Canada vs any single nation except the US ?

NothingNow

Banned
A hypothetical scenario: Canada vs. Cuba, in 1989. US and USSR are more or less neutral, like american involvement in the Falklands war, mostly out of bewilderment. The Cuban military is at Peak strength. Who wins? can they even hit each other?
 
A hypothetical scenario: Canada vs. Cuba, in 1989. US and USSR are more or less neutral, like american involvement in the Falklands war, mostly out of bewilderment. The Cuban military is at Peak strength. Who wins? can they even hit each other?

Why would such a conflict with Cuba be outside of USA's interests? Especially considering, ahem, certain voting districts in Florida. The USSR keeping away during 1989 is definitely plausible though.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Why would such a conflict with Cuba be outside of USA's interests? Especially considering, ahem, certain voting districts in Florida. The USSR keeping away during 1989 is definitely plausible though.

The threat of Escalation if the US gets involved. No-one in washington back then was stupid enough to risk WW3 over fucking Cuba. Especially considering what was going on in Angola at the time.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Just think, if we fought any commonwealth realm she would officially have to sign peace with herself. . .

Talk about a situation where your right hand doesn't talk to your left.

A hypothetical scenario: Canada vs. Cuba, in 1989. US and USSR are more or less neutral, like american involvement in the Falklands war, mostly out of bewilderment. The Cuban military is at Peak strength. Who wins? can they even hit each other?

Canada would win, flying missions out of other Caribbean bases the UK had. Or if they wouldn't let us us use their base we'd borrow one without asking.

And let loose the parade of Canada wank.

/thread

You came in here just to be Canada-bukkakked.
 
A hypothetical scenario: Canada vs. Cuba, in 1989. US and USSR are more or less neutral, like american involvement in the Falklands war, mostly out of bewilderment. The Cuban military is at Peak strength. Who wins? can they even hit each other?


In the long run I suppose the Canadians would win if they put enough time and money and lives into this, but it's hard to imagine the Canadians being prepared to wage an all out war against a nation that they were on fairly friendly terms with in real life.

In the short term I suppose the Canadians could pull off a few symbolic strikes against Cuba by the Canadian Air force using in flight refueling and maybe a loose naval blockade but that would be risky without air cover, which would require near by air bases. Given near by air bases, a long term bombing campaign might be feasible for the Canadians in this time period (IIRC the Canadians has over 100 F18’s and a smaller number of F5’s in this time period.) but the Cuban air defenses would pose a challenge.

If the USSR decided to re supply the Cubans then this war would likely drag on for a long long time.
 
Arctic disputes turn hot?

Though Canada's claims only conflict with the US.

Um, actually our claims conflict with the Danish as well. And depending on how undersea mapping goes, there could be claim differences between Canada and Russia.

Wait, what? Are you sure? At what specific point in time did they achieve this?

When WW2 ended and we were on the side left standing.

We still had a rather large navy shortly after the start by virtue of the North Atlantic being vital to supplying Britain which stood alone against the Nazis.
 
The Royal Canadian Navy came out of WWII with an aircraft carrier, submarines, and more naval tonnage then you could shake a stick at.

Canada did have the 3rd largest navy at the end of WWII, though Canada and the USSR were competing for 3rd and 4th place. The reality is that adding all the navies below 2nd together still didn't equal the 2nd largest navy, the Royal Navy, and the USN had as much as everyone else put together.
 
A hypothetical scenario: Canada vs. Cuba, in 1989. US and USSR are more or less neutral, like american involvement in the Falklands war, mostly out of bewilderment. The Cuban military is at Peak strength. Who wins? can they even hit each other?
Why would Cuba declare war on one of their main trading partners?
 
Canada did have the 3rd largest navy at the end of WWII, though Canada and the USSR were competing for 3rd and 4th place. The reality is that adding all the navies below 2nd together still didn't equal the 2nd largest navy, the Royal Navy, and the USN had as much as everyone else put together.
Heck ...

Just in Number of Ships and Gross Tonnage, The LARGEST Naval Force in WWII ...

Was Actually Fielded, by The US ARMY!

