U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)

[Czech_pivo]

He is already doing a lot of terrible things to us and probably intends to do more. Is that what you would do if you were him?

What I'd like to see is for Canadians to STFU about President Chamberlain and to start to act like adults and agree to vastly increase our military abilities to defend what is ours - both from a territorial perspective, a legally obligated perspective - related to our international defense treaties - and finally from an economic well being perspective.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What I'd like to see is for Canadians to STFU about President Chamberlain and to start to act like adults and agree to vastly increase our military abilities to defend what is ours - both from a territorial perspective, a legally obligated perspective - related to our international defense treaties - and finally from an economic well being perspective.

You're gonna love this episode.

 

[suffolkowner]

What I'd like to see is for Canadians to STFU about President Chamberlain and to start to act like adults and agree to vastly increase our military abilities to defend what is ours - both from a territorial perspective, a legally obligated perspective - related to our international defense treaties - and finally from an economic well being perspective.

but do we buy American? Or look elsewhere?

 

[Halifax Tar]

but do we buy American? Or look elsewhere?

I was always a big proponent of buying American as it ties us into their logistics chain...

Now I don't know...

 

[Czech_pivo]

Here's something to think about -

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The U.S. House of Representatives' maximum number of seats has been limited to 435, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Act of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union. The Huntington–Hill method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats among the states since the 1940 census reapportionment. Federal law requires the clerk of the United States House of Representatives to notify each state government of the number of seats apportioned to the state no later than January 25 of the year immediately following each decennial census.

So this means - is that IF Canada was to enter into the US as a single 'State' then our 40million people would received a number of representatives somewhat less than the number that California currently receives - they have 52 currently, we would received most likely around 46. That means that ALL 50 other states would have a REDUCTION in their number of appointed representatives to allow for the estimated 46 that Canada would receive. I think that its VERY safe to say that of the 46 representative to the House of Congress that Canada would receive that the VAST MAJORITY would vote for the Democrats - I'd vent a guess that over 30 of the 46 would go the the Democrats. This ONLY would result in a massive hill that the Republicans would have to crest in order for them to even gain majority control of the Congress again.

In terms of Senators, you all know that there are only 100 in the entire US. If Canada went in as a SINGLE entity, meaning only 2 Senators for ALL of Canada, then there would still be an opportunity for the Republicans to still obtain 52 of the 102 Senate seats and control the Senate. There would be ZERO chance of President Chamberlain every allowing each of the 10 Provinces to enter as a new separate State because that would mean 20 new Senators and the reality that the VAST majority of those 20 would go to the Democrats - most likely 14-15 of the 20 would do so.

Them's the facts and the reality. President Chamberlain would want us to be Puerto Rico - US citizens, US taxes, US laws but NO equal status.

 

[Czech_pivo]

but do we buy American? Or look elsewhere?

Cherry pick - F35's yup, P-8's yup - South Korean subs yup - from there on in, on a case by case basis - but I'm sure that the Brits would love to cozy up to us once again.

 

[Remius]

but do we buy American? Or look elsewhere?

Trump has highlighted our vulnerabilities in relying on them. We should be looking elsewhere. But if it suits us, if not shop around or internally

 

[suffolkowner]

I was always a big proponent of buying American as it ties us into their logistics chain...

Now I don't know...

Same here with the odd exception of say the A330 MRTT. Now I think we should look for alternatives to fill our capacities within reason.

MLRS=PULS or K239 instead of HIMARS?

i guess we already did SPIKE over Javelin, just expand to the whole force

still theres no point in shooting ourselves in the foot, which we usually manage to do anyway

 

[Halifax Tar]

Same here with the odd exception of say the A330 MRTT. Now I think we should look for alternatives to fill our capacities within reason.

MLRS=PULS or K239 instead of HIMARS?

i guess we already did SPIKE over Javelin, just expand to the whole force

still theres no point in shooting ourselves in the foot, which we usually manage to do anyway

Our problem is geography. We're separated from the rest of the world and our only neighbor is one we're giving bombastic side eye to now...

I really wish I trusted our industry, because I would love to see a made in Canada solution.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I was always a big proponent of buying American as it ties us into their logistics chain...

