this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
298 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

9507 readers
1017 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If U.S. President Donald Trump fails in his stated goal of annexing Canada through economic force, what would happen if he ordered the world’s most powerful military to invade?

Some experts and academics say it’s a notion too preposterous to even contemplate. But Aisha Ahmad isn’t one of them.

“When you look at the power (imbalance) between the U.S. and Canada, an invasion would immediately result in the defeat of the Canadian Armed Forces,” said the University of Toronto political science professor, who last month published an essay on the subject in The Conversation.

“But a conventional military victory is not the end of this story. It’s just the beginning.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 85 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to focus on school/studying when this is the kind of news that keeps popping up?

[–] AJ1@lemmy.ca 52 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I remember being constantly terrified of nuclear annihilation during the cold war in the 80's, when every night after dinner, Peter Jennings would tell America how close we were to MAD. Now I live in Canada and I have that same existential dread that I had 45 years ago living in the US, except somehow it's even worse

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

worse than nuclear annihilation? I guess that would at least be quick. I was complaining to my parents about how shit just being alive is right now and they replied with "every generation has their struggles"... I had to cut the conversation there, I couldn't even be bothered to respond to that.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As you grow older you learn how to have control over your brain, ie: you can, through practice, tell it to shut the fuck up when it's screaming all your fears at you all at once.

Your brain can either be like a spoiled child running around creating chaos, or a fairly well behaved child who listens to your requests and needs. Choose wisely.

[–] ag10n@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

As someone who is in their 40s this has been my life since about 2006. Crisis after crisis, all the while boomers got theirs and all future generations are fucked from it

Just turn it off and stop caring i guess, it’s the boomer way

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago

One of those fears is of the mad cruelty of a few men, the other is of the mad cruelty of thousands, if not millions, of attackers and supporters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] npcknapsack@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago

I know a few people who've had to limit their news consumption so that they could focus on life. It might help.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 46 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It would another Vietnam or Afghanistan. They'd invade, kill a few thousand maybe million people, mire around, and then retreat again with their funds drained and thousands of crippled veterans with PTSD.

[–] match@pawb.social 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

vietnam but the viet cong can drive to your house

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And the Viet Cong look exactly like the Americans this time around. Good luck!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It would be way worse than Vietnam or Afghanistan. Both countries would be devastated and it could spark world war three or a second american civil war.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 14 points 2 weeks ago

Don't forget the "mission accomplished" picture while they retreat.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

But a few newly enriched white dudes so 👌

[–] gorillaNdaMist@lemm.ee 42 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It would cause a civil war within US itself.

[–] apprehensively_human@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like this has to be the case. America is a disaster but I cannot fathom the populace or even the military being complacent as they march over the border.

[–] Fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Look up Kent state shootings. They fired on their own. The people in the military are maybe there for an education but mainly to get paid and some to shoot people. They’ll have no issue attacking us at all.

If it comes to that, those that would have an issue will have left on their own or been purged by that point.

[–] imvii@lemmy.ca 37 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

The modern US hasn't fought a war with someone right next door, who looks and talks like them. Not only would it be hard to hold captured cities, but I think many Canadian fighters would walk across that massive unsecured border and start fucking up US resources like electrical stations, water supplies, subway systems, internet backbones, government buildings, . It is super easy to buy guns and ammo in the US, bombs are not hard to make. We would have a fair amount of local support as well.

We Canadians could just walk around the US in public and you've never know it.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Blue states won't stand for it either, the US will have to deal with the double threat of saboteurs and defectors

[–] pleasegoaway@lemm.ee 14 points 2 weeks ago

Blue states understand that you can’t just go and TAKE a country’s sovereignty, and that trying to do so sets a dangerous precedent.

Red states seem to forget that it goes both ways. Another country can try to TAKE the US (e.g., Russia, china).

Red states seem to forget that they would be furious if another country tried to invade the US. They fail to look in the mirror.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

It’s stupid because a lot of Americans have families in Canada and some Americans actually live in Canada and loads of American businesses have offices and branches in Canada so they’d literally be bombing themselves.

[–] TylerBourbon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Not to mention so very many of the Americans in the states that border Canada would probably be more than willing to aid the Canadian efforts.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] match@pawb.social 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

decades long is an understatement. unless they mean the US itself will collapse

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe not collapse, but they sure as hell won't 'win'.

In a recent article published in The Atlantic magazine, (American military historian Eliot) Cohen used a tongue-in-cheek approach to warn Americans against invading Canada, pointing out that previous attempts led to dismal results.

His review of American military failures starts in 1775, when U.S. troops invaded Quebec, where they distributed pamphlets — translated into French — awkwardly declaring: “You have been conquered into liberty.” The campaign ended in disastrous defeat for the American Continental Army in December 1775.

During the War of 1812, former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson said conquering Canada was “a mere matter of marching.”

“This was incorrect,” Cohen wrote. “The United States launched eight or nine invasions of Canada during the War of 1812, winning only one fruitless battle. The rest of the time, it got walloped.”

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago

There was a certain light colored house that got lit on fire by retaliatory forces back in 1812.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Come fuck around with Canada, murica! We'll be waiting for you!

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 25 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I'd join the insurgency from within. We have lots of overkill guns down here and very little supervision over who can buy them.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well shit. Wouldn't American laws apply to the new citizens? The very laws intended to prevent violent occupation?

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago

Hahahaha. Those laws are for "citizens", not subjects.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MetaCubed@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would expect American insurgents supporting our former Canadian allies and friends.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do they mean an insurgence comprised of Canadians or US folk...? Both maybe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Is there any communities dedicated to helping Canadians prep? IE, content like guides on getting your PAL, information on firearms, and just general independence and (realistic) prepping advice?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] anachronist@midwest.social 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It'd be like a remake of Red Dawn but with the cast of Letterkenny.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] riyehn@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know why everyone assumes the use of military force to annex Canada would take the form of a massive conventional invasion. Hybrid warfare approaches like spreading misinformation, covert ops, stirring up local pro-American militias, etc. could do 95% of the work, without the sort of overt violence that generates insurgencies.

It's very possible to defend against hybrid threats, but only if we recognize the threat exists instead of assuming a US invasion would necessarily be a catastrophic strategic blunder.

[–] discomatic@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Starting to really consider a meshtastic device for every family member. Thankfully, we mostly all live within range of each other.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Damionsipher@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

How tough would it be for an insurgency force in a nation with high gun ownership rates and who have been more or less comfortable committing war crimes in the past? I suspect Canadians would drop the officer average lifespan by at least a decade.

[–] KanataLemmy@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago

Canadians will walk amongst their invaders. They wont be safe.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

I can’t believe this is even being contemplated.

[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

True 25 years ago. Now consider that the U.S. controls Android and Iphone. Every location and message from every person

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

THE INSURGENCY WILL RUN ON BLACKBERRY OS CIRCA 2006 ✊🍁🪿

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago

I would join the canadian insurgents. Fuck this government

[–] JoeDyrt@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

Canada is home to millions of conflict refugees (i.e. veterans) from SE Asia, northern Africa, and the Middle East. I don’t know what would happen, but I hope this would be a significant factor in any insurgency.

[–] Ilixtze@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago

Come on USA : Invade Canada during winter and kneel under the barrage of exploding hockey pocks.

load more comments
view more: next ›