:eek:
 
The thread about a US invasion of Canada has me wondering, could any single nation other that the US actually invade, occupy some or all of Canada and persuade the Canadians to stop fighting ?

For the sake of argument assume that the US is a benevolent neutral (ie. will sell Canada any arms except nukes (at fair prices) including existing ships, planes, tanks etc, on a cash and carry basis, but won't supply combat troops) and none of Canada’s other traditional allies will come to their aid. I will also assume that the US is prepared to threaten to use nuclear weapons against any nation that nukes Canada, and is not prepared to accept the Canadians developing their own nukes.

As a point of departure assume an isolationist US combined with a Canadian government that for example sinks a foreign ship in the North west passage, or uses deadly force to stop foreign fishing fleets from fishing in Canadian waters and matters escalate to the point were another nation invades Canada.

Assume the Canadians are prepared to introduce conscription, move to a war time economny, sell assets to buy arms etc.

My sense is that so long as the US sells Canada arms, the Canadians would be able to keep on fighting for years but eventually they would run out of money and man power, but who knows maybe they could inflict enough damage on the attacker to force them to give up. (Ie. buy bombers from the US and hit their home land ?)

Thoughts ?

This is ASB.

Even as a mere thought exercise, it is impossible to discuss as it requires magic to be come viable.

The problem is that for your scenario to be true, we'd have a different Canada.

1. Canada's entire defense posture - from deployment to acquisitions to planning - is based on the USA not being an enemy or even a 'benevolent neutral' - but a firm ally, and one that will massively and immediately intervene on Canada's behalf.
2. Any country planning to attack Canada will have to account for the USA (and the USN) - which makes an invasion (which would have to be seaborne given that Canada's only land boundary is with the USA) impossible.

If these points above were not true, then we'd have a radically different world, and one where 'Canada's' (assuming such a polity existed) economy, demographics, politics, and military were utterly different, and therefore unknown to us here.

Mike Turcotte
 
The thread about a US invasion of Canada has me wondering, could any single nation other that the US actually invade, occupy some or all of Canada and persuade the Canadians to stop fighting ?

For the sake of argument assume that the US is a benevolent neutral (ie. will sell Canada any arms except nukes (at fair prices) including existing ships, planes, tanks etc, on a cash and carry basis, but won't supply combat troops) and none of Canada’s other traditional allies will come to their aid. I will also assume that the US is prepared to threaten to use nuclear weapons against any nation that nukes Canada, and is not prepared to accept the Canadians developing their own nukes.

As a point of departure assume an isolationist US combined with a Canadian government that for example sinks a foreign ship in the North west passage, or uses deadly force to stop foreign fishing fleets from fishing in Canadian waters and matters escalate to the point were another nation invades Canada.

Assume the Canadians are prepared to introduce conscription, move to a war time economny, sell assets to buy arms etc.

My sense is that so long as the US sells Canada arms, the Canadians would be able to keep on fighting for years but eventually they would run out of money and man power, but who knows maybe they could inflict enough damage on the attacker to force them to give up. (Ie. buy bombers from the US and hit their home land ?)

Thoughts ?

Having just explained why this isn't possible, I'll now present a scenario for it.

POD - 1963. In the wake of the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets provide greater aid to the North Vietnamese.

OK, 1965 rolls around, and the Americans are ramping up their deployment to Vietnam. The North Vietnamese decide to strike before the Americans arrive in force, and launch a Tet-equivilent. Unknown to the Soviets, North Vietnamese agents managed to purchase a small quantity of mustard gas on the black market using a semi-rogue KGB liaison group and some of the extra aid from Moscow.

The attack comes, and is an overwhelming success, with only Saigon and Cam Rahn Bay holding out due to direct American aid to the South. The gas is used exclusively on Southern Vietnamese troops. However, video of the horrific attack gets out, which makes it to the US media. It is broadcast, and world learns of it.

All - even the Soviets - are quick to condemn the gas attacks. The American public - fully behind the war - support a more rapid build up of troops. Canada also sends a small contingent - specialists in dealing with gas.

