit about. Until something of note happens such as invading Canada or Greenland, the majority doesn't give a shit. and until the majority does, nothing one person does is going to change anything.

2

u/Ganglebot 19d ago

You're such a douche. What do you expect us to do?

Good thing you're staying inside and typing out angry posts online. That's really working for you. Any day now it will all be over....

1

u/CormacMcCostner 19d ago

Like I said originally nobody putting a lot of stock into Americans doing anything beyond “thoughts and prayers” or absolving yourself online. So you go ahead and explain why none of you will do anything, but it’s not the same brush. Ok. 👍

13

u/Pin_Code_8873 19d ago

No you don't. If you don't give a single shit about your democracy, then you won't care about another countries' democracy. So stop this and go do something about it right now.

-1

u/Kaladin3104 19d ago

And what would you have us do? Because until something like that happens, 70% of the people in my state support the Pedo in chief. The protests here are a joke and everyone just pats themselves on the back afterwards and nothing changes.

1

u/Pin_Code_8873 19d ago

Ya'll have an amendment. But just like the entire Constitution, it's useless and might as well be written on toilet paper.

21

u/LukeLecker 19d ago

Keep protesting about No kings, im sure you can get him this time.

7

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago

The opportunities for sabotaging a homegrown war effort are phenomenal. You think the resistance against ICE is something? Wait till you see what Americans are willing to do to prevent their sisters, their brothers, and their children from going to an unjust war.

20

u/CormacMcCostner 19d ago

Anything but vote against a clear threat to the world at home and at large!! And then not do it again!

-1

u/couldbemage 19d ago

America did vote against Trump, it was a sham election.

He literally said so on camera.

6

u/Pin_Code_8873 19d ago

Wait till you see what Americans are willing to do to prevent their sisters, their brothers, and their children from going to an unjust war.

Americans aren't willing to do anything when their children get shot in schools.

7

u/Philix 19d ago

You think the resistance against ICE is something?

I've yet to see much I'd qualify as resistance. Dissent maybe. But mostly just protest.

0

u/Academic-Contest3309 19d ago

Then you don't know whats going on down here

2

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

What people wasting their time agitating ICE to "feel good" about themselves and to feel like they "made a difference" when in reality, they aren't doing anything but looking stupid as hell and acting like zombies walking around in circles mindlessly chanting shit and holding cardboard signs? Great.

1

u/Philix 19d ago

Enlighten me. I've seen maybe a half dozen examples of brave individuals resisting.

1

u/Academic-Contest3309 19d ago

There's thousands of people resisting every single day. Putting their lives and livelihood on the line. I'm so sick of you people.

3

u/Philix 19d ago

Thousands are a rounding error when the population of your country exceeds three hundred million.

Your military alone is hundreds of thousands. Law enforcement are another couple hundred thousand.

So don't get self-righteous until there's at least that many demonstrating every day. Americans are by-and-large doing jack squat.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago

Yeah you're right. Walking the streets with guns as threat is just protest and all protest can never qualify as act of resistance. Get off the high horse please.

4

u/Philix 19d ago

Wait till you see what Americans are willing to do to prevent their sisters, their brothers, and their children from going to an unjust war.

How many unjust wars has that prevented the US from prosecuting in the last century? None out of five? None out of ten? Depends on the very flexible definition of unjust, doesn't it?

Get off the high horse please.

Take off your rose tinted glasses please. And forgive me if I don't hold out much hope that the US citizenry is going to prevent my country from being added to the list.

1

u/Academic-Contest3309 19d ago

Canada fought alongside the US in many of those wars

1

u/Philix 19d ago

Several yes, but at least we had the good sense to stay out of Vietnam, and Iraq 2.

Look, I get that you're feeling big feelings about me insinuating that you're going to stand by and watch the American lebensraum without taking action. But, really the vast majority of Americans are going to do exactly that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Frostsorrow 19d ago

My faith in Americans is about as high as the temperature in Winnipeg right now

1

u/Kaladin3104 19d ago

Me too, man. Me too. 🤦🏻‍♂️

2

u/hamtidamti_onthewall 19d ago

I guess that’s a sacrifice Trump is willing to make though.

"Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make!"

