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.