The US builds up and then strikes out from its bases in the South, and wins some impressive victories, largely destroying the Viet Cong as the latter tries to fight in the urban areas it had seized. However, the countryside is a different matter, and Vietnam quickly decends into the National Nightmare it was from our timeline.

The threat of gas attack, coupled with the Pearl-Harbor like 'sneak' attack of Tet polarizes US society to even greater degree than in OTL. The horrific images of the gas attack compel much greater 'draft-dodging' immigration to Canada (which withdraws its small component after a short stay - heightening a sense of anger in the US toward Canada). The end result of this is a cooling of relations between the US and Canada.

By 1971, with an alt-Watergate blooming and 70K+ casaulties, the US has had enough. America leaves - 'peace with honor' - and by 1973 Vietnam is Communist as the north seizes Saigon.

This alt-Vietnam was even more horrific than in OTL, and the alt-My-Lai's and other scenes (some taken completely out of context and some not) cool relations further between the US and Canada. There is no pardon of the Draft Dodgers, and many remain in Canada. There, they use Canada's own free speech laws to thunder their political views across the border, making Canada even worse in American eyes.

A democrat is elected in 1972 after alt-Watergate sinks Nixon. The Soviets meanwhile, fresh from their victory in Vietnam, pick a new place to antogonize the Americans - the Middle East and its oil. They start arming various revolutionary groups in Egypt, Iran, Syria and Algeria. The OPEC oil shock, coupled with a cyclical downturn domestically and foreign disasters (the Fall of Saigon and the overthrow of the Shah in 1975) make for a terrible recession and a Republican rout in 1976 bringing Ronald Reagan to power.

Reagan embarkes on an ambitious military build up and the Soviets find their Middle East strategy backfiring - the Shah's replacement is a theocratic state in Iran and the Israelis defeat the Soviet clients in a short war in 1977. A close US-Israeli relationship develops.

The Soviets decide to double-down on the Middle East. Abandoning the Shia in Iran, the Soviets embark on an ambitious program of advisors and aid to Iraq, Pakistan and Algeria. The Iraqis and Pakistan start a war against the Shia in Iran, while Algeria attacks Morrocco. The US funds Iran (no hostage crisis here) covertly, and the Europeans fund the Moroccans.

All this plays out in a series of brutal sectarian wars and bitter cease fires across the Middle East. The USN assures that the oil flows through the Gulf, but the Middle East is even worse off than in OTL.

None of this saves the USSR, which collapses in 1990, almost as OTL. By then, much of the Middle East resembles OTL Afghanistan. The rise of radical groups, some trained by the USSR, some by the USA and some by the Europeans continues, with the attacks of 9/11/1991 bringing things to a head. Islamic terrorists pilot planes into Picadelly Circus in London, the Palace in Rome, NATO HQ in Brussels and the Brandenberg gate in Berlin. This is coupled with direct terrorist ground action throughout Europe in the form of small groups of armed Islamic youths - many of them residents and citizens of the countries they target - attacking targets of oppurtunity.

The response is immeadiate. NATO mobilizes, and attacks Algeria (the putative 'source of the attacks'). While military victory is rapidly achieved, the occupation is a nightmare, and culminates in the 'Massacre of Oued El Alleug'. In 1994, in that town, NATO forces are pursueing suspected insurgents when they are ambushed by a large group of former Algerian Army equipped with some armor and heavy infantry weapons. 24 Canadian troops are killed, 56 wounded, and the town flattened by repeated NATO air strikes.

The massacre killed over 400 civilians in addition to the NATO troops lost. Canada, already unhappy with the course of the '9/11' war, withdraws its troops from the area, and withdraws from NATO. The anti-Americans in Canada - draft dodgers, extreme liberals, and the like become anti-European as well.

Canada becomes seens as a comfortable refuge from the West for all kinds of people. The US and Canada still have extensive trade activities, and there is no overt hostility between them. Still, Canada becomes known for its counter-culture and bitter anti-militarism.

The European focus of the Alt-9/11 causes the Europeans to maintain a much better military than in OTL. The economic and demograohic issues facing the continent do not change, but the European Union is stronger and Britain is more integrated.