Now I don't know...

Not just a (presumably) pretty face

I think that comparing those two paths to improve from the status quo- Scandic Association vice American Streamlining, that the American path is undeniably the simpler, straighter line.

That being said, it's not without risk. The power imbalance is already absolutely massive- complete defense industry dependency (as opposed to the current very near complete) would only widen that and further contribute to de facto status as a vassal, a return to pre WW2's relationship with Britain.

It's likely abject paranoia on my part, but in the digital age I do question putting all our eggs in the basket of an increasingly... temperamental ally who we may or not be in geopolitical alignment with at any given time. How long does our military operate if the US withholds contractor support as part of a trade spat/ if we want to use our military for a cause they don't support?

There- horn tooted.

As to the solution to the problem- I think we need to look to the people that have already done it, namely UK, SK and Sweden. BAE / SAAB / Hanwha check a lot of boxes

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/02/12/trumps_greenland_gambit_is_a_masterclass_in_statecraft_1090828.html

during Trump’s first term, most claimed his interest in acquiring Greenland was “absurd.”

Not much has changed today with pundits casting Trump as impulsive – as they did in 2019 – and lacking knowledge of geopolitics. This time even the Danish Prime Minister chimed in saying “Greenland is not for sale” tacitly hinting at Trump’s perceived neocolonial provocation. Weeks later, Denmark reversed the message and indicated interest in discussing Greenland’s future with Trump. While Greenland’s future is yet to be determined, the mainstream narrative is naïve – Trump’s masterclass in statecraft is now in session – and Beijing is taking note.

Where the media focuses on Trump’s claim to use the military to acquire the island, they miss the effect of the rhetoric. The reality is this was a deliberate strategic provocation few will see or acknowledge. In poking Denmark about his intent to purchase, or even forcefully acquire the island, Trump gave a masterclass in geostrategic chess, saving the U.S. billions, furthering deterring China from staking a claim on Greenland, and improving U.S. national security in the process. As the dialogue progresses, the stakes could evolve further.

Critics mocking Trump’s fixation on Greenland fail to account for the underlying significance to U.S. and NATO defense. European countries have long underinvested in their own defense. NATO enjoys the warmth of the U.S.-provided security blanket absent the corresponding commitments. The Danish government dismissed Trump’s idea and critics mocked his supposed naivety. Yet, Trump’s renewed Greenland pitch might have been more calculated than it appeared. Denmark’s subsequent announcement of a $1.5 billion defense investment in Greenland reveals a sophisticated dynamic: the rhetoric may have been a strategic gambit to prompt Denmark into strengthening Greenland’s security infrastructure, effectively achieving U.S. strategic goals without direct expenditure.

The Danish government has announced a huge boost in defence spending for Greenland, hours after US President-elect Donald Trump repeated his desire to purchase the Arctic territory.

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the package was a "double digit billion amount" in krone, or at least $1.5bn (£1.2bn).

Denmark boosts Greenland defence after Trump repeats desire for US control

The huge package is announced after the president-elect said US ownership of Greenland was a "necessity".

www.bbc.com

Cost-Free Arctic Security

Trump’s approach is fiscally savvy. Operating in the Arctic is expensive. Everything takes longer, costs more, and breaks faster. Burden sharing is sound strategy and a necessary element of NATO’s security architecture. NATO has long grappled with calls for equitable contributions among member states – with Trump 1.0 repeatedly threatening consequence for NATO counties failing to meet the required 2% GDP mandate. In this way, Trump’s latest jab was an effective catalyst toward tangible defense commitments by a NATO ally that was long overdue.

Trump’s approach to Greenland illustrates a key principle of effective statecraft: leveraging rhetoric to influence allies and adversaries alike. By framing Greenland as a strategic asset of unparalleled importance, Trump compelled Denmark to prioritize investments aligned with U.S. interests.

...

