The Potiential of Canada being Invaded by the US:

[Kamehameha34]

To be expected, as a great many of the soldiers fighting on both sides were older than the country itself.

I don't doubt that now, 195 years later, it would fare a bit differently.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Nono When a US invasion of Canada was defeated and turned back.:)

We did win rights to fish in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence

[Nono]

You also won the Battle of New Orleans, which is about all you won in the whole war. Funny how that battle (and not the many American defeats) is the one event captured in song.:)

The US has always been a predatory nation, as Canadians and Mexicans can attest.

[tinybear]

Why should we invade Canada? Isn't Canada already our colony?

[Matt W]

Sorry tb, I think you'll find it's ours. As is the US.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The war would come a little closer to home than most Americans would be comfortable with, IMO. Don't mistake my apprehension - the US military is far too bloated to be unsuccessful in such an endeavor - but I believe the last full-out war that saw American civilian casualties was the war of 1812.

Phew, someone hasn't finished history class yet...

The Civil War?
WWII?

Both saw civilian casualties on American soil.




And by the way, Praxius, the idea of the US invading Canada doesn't even deserve a humorous debate, let alone a serious one. Get real.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Matt W Sorry tb, I think you'll find it's ours. As is the US.

Was, Matt. Was. As in Britain was once a superpower. :)

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Phew, someone hasn't finished history class yet... The Civil War? WWII? Both saw civilian casualties on American soil. And by the way, Praxius, the idea of the US invading Canada doesn't even deserve a humorous debate, let alone a serious one. Get real.

Oops. I'll concede the civil war of course, lol.

I wouldn't count pearl harbor as casualities of war, however. We weren't even in the war yet.

[ZNFYRH]

Holy crap.

Was it American soil?

Yes.

Did Americans die?

Yes.

Was the action committed part of WWII?

Yes.

Not very fair to dismiss Hawaiians like that. They're Americans too.

A land war in America would be similar to Iraq, as would a land war in any country these days. You just don't go invading a country on their native soil any more unless you are prepared to fight civilians.

[Praxius]

Quote by: tivodan1116 And by the way, Praxius, the idea of the US invading Canada doesn't even deserve a humorous debate, let alone a serious one. Get real.

Good, then GTF out of the debate then and stop wasting my reading time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And back on topic, there's other things that always need to be put into factor, besides number and technology comparisons. If those were the only factors, you guys would have won in Afghanistan, Iraq and 1812.

• Canada's climate similar to the Soviet Union/Russia. Freezing cold tempratures which can cause difficulties with normal equipment (Esspecially most of your equipment currently configured for desert missions)

• Canada's Land mass, similar to the Soviet Union/Russia. We have plenty of land mass to fall back on, and into colder climates. Your country does not have the manpower to cover all entryways and access points to our country.

• Our immidiate access to our natural resources, which would be much more difficult to cut off, compared to the US's, which imports many of it's resources, such as most of your oil, water, etc.

• US Devotion towards the war. Where your country is majoritly opposed to the current wars, with the lowered moral towards the ammount of casualties, with the basic principles of the invasion are again, out for profit and oil, rather then actual protection of the country, the massive drain on your military by insurgent forces across the globe, with the reduction of recruits to your military.

• Canadian Devotion towards the war. Where the majority of Canadian families have someone in their family serving in the military, where all our wars we fought in have always been based on principles and the help of others in need, the invasion of a country most here have distain for as it is, a country with far less freedoms then our own, taking a land in which we have worked and lived for, and a suprising devotion towards our own patriotism, the spirit and devotion balance is clearly on our side.

• The fact that the allies we both claim, like us better then you

• That the majority of the globe would oppose such an invasion on a country such as ours, the retaliation on the US would resemble much of Nazi Germany's streach. Where they had the best technology, the largest aireal fleet, and all the might and proudness they carried with them, wasn't enough against the masses of the globe joining together..... this alone would be the main grounds for the US not to invade us. Not that we would take you guys out without an issue, but the actual global reaction to such an invasion.

• The moment our allies reached our country, although you guys may have ports blocked by some chance, your fleets would then be surrounded by the outside and the inside, until one blocked area broke, and then your entire system of occupation would fail, because against Canada and several allies from multiple directions, no matter what tech you have, you wouldn't stand a chance.

• And even if they couldn't break through your blockades in our country, your forces would be spread too thin to gaurd your own borders and they could easily cut through your country in one location or the next, cause massive damage on your motherland, and then eventually you would have to pull back out of Canada to defend your own country, then at the same time, Canada would be reinforced, then push from the North, back across your borders, while our allies devistate your country and we tighten the noose.