So, as 2000 rolls around, we have a more militant Europe, a more liberal Canada which is out of NATO, and a USA that while not hostile to Canada is not especially friendly to it either.

What do people think of this so far?

Mike Turcotte
 
Mike,

I like your scenario. It is staying within the realms of the possible, though maybe not plausible. I don't know if it will satisfy the crowd. For that you may need a right-wing US dictatorship, a leftist Canada armed to the teeth, and massive use of nuclear weapons.

Having just explained why this isn't possible, I'll now present a scenario for it.

POD - 1963. In the wake of the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets provide greater aid to the North Vietnamese.

OK, 1965 rolls around, and the Americans are ramping up their deployment to Vietnam. The North Vietnamese decide to strike before the Americans arrive in force, and launch a Tet-equivilent. Unknown to the Soviets, North Vietnamese agents managed to purchase a small quantity of mustard gas on the black market using a semi-rogue KGB liaison group and some of the extra aid from Moscow.

The attack comes, and is an overwhelming success, with only Saigon and Cam Rahn Bay holding out due to direct American aid to the South. The gas is used exclusively on Southern Vietnamese troops. However, video of the horrific attack gets out, which makes it to the US media. It is broadcast, and world learns of it.

All - even the Soviets - are quick to condemn the gas attacks. The American public - fully behind the war - support a more rapid build up of troops. Canada also sends a small contingent - specialists in dealing with gas.

The US builds up and then strikes out from its bases in the South, and wins some impressive victories, largely destroying the Viet Cong as the latter tries to fight in the urban areas it had seized. However, the countryside is a different matter, and Vietnam quickly decends into the National Nightmare it was from our timeline.

The threat of gas attack, coupled with the Pearl-Harbor like 'sneak' attack of Tet polarizes US society to even greater degree than in OTL. The horrific images of the gas attack compel much greater 'draft-dodging' immigration to Canada (which withdraws its small component after a short stay - heightening a sense of anger in the US toward Canada). The end result of this is a cooling of relations between the US and Canada.

By 1971, with an alt-Watergate blooming and 70K+ casaulties, the US has had enough. America leaves - 'peace with honor' - and by 1973 Vietnam is Communist as the north seizes Saigon.

This alt-Vietnam was even more horrific than in OTL, and the alt-My-Lai's and other scenes (some taken completely out of context and some not) cool relations further between the US and Canada. There is no pardon of the Draft Dodgers, and many remain in Canada. There, they use Canada's own free speech laws to thunder their political views across the border, making Canada even worse in American eyes.

A democrat is elected in 1972 after alt-Watergate sinks Nixon. The Soviets meanwhile, fresh from their victory in Vietnam, pick a new place to antogonize the Americans - the Middle East and its oil. They start arming various revolutionary groups in Egypt, Iran, Syria and Algeria. The OPEC oil shock, coupled with a cyclical downturn domestically and foreign disasters (the Fall of Saigon and the overthrow of the Shah in 1975) make for a terrible recession and a Republican rout in 1976 bringing Ronald Reagan to power.

Reagan embarkes on an ambitious military build up and the Soviets find their Middle East strategy backfiring - the Shah's replacement is a theocratic state in Iran and the Israelis defeat the Soviet clients in a short war in 1977. A close US-Israeli relationship develops.

The Soviets decide to double-down on the Middle East. Abandoning the Shia in Iran, the Soviets embark on an ambitious program of advisors and aid to Iraq, Pakistan and Algeria. The Iraqis and Pakistan start a war against the Shia in Iran, while Algeria attacks Morrocco. The US funds Iran (no hostage crisis here) covertly, and the Europeans fund the Moroccans.

All this plays out in a series of brutal sectarian wars and bitter cease fires across the Middle East. The USN assures that the oil flows through the Gulf, but the Middle East is even worse off than in OTL.

None of this saves the USSR, which collapses in 1990, almost as OTL. By then, much of the Middle East resembles OTL Afghanistan. The rise of radical groups, some trained by the USSR, some by the USA and some by the Europeans continues, with the attacks of 9/11/1991 bringing things to a head. Islamic terrorists pilot planes into Picadelly Circus in London, the Palace in Rome, NATO HQ in Brussels and the Brandenberg gate in Berlin. This is coupled with direct terrorist ground action throughout Europe in the form of small groups of armed Islamic youths - many of them residents and citizens of the countries they target - attacking targets of oppurtunity.

