King Charles of Canada makes a rare public speech calling for aid from the Commonwealth to support Europe in defending against the US. It’s broadcast on Canadian TV.
Who do you join? The US or the UK?
Knee jerk response? Demand King Charles no longer be our king.
Honest response? What’s the war over? If the UK is mass killing people (they have a history of that), then the US. The US is mass killing people (they have a history of that), then thr UK.
Maybe we should grow beyond the last century’s call for war better get to killing response. Maybe Canada should feel bad about its role in the Boer war, for example, or question what we should have done differently in the Korean War, and perhaps nuance needs to be done.
Maybe the two old heads of state on each side should have to fight to the death or negotiate rather than millions of the world’s poor sent through generational hell so one side can have more money.
If Canada is mass killing people (they have a history of that), then fuck it all.
Agreed
I forget whom Canada mass-killed.
Do you mean other than the estimated 60% of indigenous population that died within first european contact and the ensuing cultural (and literal) genocide or do you wanna talk more specifically about the minimum 3,200 indigenous children who were killed in residential schools across Canada? Or maybe we can talk about why there are so many unsolved cases of murdered and missing indigenous women?
Demand King Charles no longer be our king.
Tell us you don’t understand the risks to our own government setup, why don’t you?
Thus why I called it my knee jerk reaction. The tie in of the monarchy isn’t easy or possible to get rid of in Canada, regardless of how i feel about the royals. My point more so was a British monarch immediately asks for help from a country with lower GDP and army spending without elaborating, and I don’t really like him.
You see, when one says “knee jerk”, per vocabulary.com it means:
The idiom “a knee jerk reaction” means that you respond to something in an equally unthinking way. If you instinctively assume that someone who loves clowns wouldn’t have much in common with you, that’s a knee jerk, or automatic, reaction.
Thus I’m unthinking. It’s not meant to be taken seriously, inherently meaning that it’s a bad or idea I haven’t thought about.
The proper response is we become Switzerland and stay out of it
I am on no ones side, because no one is on my side.
The Swiss
Maybe it’s my lack of imagination, but I can’t imagine a dispute between those two nations that would be justified in any way at this time. Likewise, I can’t see how the relationship could degrade to point where war was the only feasible option.
World being configured as it is today, I don’t see a reason to point a gun at anybody, for any reason.
While we enjoy that luxury, it’s the perfect time to: talk with someone who you disagree with on a fundamental level. Get to know them as a fellow human being. Listen to their life experiences, & share your life experiences with them. Discuss deep questions openly and honestly. Don’t be afraid. Be honest, be sincere.
I need more details. When we say ‘support Europe’ do we mean just the UK?
Due to your indecisiveness Bristol and Liverpool have been firebombed by the US Navy wiping out 1 MILLION Brits. Princess Eugenie of Canada and Home Secretary were among the casualties.
The UK is part of Europe. Not the EU but defensive alliances still exist between the UK and Europe. The USA and Europe (+ UK) are at war across the Atlantic.
President Macron calls for Aid from Quebec.
The war is desperate! What do you do?!
You’re on your own, Charles. I’m a republican, anyways.
Man I forgot King Charles was real for a minute and really thought you made someone up for the sake of the question.
I mean they both suck right now but I can’t tell if I think the UK sucks less only because I don’t get as much of their news. Also you mentioned we’d be supporting Europe in the first part not just the UK? If it’s US vs EU I’m backing EU all the way.
am need context first
Taxes on tea
I am much more suited to snarky online comments than actual combat.
Gun to my head, have to choose a side for which to fight? Probably the UK, I trust it more than the US.
But have you considered that the US is most certainly going to win?
I don’t know, we beat 'em last time, I’d bet we can burn the white house twice.
I wonder about that. On the face of it, yes they ought to. But a couple of thoughts might tip the scale:
- an offensive war is much harder than a defensive one.
- America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines .
- America has a low tolerance for casualties, especially in foreign lands. Whereas Europe defending itself would probably be more tolerant. (Except for France. For French reasons.)
- Such an invasion would cause huge social unrest at home. Presumably such an invasion would be instigated by trump who would then be compelled to deploy the military at home as well.
