Canada prepares for potential US military invasion

The Canadian Armed Forces, comprising the army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, have formulated hypothetical scenarios of a US military invasion and possible Canadian responses. These include tactics similar to those used against American forces in Afghanistan, two senior government officials told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday.

According to the assessments, this marks the first time in about 100 years that Canada's military has modeled a US attack on the country. Canada is a founding member of NATO and a partner of the US in continental air defense. The officials, along with several experts who spoke to The Globe and Mail, stressed that it was unlikely the Trump administration would actually order an invasion of Canada.

The report also said that Canada is considering sending a small contingent of troops to Greenland to join eight European countries conducting military exercises as a show of solidarity with Denmark, which holds sovereignty over Greenland as an autonomous territory. Trump has repeatedly insisted that the territory should become part of the US. According to US reports, Trump has also repeatedly raised the claim that Canada would become the 51st state of the US. Over the weekend, NBC reported that Trump had again complained to advisers in recent weeks about Canada's vulnerability to US rivals in the Arctic region. Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who remains close to the president, said Canada was "changing rapidly" and becoming "hostile" toward the US.

Two officials told the Canadian newspaper that the military model simulated a US invasion from the south and anticipated that American forces would overrun Canada's key strategic positions on land and at sea within a week, and possibly within just two days. They said Canada does not have enough military personnel or sufficiently advanced equipment to fend off a conventional US assault. As a result, planners envisioned nonconventional warfare, with small groups of irregular fighters or armed civilians resorting to ambushes, sabotage, drone warfare and hit-and-run tactics.

A senior Defense Ministry official said Canada would have, at most, three months to prepare for a land and sea invasion. The earliest signals that invasion orders had been issued would likely come from US military warnings that Canada no longer shared a "common skies" policy with the US. A rupture in the joint defense agreement could lead Ottawa to seek assistance from Paris or London.

Report: Canada prepares for potential US military invasion

For the first time in a century, Canada’s armed forces have developed military scenarios simulating a US invasion of the country, according to senior

www.israelhayom.com

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Uh, oh . . .

Bet this means it's going to be a BIG pain in the butt to cross the border for awhile.


NOTE to self: put retired military ID farther away from DL in wallet.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

The Canadian Armed Forces, comprising the army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, have formulated hypothetical scenarios of a US military invasion and possible Canadian responses. These include tactics similar to those used against American forces in Afghanistan, two senior government officials told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday.

According to the assessments, this marks the first time in about 100 years that Canada's military has modeled a US attack on the country. Canada is a founding member of NATO and a partner of the US in continental air defense. The officials, along with several experts who spoke to The Globe and Mail, stressed that it was unlikely the Trump administration would actually order an invasion of Canada.

The report also said that Canada is considering sending a small contingent of troops to Greenland to join eight European countries conducting military exercises as a show of solidarity with Denmark, which holds sovereignty over Greenland as an autonomous territory. Trump has repeatedly insisted that the territory should become part of the US. According to US reports, Trump has also repeatedly raised the claim that Canada would become the 51st state of the US. Over the weekend, NBC reported that Trump had again complained to advisers in recent weeks about Canada's vulnerability to US rivals in the Arctic region. Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who remains close to the president, said Canada was "changing rapidly" and becoming "hostile" toward the US.

Two officials told the Canadian newspaper that the military model simulated a US invasion from the south and anticipated that American forces would overrun Canada's key strategic positions on land and at sea within a week, and possibly within just two days. They said Canada does not have enough military personnel or sufficiently advanced equipment to fend off a conventional US assault. As a result, planners envisioned nonconventional warfare, with small groups of irregular fighters or armed civilians resorting to ambushes, sabotage, drone warfare and hit-and-run tactics.

A senior Defense Ministry official said Canada would have, at most, three months to prepare for a land and sea invasion. The earliest signals that invasion orders had been issued would likely come from US military warnings that Canada no longer shared a "common skies" policy with the US. A rupture in the joint defense agreement could lead Ottawa to seek assistance from Paris or London.

Report: Canada prepares for potential US military invasion

For the first time in a century, Canada’s armed forces have developed military scenarios simulating a US invasion of the country, according to senior

www.israelhayom.com

This also means Canada doesn't have the forces necessary to repel a USSR/Gog invasion.*

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand . . . if Canada and U.S. aren't cooperating and working together, there's more incentive for President Trump to act preemptively, so such forces don't end up at the U.S. border in two days

Methinks there's a bunch of stuff going on with USSR/Gog that we don't know about, and it's more than just Greenland*

It occurred to me that maybe the protests in Minnesota provide a plausible reason to move active military assets here, with the bigger, more important, (publicly) unsaid, reason being strategic.






*very minority opinion

 

[Margery]

Well this isn't as bad as it could be. It's just normal prep work. I'd look at the purchase of jets to see the reality in all this. Here is why that would be a more reliable indicator.