The Line's Commentary

On The Line: Why Trump is focused on the Arctic, Canada's weak spot

On changing U.S. defence priorities, the danger it sees to the north, and why Canada has to step up its game.

www.readtheline.ca

 

[Czech_pivo]

Here's something to think about -

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The U.S. House of Representatives' maximum number of seats has been limited to 435, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Act of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union. The Huntington–Hill method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats among the states since the 1940 census reapportionment. Federal law requires the clerk of the United States House of Representatives to notify each state government of the number of seats apportioned to the state no later than January 25 of the year immediately following each decennial census.

So this means - is that IF Canada was to enter into the US as a single 'State' then our 40million people would received a number of representatives somewhat less than the number that California currently receives - they have 52 currently, we would received most likely around 46. That means that ALL 50 other states would have a REDUCTION in their number of appointed representatives to allow for the estimated 46 that Canada would receive. I think that its VERY safe to say that of the 46 representative to the House of Congress that Canada would receive that the VAST MAJORITY would vote for the Democrats - I'd vent a guess that over 30 of the 46 would go the the Democrats. This ONLY would result in a massive hill that the Republicans would have to crest in order for them to even gain majority control of the Congress again.

In terms of Senators, you all know that there are only 100 in the entire US. If Canada went in as a SINGLE entity, meaning only 2 Senators for ALL of Canada, then there would still be an opportunity for the Republicans to still obtain 52 of the 102 Senate seats and control the Senate. There would be ZERO chance of President Chamberlain every allowing each of the 10 Provinces to enter as a new separate State because that would mean 20 new Senators and the reality that the VAST majority of those 20 would go to the Democrats - most likely 14-15 of the 20 would do so.

Them's the facts and the reality. President Chamberlain would want us to be Puerto Rico - US citizens, US taxes, US laws but NO equal status.

Sorry - I'm wrong on something here -

According to Stats Canada - see below - Canada now has a LARGER population than California - 41m vs 39.4m - so this means that Canada would have 52 or 53 seats in Congress - the most of ANY US state. Because of this, President Chamberlain would NEVER give Canadians equal voting/representation in the US.

The Daily — Canada's population estimates, third quarter 2024

Canada's population was estimated at 41,465,298 on October 1, 2024, an increase of 176,699 people (+0.4%) from July 1. This was the slowest quarterly growth seen since the first quarter of 2022 (+0.3%), when the population of Canada grew by 116,392 people.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Remius]

Sorry - I'm wrong on something here -

According to Stats Canada - see below - Canada now has a LARGER population than California - 41m vs 39.4m - so this means that Canada would have 52 or 53 seats in Congress - the most of ANY US state. Because of this, President Chamberlain would NEVER give Canadians equal voting/representation in the US.

The Daily — Canada's population estimates, third quarter 2024

Canada's population was estimated at 41,465,298 on October 1, 2024, an increase of 176,699 people (+0.4%) from July 1. This was the slowest quarterly growth seen since the first quarter of 2022 (+0.3%), when the population of Canada grew by 116,392 people.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But we’d only get 2 senate seats lol.

Maybe this is the way to invade the US from within…

 

[Kirkhill]

Trump's 51st State rhetoric will continue until he gets what he is looking for - a secure northern flank. A northern flank secured against conventional and hybrid threats from China and Russia (and China is his biggest concern)

China is his biggest concern.
Russia is a fading concern.

He is looking at the reverse of Kissinger's problem. Kissinger wanted to keep China out of the arms of a powerful Russia. Trump wants to keep Russia out of the arms of a powerful China.

Russia is a manageable threat in the arctic. Vlad inherited a weak and rusting Soviet Union and turned it into a weaker Russia. China sees an opening to exploit Russia's Siberian weakness to gain access to both Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. First as a joint-venture partner and, in future, as sole owner.

Thus, I believe, why he wants to keep Vlad in power and placated. And that may mean giving ground on Ukraine....

....

But....

...

Trump has another card to play. Europe/NATO/JEF. Trump can withdraw the US from the NATO commitment and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO while, at the same time, getting Ukraine NATO-esque coverage by becoming part of JEF.

Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania bottle up the Northern and Baltic Fleets and, together with the US and Canada, secure the Arctic. Those countries have already offered guarantees to Poland and Ukraine. And the UK has its own independent nuclear deterrent.