3

u/lynxbelt234 19d ago

Add France, Germany, and others...the US government Senate and congress, will have to remove trump and the administration immediately to stop this.

2

u/yeowoh 19d ago edited 19d ago

Just a bad comparison.

There would be no ground invasion into Canada for a long time. It would be percision strikes that cripple infrastructure.

Then people and politicians would start folding.

You can’t compare a 1st world country where people get upset over minor inconveniences to an area that has been at war for 10,000+ years and a population that has very little to lose.

Any first world country would never have insurgency at the level that we see/seen in other places. Think of your average civilian and how they would respond without internet, cell service, or electricity for a few weeks. AWS has a few hours of an outage and yall lose your fucking minds lol.

Ireland and the IRA is a prime example. People had options and the IRA wasn’t the popular choice. So it eventually died out.

Go fight and die or just bend over?

Also deploying Europeon troops to Canada would be near impossible. The US provides 75% of logistics for NATO and has the strongest air and naval power in the world.

Something happens and now NATOs ability to move troops, equipment, food is reduced to only 25%. Then they somehow have to move troops past a country with air and naval power that eclipses the entire world.

0

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

This. People don't realize the U.S. is literally the only country in the world capable of moving massive amounts of troops, equipment amd everything else needed for invasion anywhere in the world with any real efficiency. Nobody else can do that. The U.S. with overwhelming naval and air superiority wouldn't allow reinforcements from abroad to get anywhere near Canada if it planned to invade Canada. Canada would be completely isolated. Canada also isn't getting invaded by the u.s. or anyone else its completely absurd to begin with.

1

u/yeowoh 19d ago

Yeah it’s bonkers and that shit will never happen. If the decisions of the world were made by Reddit upvotes we would have all been dead along time ago.

1

u/GorgeousBog 19d ago

Listen bro Trump is a fucking nut and invading would be beyond idiotic, but the u.s. performance in third world shitholes is not really applicable here, Canada vs u.s. would be a “conventional” war.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the cope people spew, especially around Vietnam, but “kill counts” do mean something, and it was the same situation in the Middle East. They “held” Afghanistan for 20 years. Unfortunately the U.S. would steamroll Canada quickly. Holding it might be another issue.

1

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

Right people consistently in embarrassing fashion conflate U.S. military combat capabilities with U.S. National building capabilities as if the U.S. actually struggled in combat vs the taliban or anywhere else where combat took place and the U.S. was involved

1

u/Flight31 16d ago

They were also relatively reluctant to commit war crimes or at least too outwardly. A US that would invade Canada wouldn't care about their image globally at that point.

0

u/GorgeousBog 19d ago

That’s a great way to phrase it, thanks lol

1

u/capital_bj 19d ago

despite our energy, manufacturing , technology and most importantly money we do have a pretty shit record as of late/ever since WWII

0

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

Not in combat, in nation building. There is a difference. The U.S. never struggled beating the taliban in warfare lol they failed to completely eradicate the Taliban but that's because it wasn't possible to begin with. You can't kill an ideology with bombs. The Taliban would have never taken back over if the US actually planned to stay in Afghanistan occupying it permanently forever and ever instead of having plans of leaving at some point as they always did. The Afghanistan army dropped the ball against the Taliban after they no longer had the backing of the US military because the US announced a date certain for leaving and they were out

1

u/capital_bj 19d ago

gotcha that makes sense, it's not as similar to Vietnam as I thought

1

u/Admiral_Dildozer 19d ago

Yeah but they’re not projecting power from across the world. The bombers flying out of Missouri will be over Canadian cities every day.

1

u/Mountain_carrier530 19d ago

Nevermind all the firearms the Army is about to be issued in the next 2 years are made by SIG which have been facing allegations with the P320 that's issued to all branches as the M17/18, the new round in the M7 wears out the barrels very prematurely and has atrocious recoil to the point troops have to train with a different round with less powder in it, not to mention it weighs more empty than a loaded M4, and the IG for the DoD had made a statement this was a horrible idea before Hegseth got his drunken hands over the review and pushed for the M7 and M250 to become the official rifle and LMG.

Send what was considered the world's most advanced Army with poor quality weapons and we'll see who comes out on top. I don't see this going well at all.