The F35's - we are on the hook for 16 that we can't back out of and 88 more if we ever make up our minds. Versus the Swedish Saab Gripen.

Canada has noted significant advantages to both the American F35 which is more capable in the air, but has a couple of disadvantages- the worst being depending on our new enemy to the south for parts and worst of all the programming to keep it flying.

And it's plagued with some flaws. So it's more expensive and possibly unreliable when you consider flaws plus the need for constant programming updates to keep the thing in the air.

The more Trump threatens Canada, the more it becomes imperative not to depend on the States for our aircraft to run especially if it ends up in a war with the States to maintain our integrity as a nation. Plus parts are more expensive from the States than from Sweden.

The Swedish Gripen on the other hand operates on very short runways- Finland uses logging roads (a bit less rough than ours) to take off and land across their tundra which makes it very suitable to any war on Canadian soil. It can be refueled and maintained in sheds built along these multiple roads in Finland, and seems to operate well in extreme cold. Far less costly to run than the F-35

This lines up with the probable scenario which has been outlined in the past in the news here when Trump first mentioned taking over Canada.

We would be using our climate and geography to spread out the attack after the Americans take our major centres to the south. We train in the Arctic routinely, while the Americans train for multiple climates. While they maintain bases in Alaska and Greenland, the bulk of their forces aren't as used to the problems with cold, and our geography is very spread out. Attack from the air would make sense, because any land army would bog down on our southern border in the major cities, and have a hard time moving north. But aircraft need something more to hold any territory. So a land invasion is essential.

I've seen this model in the news here back in the spring. It came up when we attended the Nordic nation thing. And talked about coordination if Greenland and Canada faced invasion.

Similar to how Finland models an attack by Russia on their soil. Using the cold and the far flung communities to our advantage.

There are other factors - Gripen is willing to bring the factories here, so we can make the jets here, and improve our domestic economy somewhat. F35 is made in the USA and is more expensive to buy and also maintain. Tariffs on steel going into the US have driven the price up. We have a domestic steel industry that would be a lot cheaper to manufacture parts here.

But the one remaining factor still tilting toward the F35 is that we already are on the hook for 16, so we would run into the maintenance and training costs of a mixed fleet.

Of course we are still working with the States for NORAD and NATO while those last, so that is another point in the F 35's favour.


Bottom Line:


I look at how that decision plays out in the light of Trump's recent threats.

If we still go with the F-35's then the math people in the Dept of Defense have calculated the risk as low.

If we go with the Gripen by Saab from Sweden (along with Saab’s GlobalEyes Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft) then the math people have decided that the net cost of the F-35's are just too much and they will be considering guerrilla warfare focused on the northern parts while using a civilian resistance model within the south.

 

[mattfivefour]

I cannot believe this is even a topic. Unbelievable that this would happen.

 

[Margery]

Over the weekend, NBC reported that Trump had again complained to advisers in recent weeks about Canada's vulnerability to US rivals in the Arctic region. Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who remains close to the president, said Canada was "changing rapidly" and becoming "hostile" toward the US.

LOL and just exactly HOW did Bannon think this would play out with repeated threats to our sovereignty as a nation??????

Generally when other nations threaten us, we do change rapidly and become hostile. So strange and unexpected that!


What did he think would happen? We'd say "Sorry" and back down????

As for the US rivals in the Arctic, we are going ahead with our relationship with the Nordic nations who are also now seeing the US as a threat, not just Russia any more. So I suppose that might be bothering Bannon slightly since he says rivals plural which means more than just Russia. He must now include the Nordics as rivals in spite of the fact they are NATO partners.

 

[Margery]

Long run I think we will end up folded into the States in some fashion, with Greenland as part of some North American Union situation, part of the 10 kings stuff if that turns out to be regions.

Even if it goes into Technocracies, it still makes sense to operate the world in regions.

 

[Tall Timbers]

The real bottom line between the F35 and Grippen is the Grippen would never see the source of the missile that shot them down if the fight was between the two.

 

[Margery]

The real bottom line between the F35 and Grippen is the Grippen would never see the source of the missile that shot them down if the fight was between the two.

I think the math on that is that Canada can afford more of them. And most of our resources wouldn't be in the air but concentrated on things like the drone attacks that Ukraine uses, and civilian resistance to occupation. Ukraine has been quite an interesting lab experiment in modern warfare.

 

[Margery]

The fact that Mark Carney (mark of the flesh is the way I see his name) IS a faithful supporter of the whole WEF agenda at Davos, whose election seemed to flip from certain loss to sudden overwhelming win needs to be in the equation.

That pattern looks like the same manipulators at Davos who DO provoke Trump into some actions- wanted Trump and his threats to Canada and Greenland both now and back in the spring with Tariffs and the Canadian elections. That pattern definitely set Carney in charge in Canada. Suggests that this was the point of it all.

