I’m glad to see the scenario is being planned for, but it seems like it doesn’t include credible reform around our defence budgeting and procurement. Many Canadians will say that it’s impossible for us to defeat a possible US invasion, and that’s true. The thing is, invasions often don’t happen in the first place when the cost is judged to be too high. I have been watching the developments around the possible procurement of up to twelve KSS III patrol submarines from ROK, that is exactly the type of program that has real value in deterrence. The presence of a credible attack sub fleet in the Pacific would present a risk beyond simple combat losses for the USN in a theoretical conflict, given the stand-off with China the loss of every ship would be felt in tilting geopolitical balance as well as just material and human casualty. It’s just one example, but I would love to see a clearer plan for the military and it’s mission going forward.
On a side note, I would be interested to hear what Canadians think of continuing to have no nuclear deterrent. The aforementioned KSS III submarine can carry ballistic missiles, 10x VLS on the block 3 I believe. Another option may be something akin to the French ASMP system, or even free fall bombs compatible with the F-35 platform. The Canadian military did operate nuclear weapons in the early cold war, but has not had any in commission for decades. It is an interesting hypothetical to look at a pact of, for example, Canada, Japan, and ROK (lots of political difficulties between Japan and ROK I know) coming together to quickly build and deploy a second strike capability. I have thought about our stance on nuclear arms quite a bit having seen the damage being inflicted on Ukraine. I think if a referendum were to be held I would probably vote to acquire them, I wonder how others feel.
If Canada is at all serious about fighting a conventional war with the US you would need to start by moving your population and all critical infrastructure outside of ATACMS range of the US border. The reality is that if the US were to decide to mount a full-on invasion Canadians would learn when everything important blows up.
Nuclear is only a deterrent if the adversary can’t be certain of taking out your nuclear capabilities in a surprise first-strike. This was the logic of the nuclear triad: You need nukes on land, nukes under the sea and nukes in the air so if the enemy strikes you still have nukes to hit them back.
The US has 50 attack submarines. Any subs Canada could acquire would have multiple attack subs on them in a hot war.
A much more realistic (and less costly) approach to security would be recognizing and focusing on Canada’s considerable soft power, and understanding how the US works and what limits its ability to act. For instance, Bush needed Blair for the Iraq war because he needed to look like the head of a coalition. Blair needed the UNSC vote. If the UNSC vote had not gone their way, the war would not have happened.
If the US were to attempt a war with Canada it would have to start with a big preamble of kabuki theaters and drum pounding. The US is incapable of acting without a big, loud public pressure campaign. There will be thousands of chinks in the armor of the “war case” that Canada would have to exploit. And there would be “pressure points” like the UNSC vote in Iraq where Canada would have the opportunity to halt the whole thing if its diplomatic power is strong enough.
If Canada really was resigned to being attacked from the south and wanted a realistic way to present as being too costly to fight even by a despotic Putin-like regime then they would have to focus on proving that, even though the conventional phase of the war would inevitably be a walkover, the peace would be unwinnable. Canada would have to present itself as a patriotic, cohesive, determined nation of potential partisans.
I’m glad to see the scenario is being planned for, but it seems like it doesn’t include credible reform around our defence budgeting and procurement. Many Canadians will say that it’s impossible for us to defeat a possible US invasion, and that’s true. The thing is, invasions often don’t happen in the first place when the cost is judged to be too high. I have been watching the developments around the possible procurement of up to twelve KSS III patrol submarines from ROK, that is exactly the type of program that has real value in deterrence. The presence of a credible attack sub fleet in the Pacific would present a risk beyond simple combat losses for the USN in a theoretical conflict, given the stand-off with China the loss of every ship would be felt in tilting geopolitical balance as well as just material and human casualty. It’s just one example, but I would love to see a clearer plan for the military and it’s mission going forward.
On a side note, I would be interested to hear what Canadians think of continuing to have no nuclear deterrent. The aforementioned KSS III submarine can carry ballistic missiles, 10x VLS on the block 3 I believe. Another option may be something akin to the French ASMP system, or even free fall bombs compatible with the F-35 platform. The Canadian military did operate nuclear weapons in the early cold war, but has not had any in commission for decades. It is an interesting hypothetical to look at a pact of, for example, Canada, Japan, and ROK (lots of political difficulties between Japan and ROK I know) coming together to quickly build and deploy a second strike capability. I have thought about our stance on nuclear arms quite a bit having seen the damage being inflicted on Ukraine. I think if a referendum were to be held I would probably vote to acquire them, I wonder how others feel.
If Canada is at all serious about fighting a conventional war with the US you would need to start by moving your population and all critical infrastructure outside of ATACMS range of the US border. The reality is that if the US were to decide to mount a full-on invasion Canadians would learn when everything important blows up.
Nuclear is only a deterrent if the adversary can’t be certain of taking out your nuclear capabilities in a surprise first-strike. This was the logic of the nuclear triad: You need nukes on land, nukes under the sea and nukes in the air so if the enemy strikes you still have nukes to hit them back.
The US has 50 attack submarines. Any subs Canada could acquire would have multiple attack subs on them in a hot war.
A much more realistic (and less costly) approach to security would be recognizing and focusing on Canada’s considerable soft power, and understanding how the US works and what limits its ability to act. For instance, Bush needed Blair for the Iraq war because he needed to look like the head of a coalition. Blair needed the UNSC vote. If the UNSC vote had not gone their way, the war would not have happened.
If the US were to attempt a war with Canada it would have to start with a big preamble of kabuki theaters and drum pounding. The US is incapable of acting without a big, loud public pressure campaign. There will be thousands of chinks in the armor of the “war case” that Canada would have to exploit. And there would be “pressure points” like the UNSC vote in Iraq where Canada would have the opportunity to halt the whole thing if its diplomatic power is strong enough.
If Canada really was resigned to being attacked from the south and wanted a realistic way to present as being too costly to fight even by a despotic Putin-like regime then they would have to focus on proving that, even though the conventional phase of the war would inevitably be a walkover, the peace would be unwinnable. Canada would have to present itself as a patriotic, cohesive, determined nation of potential partisans.
I would also vote to acquire them
I can almost guarantee you that idea has been bounced around because of our massive fresh-water sources that America needs, but can’t just take.