Those countries plus the Weimar Group* (I swear that the foreign affairs geeks spend their days trolling) are the people that Ukraine is expecting to put boots on the ground, aircraft in the skies and ships in the water to defend their sovereignty.

Instead of SHAPE and VII Corps on the Inter-German border, with the US President having to fret over exchanging the good people of Peoria for the good people of Bonn, the Europeans will be manning the border and the Brits and the French will be fretting tactical nuclear exchanges with Vlad.

And Trump takes one pace to the rear, puts some time and space into the Article 5 debates and can, conceivably, reserve his thunder for when Vlad gets serious and actually employs his tac nukes against Europe.

*Weimar Group+

Weimar+ Statement by Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the European External Action Service and the European Commission

Joint Statement by Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the European External Action Service and the European Commission.

www.gov.uk

12 February 2025, Paris.

We are ready to enhance our support for Ukraine. We commit to its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s war of aggression.

We share the goal to keep supporting Ukraine until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is reached. A peace that guarantees the interest of Ukraine and our own.

We are looking forward to discussing the way ahead together with our American allies. Our shared objectives should be to put Ukraine in a position of strength. Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations. Ukraine should be provided with strong security guarantees. A just and lasting peace in Ukraine is a necessary condition for a strong transatlantic security.

We recall that the security of the European continent is our common responsibility. We are therefore working together to strengthen our collective defence capabilities.

....

I think Trump and Hesgeth are absolutely transparent in telling NATO, including Canada, that there is not enough money in the American kitty to manage both China in Asia and Russia in Europe. I also think that Russia is sufficiently reduced that Europe should be able to stabilize the situation indefinitely from its own resources. If they want to push Russia out of Crimea and risk a wider war then that would be up to them

 

[Czech_pivo]

Trump's 51st State rhetoric will continue until he gets what he is looking for - a secure northern flank. A northern flank secured against conventional and hybrid threats from China and Russia (and China is his biggest concern)

China is his biggest concern.
Russia is a fading concern.

He is looking at the reverse of Kissinger's problem. Kissinger wanted to keep China out of the arms of a powerful Russia. Trump wants to keep Russia out of the arms of a powerful China.

Russia is a manageable threat in the arctic. Vlad inherited a weak and rusting Soviet Union and turned it into a weaker Russia. China sees an opening to exploit Russia's Siberian weakness to gain access to both Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. First as a joint-venture partner and, in future, as sole owner.

Thus, I believe, why he wants to keep Vlad in power and placated. And that may mean giving ground on Ukraine....

....

But....

...

Trump has another card to play. Europe/NATO/JEF. Trump can withdraw the US from the NATO commitment and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO while, at the same time, getting Ukraine NATO-esque coverage by becoming part of JEF.

Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania bottle up the Northern and Baltic Fleets and, together with the US and Canada, secure the Arctic. Those countries have already offered guarantees to Poland and Ukraine. And the UK has its own independent nuclear deterrent.

Those countries plus the Weimar Group* (I swear that the foreign affairs geeks spend their days trolling) are the people that Ukraine is expecting to put boots on the ground, aircraft in the skies and ships in the water to defend their sovereignty.

Instead of SHAPE and VII Corps on the Inter-German border, with the US President having to fret over exchanging the good people of Peoria for the good people of Bonn, the Europeans will be manning the border and the Brits and the French will be fretting tactical nuclear exchanges with Vlad.

And Trump takes one pace to the rear, puts some time and space into the Article 5 debates and can, conceivably, reserve his thunder for when Vlad gets serious and actually employs his tac nukes against Europe.

*Weimar Group+

Weimar+ Statement by Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the European External Action Service and the European Commission

Joint Statement by Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the European External Action Service and the European Commission.

www.gov.uk

....

I think Trump and Hesgeth are absolutely transparent in telling NATO, including Canada, that there is not enough money in the American kitty to manage both China in Asia and Russia in Europe. I also think that Russia is sufficiently reduced that Europe should be able to stabilize the situation indefinitely from its own resources. If they want to push Russia out of Crimea and risk a wider war then that would be up to them

Agree with alot of the above.
But, as someone pointed out earlier - Moldova - 'taking them over' is a low hanging piece of fruit for the Russians. This then puts them on the 2nd doorstep of NATO/EU and starts to destabilize Romania.