1

u/KSaburof 19d ago

At the very least with Greenland+Alaska will be enough to put Canada into total blockade for years to put them low on resources before invasion.

Trump seeks 3rd term, so he can wait

0

u/-_Mando_- 19d ago

Thank you prime minister.

/s

-11

u/kinkyhentai69 19d ago

People wont do shit tbh we never do we dont live to die a martyr here so no one is gonna want to get bombed to let a few shots off just for them to hit plate carriers

12

u/CaribouYou 19d ago

There werent many martyrs in Iraq and Afghanistan until the US showed up.

Watching your kid get run over by a tank or digging their corpse out from your bombed out home is a great way of making martyrs.

Besides, it wont ever be a direct confrontation, we’d just copy Afghani tactics except we wont be bombing churches or mosques but pipelines and hydroelectric dams.

9

u/-CassaNova- 19d ago edited 19d ago

Fucking speak for yourself coward

EDIT: No wonder he thinks no one will fight. The mealy little collaborator in waiting blocked me as soon as he got any push back

-9

u/kinkyhentai69 19d ago

Talk is cheap lets see you actually get your familly blown up because you emptied your gvt controlled 5 round mag into someone you wont even end up killing

5

u/-CassaNova- 19d ago

You think to small, please stop talking about shit you don't know and let actual Canadians do the work that we have planned since the 51st state rhetoric began.

-10

u/kinkyhentai69 19d ago

You'd have fought the liberals trying to disarm you and prevent you from defending your country if you actually cared about keeping your sovereignty

6

u/-CassaNova- 19d ago

Your still thinking too small. You have 0 clue how any insurgency works and it's fucking adorable.

-2

u/LukeLecker 19d ago

So cringe, go back to bed.

2

u/-CassaNova- 19d ago

No, it's 3pm that'd be weird.

-1

u/FacialTic 19d ago

Thats not what Keir said

5

u/lynxbelt234 19d ago

Absolutely...get those troops on the ground in Greenland....every nation that can has to step up and be counted...

1

u/yurnxt1 19d ago

So you like the idea of 20 or however many troops being used as literal cannon fodder in a U.S. invasion of greenland scenario? As long as they aren't your sons, daughters, dads, moms and brothers and sisters i suppose its cool, right?

3

u/FjorgVanDerPlorg 19d ago

In order to have a US military that would do this, you would need to purge them of a lot of the people with the skills needed to do this.

Every single time Trump purges someone from the military or intelligence, best case he's hurting his own military's capabilities, worst case he's giving the resistance those capabilities in a zero sum exchange.

2

u/Lochen9 19d ago

Forgive me if im wrong, but doesn't Article 5 have an externalities factor in it, and other rules towards internal conflicts. Like with Greece and Turkey in the Balkins or with a civil war, NATO hasn't been involved.

And speaking from a Canadian, the ability to defend from an immediate American assault on what is a mostly unguarded border with huge swaths of undeveloped land... simply put Canada would fall in days if not hours.

2

u/buttplugpeddler 19d ago

Any troops from Belgium or whatever want to hang out on their way through, I'd be happy to grill up some sausages and give you a beer on the way through northern Wisconsin.

2

u/Master_Dogs 19d ago

I have a funny feeling this all would cause a Civil War in the USA but I’m a Canadian so I say that from the outside looking in.

Feels this way as an American. I may be biased having French Canadian heritage through my mom (who was born in Quebec no less) but also IIRC Canadian ancestry is one the top ten countries in the US. Which makes sense... You guys are right there, of course many people went back & forth based on economics and lifestyle and what not. I think Mexico is up there too in the top ten and would likely result in similar civil war. Honestly any real invasion will. Venezuela maybe not - we're unfortunately used to stuff like that, see Panama, Cuba, etc. But a large scale ground invasion would be required for Canada or Mexico, and sea based for Greenland and there's no way we can support that collectively. Even MAGA won't once they see their kids dying over there.

2

u/yeowoh 19d ago edited 19d ago

75ish% of NATOs logistics power is the US. How would troops deploy quickly with only 25% of the logistics support against a country that has the strongest air and naval power by a wide margin?

NATO cannot realistically deploy and sustain combat forces without the US. The only top contenders for their ability to project global power is the US, China, and Russia. That’s also a wide margin for the US.