And while I can’t vouch for the source, in a few categories the two actually seem relatively evenly matched: https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Union_EU_vs_USA
I also wonder how much air superiority the US would really have. Assuming other countries weren’t letting the US use their air bases, they’d have to project air power from their carriers. Google seems to think about 64 fighters per carrier, as the US only has 20 carriers, which gives it an effective air fleet of about 1,300 aircraft compared to Europe’s 5000.
- an offensive war is much harder than a defensive one.
Agreed
- America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines.
True, but America already maintains these, even without ongoing conflicts. If they moved carrier groups from the Pacific, even easier.
- America has a low tolerance for casualties, especially in foreign lands.
I don’t think so. They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam. Compounded with the likelihood most casualties wouldn’t be extracted to the US until the end of a major conflict, it gets even easier.
- Such an invasion would cause huge social unrest at home. Presumably such an invasion would be instigated by trump who would then be compelled to deploy the military at home as well.
Sadly, this could legally work. The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else. So long as an action isn’t unconstitutional, it’s legal if it comes from POTUS.
America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines.
Those supply lines aren’t subject to attack though. They’d have to defend them against submarine attacks across thousands and thousands of kilometers. In that sort of fight, advantage to the attacker.
They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam.
Not in the numbers required for a ground war in Europe. America lost some 7,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and its been considered a major debacle. Consider the number of casualties in Ukraine…
The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else.
Oh, probably legal. Buy there would be massive protests, maybe riots etc. It would be a huge internal headache and distraction.
Counter argument. The US probably knows the current location of everything that could pose a credible threat to either a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier.
Defunding a large ocean perimeter is a lot easier when you know where everything is. Again, the first step would probably be to disable most of this stuff.
i don’t like to give the US credit but they have indisputably the most advanced global military logistics of any country in history.
The Americans can drop 100,000 troops anywhere in the world, have complete supply lines established in 24 hours, and have immediate air and sea superiority. If we are talking Europe, they already have a significant military presence in place.
The US military is immense and insanely equipped. The hundreds of billions of stuff sent to Ukraine is mostly old stuff that would have aged out anyway. They have not even touched anything they would use themselves.
I know “Britannia rules the Sea” but honestly, look how many aircraft carriers the US has. No contest. Also, how many cruise missiles do they have to disable military infrastructure.
US intelligence is similarly sprawling and deep pocketed. Their intelligence failures are almost always political. In an actual military led conflict, this puts them at an extreme advantage.
The Americans have also shown extremely effective use of patriotism and propaganda. It is unlikely that resistance at home would emerge quickly enough to prevent a successful invasion.
As of late, they have also demonstrated the ability to absolutely give the middle finger to their allies and international diplomatic bodies.
Where the Americans suck is in holding territory and in maintaining a focused agenda. A war with the UK and the US would probably result in regime change on both sides ( one through force and one through popularity ). However, in the UK, they would end up otherwise leaving pretty much the entire bureaucracy in place and, after wasting craploads of money, would probably pull out and go home. This is where all that resistance at home and abroad stuff would overpower them.
At the end of the day, Britain would be largely unchanged after the US pulled back out. The US would have gained almost nothing. If they were lucky, things would look much as they do now.
In fact, now that I have walked through it, I guess the answer is that I would certainly not fight against the US. It would be for nothing. Better to just wait.
In fact, the UK would be better off not fighting too hard and then just negotiating themselves back into power afterwards. I mean, the PM would have to change but that is hardly a big deal.
I am wondering what policy the UK would have to abandon. I mean, something must have caused all this in the first place.
Well, if we allow such a broadcast, the US is invading us. So, I guess I should deal with that first.
Considering one of those 2 is across an ocean and the other bumps right up against our most populous areas, I think the choice is clear. Even if the US was objectively the bad guys I would rather we just roll over and surrender than try to fight an army that large
Canada has a history that includes the longer sniper shot on a moving target and also tactics that involve shelling our own position and staggering down to Washingston DC for some Light Remodeling. Our forests are so thick that a group of people were lost for a week less than 10 minutes’ drive outside of town.
I’m okay not cleaving to the US immediately. They won’t see us, they won’t find us, until they’re upon us and the artillery lights up .
Well like you said, we are under Britain
We see ourselves as such anyway and hate Americans