That pattern suggests that we are already sold by Davos to the USA, it is just a matter of time. They are using this situation right now

but God

is allowing it, therefore no matter how improbable it seems at the moment

this takeover will be allowed to take place. I hope peaceably.

Looking at the long term agenda of Davos and the WEF, I think they want the technocrats- the Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Black Rock and others to maintain a power base in North America. A protracted Ukraine scenario would interfere with the tech running the planet for the AC later in the Trib. And the financial base intact in the States.

My conclusion, sad as it is, Mark Carney will fold under pressure, doing exactly what the people at the WEF have planned. Meanwhile this provides the "opportunity" as Ursula Von der Leyen said yesterday at Davos for a new Europe to emerge.

Just me thinking out loud here.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

The fact that Mark Carney (mark of the flesh is the way I see his name) IS a faithful supporter of the whole WEF agenda at Davos, whose election seemed to flip from certain loss to sudden overwhelming win needs to be in the equation.

That pattern looks like the same manipulators at Davos who DO provoke Trump into some actions- wanted Trump and his threats to Canada and Greenland both now and back in the spring with Tariffs and the Canadian elections. That pattern definitely set Carney in charge in Canada. Suggests that this was the point of it all.

That pattern suggests that we are already sold by Davos to the USA, it is just a matter of time. They are using this situation right now

but God

is allowing it, therefore no matter how improbable it seems at the moment

this takeover will be allowed to take place. I hope peaceably.

Looking at the long term agenda of Davos and the WEF, I think they want the technocrats- the Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Black Rock and others to maintain a power base in North America. A protracted Ukraine scenario would interfere with the tech running the planet for the AC later in the Trib. And the financial base intact in the States.

My conclusion, sad as it is, Mark Carney will fold under pressure, doing exactly what the people at the WEF have planned. Meanwhile this provides the "opportunity" as Ursula Von der Leyen said yesterday at Davos for a new Europe to emerge.

Just me thinking out loud here.

One good thing if Canada becomes part of the US, I could move north of the 49th parallel and not worry about citizenship and VA issues

 

[Margery]

One good thing if Canada becomes part of the US, I could move north of the 49th parallel and not worry about citizenship and VA issues

And you can come over for a nice visit with me!

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

And you can come over for a nice visit with me!

Would they let me in with some Bob's Red Mill?

Edited to add: grits. Just in case I inadvertently used a code phrase for something bad

 

[Kem]

I cannot believe this is even a topic. Unbelievable that this would happen.

Agree, I don't even know how to respond to any of this, it seems so crazy.

 

[Andy C]

I cannot believe this is even a topic. Unbelievable that this would happen.

The press is again trying to divide the US and another partner country. However, Im sure Canada has long ago drawn up contingency plans for any country attacking them to include the USA. It would be irresponsible not to do so.

Its not hard to search many so called “news sites” and find an article about Trump planning to attack various countries.

 

[Tall Timbers]

Its not hard to search many so called “news sites” and find an article about Trump planning to attack various countries.

It's easy to forget that we can't trust the news we're being fed. It seems false narratives are constantly being created. The more conservative news sources aren't much better with clickbait headlines in their efforts to monetize their business model.

 

[Matthew6:33]

Isn't the F-22 Raptor better than the F-35?

 

[Tall Timbers]

Isn't the F-22 Raptor better than the F-35?

Not better, I believe, but different and different missions. F22 is primarily for air superiority. The F35 is more multi-role. It's mission is both air superiority and strike operations. Each has its strengths. The F22 would be superior at dog-fighting which nowadays would be rare, at least close proximity dog-fighting. If US F35s were running bombing missions, there might be some F22s along to protect the F35s that are heavy with bombs in case any enemy fighters threatened the F35s. I'm not aware of a real world scenario yet where F22s were needed for such a mission. I don't know if F22s have been used since I retired to protect high value assets or not. I flew on a high value asset and we would have fighter cap the whole time we were in an area considered a war zone. But those were F-15s/F-16s.

 

[Matthew6:33]

Not better, I believe, but different and different missions. F22 is primarily for air superiority. The F35 is more multi-role. It's mission is both air superiority and strike operations. Each has its strengths. The F22 would be superior at dog-fighting which nowadays would be rare, at least close proximity dog-fighting. If US F35 were running bombing missions, there might be some F22s along to protect the F35s that are heavy with bombs in case any enemy fighters threatened the F35s. I'm not aware of a real world scenario yet where F22s were needed for such a mission. I don't know if F22s have been used since I retired to protect high value assets or not. I flew on a high value asset and we would have fighter cap the whole time we were in an area considered a war zone. But those were F-15s/F-16s.

Cool info warbird!

 

[Margery]

Would they let me in with some Bob's Red Mill?

Edited to add: grits. Just in case I inadvertently used a code phrase for something bad

If you bring grits, I'll make it WORTH YOUR WHILE!!!!