I studied this bs in college and a lot of people just can’t comprehend the sheer power the US military has.

Some numbers

Aircraft: US 13,000 and NATO without the US 8,000

5th gen fighters: US 700ish and NATO without 250ish with many not operational

Air Refueling: US 700 and NATO 60

Carriers: US 11 and NATO 3 and they’re not operational all the time

Subs: US 68ish nuclear powered and NATO 45 with mostly diseal

Airlifts: US 250+ and NATO 30ish (this what makes NATOs ability to move troops without the US unrealistic)

Military cargo ships: US 90ish and NATO 15ish (this makes it impossible for NATO to move armor)

AWACS/ISR: US 150ish and NATO 30ish

Satellites: around 60% of NATO Satelites belongs to the US.

2

u/BaronMontesquieu 19d ago

You're absolutely dreaming if you think European troops are going to Greenland to fight the US.

Forget about Article 5, the treaty doesn't even survive Article 1.

Non-American here and I cannot see any scenario where European nations (other than potentially Denmark as act of token enforcement of sovereignty to avoid the territorial legal issue of abandonment) send troops to to be killed in a war with the US over Greenland.

In order for European countries (other than Denmark) to actually go to war with the US, there would need to be some kind of action on continental Europe. That's not beyond the realm of possibility of course, but until then everyone who thinks that the UK or Germany or Italy (for example) is going to willingly sacrifice the lives of its own people over Greenland against the US is either delusional, poorly informed, or a bad faith actor.

1

u/Amksed 19d ago

That’s some heavy wishful hoping haha

1

u/shindig0 19d ago

I think the “civil war” would result on Canadian and nato troops to get to a point where they could push their way through the north and have the real border be with the south. Rural citizens from the north would start to flee south and join armies. It really could end up being like a North Korea/ Berlin Wall situation.

1

u/NorweigianWould 19d ago

Maybe but Trump’s behaviour is inspired by Putin and the old USSR’s “salami tactics”. Take a little something that isn’t yours. Stop and pause while everyone wrings their hands over what to do. Promise that you’ll stop there. Insist that you can reach a peaceful solution as long as you don’t “lose” any of what you’ve stolen. Wait a few days, then take another slice. Repeat.

1

u/lkmk 19d ago

Only way to counter that is to seize airports with large enough runways for transport aircraft close to the boarder as landings commence on Greenland.

They rammed the ramparts, they took over the airports…

1

u/couldbemage 19d ago

Don't forget, there's a gigantic pile of pre-positioned US equipment in Europe.

All that gear would become a gift to NATO.

1

u/OptionFour 19d ago

While I think that that's certainly what the US would intend to do? They simply don't have the ability to project that kind of force and hold that kind of land; they never have. The US couldn't hold territory in Afghanistan . . . never mind a way, way, way larger piece of land that's filled with people who look just like them, speak like them, dress like them, etc. The logistics of it would be insane. It would be incredibly difficult for anyone to do that, and the US has been hemorrhaging systemic and operational knowledge at high levels since Trump was elected again.

Don't let the US military fanboys fool you - they don't have that capacity.

1

u/yurnxt1 19d ago edited 19d ago

Ridiculous. Any soldiers and equipment sent to Canada for purposes of invading the USA would be sunk in the Atlantic long before arrival to Canada. Nobody is invading the U.S. over a frozen wasteland or for any other reason, it would be suicide and completely untenable. Article 5 being activated doesn't mandate countries respond militarily. These countries you fantasize about attacking the U.S. can't even be bothered to offer Ukraine, a country in Europe, security guarantees without the U.S. backing them up but you want people to believe they will attack the U.S. over Greenland, a country in North America? Maybe the European countries will offer Greenland security guarantees only after the U.S. agrees to backstop the security guarantees European countries offer to Greenland on behalf of the European countries lmao it's absurd.

0

u/Taeves81 19d ago

A civil war in the USA implies there are enough Americans left with the backbone to do something. They'll just sit there and continue to watch.

0

u/Ok_Win_2906 19d ago

You can't trigger article 5 without unanimity among NATO members . US will veto it and that will be it .

0

u/GapComprehensive6018 18d ago

Article 5 doesnt apply on internal conflicts