I think that the Ukrainians MUST continue to not allow any Russian flights over their territory after this 'peace' occurs, this will NOT give the Russians any direct access to Transnistria. The same must occur with overland access to this enclave. The Moldavians/Romanians as well. This will help reduce the fall of Moldova.

 

[Kirkhill]

Final point on Canada and the 51st state rhetoric -

Canada as a hybrid threat.

Blinken’s Warning Two Years Ago: U.S. ‘Losing Faith’ in Canada’s Ability to Combat Industrial-Scale Fentanyl

BC Mayor Warns of Asian Organized Crime’s Surprising Access to Canada’s Political Class, Echoing US Agency Concerns

substack.com

Exclusive: Secretary of State Warned B.C. Mayor U.S. Agencies Are Withholding Evidence Due to Canada’s Legal Loopholes and Lack of Fentanyl Prosecutions

Mayor Brad West Describes U.S. Government Concerns with Canada, Says He Would Serve as Fentanyl Czar if a New Government in Ottawa Calls

substack.com

Mark Carney, Beijing's United Front, and the Battle for Richmond

United Front operatives were seen mobilizing support for Carney and Parm Bains in Richmond, while Kenny Chiu faces attacks citing the Hogue Commission’s report.

www.thebureau.news

Canada Allegedly Gutted a '97 Report That Recommended a Border Strike Force Targeting PRC Triads. Now Washington Wants Action.

OTTAWA, Canada – The author of the controversial Sidewinder report—a joint 1997 RCMP-CSIS study alleging that Chinese Triads linked to Beijing’s intelligence and influence networks had infiltrated Canadian cities and ports, including Vancouver—has come forward with new details on CSIS’s alleged...

www.thebureau.news

Exclusive: How the RCMP, CBSA, and Trudeau Government Lost U.S. Trust in the Fentanyl Fight

Surveillance operations have raised alarms after placing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a former cabinet minister in proximity to Asian organized crime suspects.

www.thebureau.news

Veteran law enforcement officials—both active and retired—from the United States and Canada have come forward with explosive allegations suggesting that Canada’s federal government may have systematically obstructed investigations into the highest levels of Asian organized crime. According to these sources, American agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, have grown so alarmed by suspected corruption and legal loopholes in Canada that they have effectively sidelined Canadian law enforcement from sensitive investigations and intelligence-sharing.

Several veterans of Canadian law enforcement argue that while U.S. President Donald Trump’s critiques of Canada’s handling of fentanyl trafficking and border security are politically charged and often harsh, they underscore an uncomfortable reality: Canada is increasingly perceived as compromised—either incapable or unwilling to confront entrenched transnational criminal networks. American and Canadian sources alike describe a nation whose law enforcement agencies are in disarray, inhibited by suspected infiltration at the highest levels, obstructing investigations into billion-dollar drug networks and money laundering operations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree with alot of the above.
But, as someone pointed out earlier - Moldova - 'taking them over' is a low hanging piece of fruit for the Russians. This then puts them on the 2nd doorstep of NATO/EU and starts to destabilize Romania.

I think that the Ukrainians MUST continue to not allow any Russian flights over their territory after this 'peace' occurs, this will NOT give the Russians any direct access to Transnistria. The same must occur with overland access to this enclave. The Moldavians/Romanians as well. This will help reduce the fall of Moldova.

I agree. But surely that could be guaranteed as easily with French and Romanian overflights, or British and Polish overflights, as by US overflights?

 

[JLB50]

Cherry pick - F35's yup, P-8's yup - South Korean subs yup - from there on in, on a case by case basis - but I'm sure that the Brits would love to cozy up to us once again.

I’d suggest enough F-35s to meet our NORAD obligations and another fighter from elsewhere. That is, if we could cut short our F-35 contract

 

[Remius]

I’d suggest enough F-35s to meet our NORAD obligations and another fighter from elsewhere. That is, if we could cut short our F-35 contract

Our contract is already pretty short lol

 

[suffolkowner]

yeah i dont think Trump gives two shits whether we buy another 100 tanks or not