This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If anyone knows of real politic assessments of the US-CAN relationship, please send them my way/post them here. I hope that there are at least some plans for dealing with a rump/decrepit/hostile/defunct/failed Canada within US Govt. and policy circles. The increasing importance of the Arctic should increase demand for such thinking, along with the pivot to Asia/China, and a few other factors.
I don't think it's too difficult to come up with even armchair strategic assessments considering most of the facts on the ground haven't changed since the days of War Plan Red/Defense Scheme No. 1 and 2 (for the US and Canada, respectively, though the US plan focused more on Canada in the context of taking on the entire British Empire).
Canada is one of the easiest countries to cut completely in two: there's one road that separates East and West, and jack shit for 2000 miles between Toronto and Winnipeg (Thunder Bay exists mainly because it was the way to get from East to West before the car was invented). And no, tanks aren't getting through there either; the only way to do it is by air, sea (into Hudson's Bay), or on foot. And Canada doesn't have that many aircraft capable of transporting armor, much less armor itself (most of their tanks aren't even operable).
After that, the inevitable blockade would do most of the work. If that part of Canada is separated from its food and energy supply (yes, the hydro power is unlimited at current burn rates, but the oil and industrial inputs sure aren't and those come from the part of the nation that its army has no chance of reasonably defending) it's not going to last very long. Then all the US has to do is make sure the shanty migrant ships aren't making it, which is pretty easy to do so long as you're willing to actually stop them (and in this kind of situation, they would be). Yes, the border is very long, but that doesn't make much difference if the average Canadian cannot get to a section you don't control, and by and large they can't.
On that note, it's deceptively easy to isolate the most populated part of Canada from the US: destroy the bridges. All Ontario border crossings are over water (almost like the border is where it is for that reason), and demolition of those bridges from either side means that reinforcing an incursion on either side would become difficult very quickly. Those bodies of water are not fordable. Same thing for Quebec; Montreal and Quebec city are on the north side of the St. Lawrence, both excellent defensive positions (and have been used as such a few times, too). These nations are an ocean apart should they choose to be; for the west, destroying the bridges and road is going to have the same effect.
As far as strategic industries go, Canada doesn't have any that can't be trivially attacked by conventional rocket artillery (or standard artillery, for the communities on the St. Lawrence, as destroying those bridges means the Maritime provinces aren't going to put up much of a fight) from the US side. The same is true of all its major cities, especially Vancouver. This doesn't hold true for the US; assuming equal-capability equipment the only major US city in Canadian artillery range is Detroit (if it even qualifies as "major" any more, lol).
As far as commerce goes, Canada depends heavily on other countries to refine the products of its resource extraction (which affects the West more than the East); a collapse in the ability to trade with the US (each provinces' largest trading partner) would be catastrophic to the economy.
This is, I think, why the Defense Schemes focus more on rapid attack being the only feasible way to resist an American invasion, because the country really can't be held. Sure, a friendly Europe could resupply Upper/Lower Canada, but I think unrestricted submarine warfare (this time by the US) would likely rout those merchant marines, and the American navy is currently peerless, so the only time you have to do damage is while you still have the element of surprise.
I agree that America could annex Canada with little to no military effort. I'm more curious about the details of when, how, and under what circumstances that would happen. What are the politics and sentiments of the people? What considerations would the US have to weigh before making such a call? What are the alternatives, and what interests do those alternatives serve? Etc.
Any in depth sources on those matters would be much appreciated.
The best defense Canada has against getting annexed by the US is to import an extra 20 million South Asians (even better: an extra 40 million). The magnitude of the poison pill the US would have to swallow to get the land for itself would make even the staunchest American imperialist balk and puke.
In fact a large portion of these 40 million people will want the US to annex Canada because it means they get full access to the US jobs market!
I thought you were gonna go with the prospect of dealing with the French lol. Or more liberal states being added.
A ton of the migrants came in the recent COVID influx and don't have citizenship and can likely be deported or have visas and PR cancelled before unification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link