• At this point, it would be apparent that your country's spirit of defending your country would then kick into high gear, similar to our own, and your rights to bare arms would cause a similar tactic of insurgent militia style combat, similar to what is in Iraq, thereby neither country would be able to be successfully occupied without risk, and one of two options would have to play out:

#1 - A mutual cease fire deal is reached by all parties to end the wars and occupations, or

#2 - Both countries end up getting the snot bombed out of them, eventually resorting to nuclear weapons being used by the US on their own soil and Canada's, and then the allies launch their nukes on the US, thereby everybody dies.....

one possible outcome.

Regardless, allies would eventually get involved, and perhaps other countries we don't see as allies, but would want to take a notch out of the US, would join as well.

Quite honestly, the rest of the world likes us more then you guys, and would much rather have us still around then you guys, let alone getting bigger

{/nerve strike}

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Holy crap. Was it American soil? Yes. Did Americans die? Yes. Was the action committed part of WWII? Yes. Not very fair to dismiss Hawaiians like that. They're Americans too. A land war in America would be similar to Iraq, as would a land war in any country these days. You just don't go invading a country on their native soil any more unless you are prepared to fight civilians.

Hawaii was not a state in 1941. It was a territory of the United States much like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. While technically they were American citizens, they didn't quite have the same status as those who lived in the individual states, e.g. they didn't have congressional representation or an electoral vote.

[HelioPrime]

Even if world opinion turned on the US in an invasion the US would defeat any attempts at attack.

Any attempt to stop an US invasion would have to begin at sea. In this case assuming every nation joined forces there are only 6 operational aircraft carriers spread in none US navy's. The US has 12, along with a supporting battlegroup for each. Any attempt at attack would be noticed and likely destroyed by superior air attacks long before they were able to attack US ships.

Nukes might be the only option since even the combined world might could not take on the US.

A view of US vs British military sea power:
Image:USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) & HMS Illustrious (R 06).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guess which is the US ship

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Chancellor Hawaii was not a state in 1941. It was a territory of the United States much like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. While technically they were American citizens, they didn't quite have the same status as those who lived in the individual states, e.g. they didn't have congressional representation or an electoral vote.

Nor does an act of antebellum terrorism count as an act of war.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Nor does an act of antebellum terrorism count as an act of war.

What are you talking about?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Chancellor What are you talking about?

Are you confused by the content or the vocabulary? Specificity, please.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Nor does an act of antebellum terrorism count as an act of war.

Nor does an act of Pre-Terrorism count as an act of war? WTF are you talking about and what are you referencing?

If you are referencing WWII and the Japanese pre-emptive strike in Pearl Harbour, that was hardly considdered a terrorist act.

Unless you mean their attack was a heads up of future terrorism?

Nope.... you didn't make any sense so far, could you please elaborate. Referening the quote you took and the comment you made, you seem to have gone off on something.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Are you confused by the content or the vocabulary? Specificity, please.

The connection between the post you quoted and your response.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Chancellor The connection between the post you quoted and your response.

You elaborated on how Hawaii wasn't a state until 1949, which somewhat contradicted the act of war "on American soil".

In keeping with the main idea of discounting this concept, I added that we weren't in the war yet, which leads me away from considering the civilian casualities of the attack on pearl harbor as casualities of war.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You elaborated on how Hawaii wasn't a state until 1949, which somewhat contradicted the act of war "on American soil". In keeping with the main idea of discounting this concept, I added that we weren't in the war yet, which leads me away from considering the civilian casualities of the attack on pearl harbor as casualities of war.

Regardless if Hawaii was an official state or not, it still contained many US citizens, and the largest concentration of US military/sea power. The Japanese pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbour during the activities of WWII make them casualties of war, considdering that Japan was already in war mode prior to attacking the US.

The fact that you were not at war, doesn't mean that the enemy who attacked you wasn't..... and if you want to nit pick about them not being casualties of war, the Japanese did..... therefore someone's charts somewhere will note they were casualties of war.... no matter what definitions you want to hold to.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You elaborated on how Hawaii wasn't a state until 1949, which somewhat contradicted the act of war "on American soil".

I said nothing about 1949 (Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959).

In keeping with the main idea of discounting this concept, I added that we weren't in the war yet, which leads me away from considering the civilian casualities of the attack on pearl harbor as casualities of war.

We weren't in the war with Germany, no. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a de facto declaration of war by Japan. So, even if we had never chosen to participate in the war in Europe (and we shouldn't have participated), the attack on Pearl Harbor constitutes the start of our war with Japan.