The response is immeadiate. NATO mobilizes, and attacks Algeria (the putative 'source of the attacks'). While military victory is rapidly achieved, the occupation is a nightmare, and culminates in the 'Massacre of Oued El Alleug'. In 1994, in that town, NATO forces are pursueing suspected insurgents when they are ambushed by a large group of former Algerian Army equipped with some armor and heavy infantry weapons. 24 Canadian troops are killed, 56 wounded, and the town flattened by repeated NATO air strikes.

The massacre killed over 400 civilians in addition to the NATO troops lost. Canada, already unhappy with the course of the '9/11' war, withdraws its troops from the area, and withdraws from NATO. The anti-Americans in Canada - draft dodgers, extreme liberals, and the like become anti-European as well.

Canada becomes seens as a comfortable refuge from the West for all kinds of people. The US and Canada still have extensive trade activities, and there is no overt hostility between them. Still, Canada becomes known for its counter-culture and bitter anti-militarism.

The European focus of the Alt-9/11 causes the Europeans to maintain a much better military than in OTL. The economic and demograohic issues facing the continent do not change, but the European Union is stronger and Britain is more integrated.

So, as 2000 rolls around, we have a more militant Europe, a more liberal Canada which is out of NATO, and a USA that while not hostile to Canada is not especially friendly to it either.

What do people think of this so far?

Mike Turcotte
 
Hmm, what is the difficulty of invading Canada from the Pacific when the USA in neutral? Besides Victoria and Vancouver, are there any good ports on the Canadian Pacific coast?
 
Hmm, what is the difficulty of invading Canada from the Pacific when the USA in neutral? Besides Victoria and Vancouver, are there any good ports on the Canadian Pacific coast?
Not really, and our mountains are a lot more compressed than the American ones. . . Maybe Prince Rupert?
 
China could now, if someone else is supplying the sea and airlift capability. Maybe India in 50 years. Some people have mentioned Russia, but it would have a very hard time winning the ground war before the expense of the operation bankrupted them. The Russian Army's performance in the First Chechen War was abysmal, and while its performance in The Second Chechen War and the Georgia War were much better, it still has a long way to go before it could defeat a Western Power on its own territory.

So maybe a Russia-China coalition? That would work, but in that case it's ASB that the U.S. wouldn't intervene.
 
China could now, if someone else is supplying the sea and airlift capability. Maybe India in 50 years. Some people have mentioned Russia, but it would have a very hard time winning the ground war before the expense of the operation bankrupted them. The Russian Army's performance in the First Chechen War was abysmal, and while its performance in The Second Chechen War and the Georgia War were much better, it still has a long way to go before it could defeat a Western Power on its own territory.

So maybe a Russia-China coalition? That would work, but in that case it's ASB that the U.S. wouldn't intervene.

I really wonder if any nation could sustain an invasion thru the Candian west coast without the equivalent of a usn style cvbg backing it up.


Even the current Canadian Military could present a severe chalenge to an invader trying to seize a foot hold on the west coast unless they have their own fixed wing air cover. If the Canadians were able to buy arms from the US as I postulated in my first post an attacker would need usn style cvbg's to pull this off.
 
Last edited:
The best scenario for the parameters suggested would be a conflict between France and Canada over St.Pierre et Miquelon. The Americans and Brits would stay out and the disparity of forces is equalized by France fighting at the end of a long naval log train. It would be somewhat similar to the situation between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands in 1982. A single battalion of the PPCLI dug into STPM would be a difficult nut for the French to crack, especially because of the much closer proximity to mainland airbases in contrast to the Falklands.

Of course, France also has an advantage that Canada can't just leave the rest of the coast undefended from a French landing, meaning the CF will need to employ essentially all of their forces in holding those islands.
 
The best scenario for the parameters suggested would be a conflict between France and Canada over St.Pierre et Miquelon. The Americans and Brits would stay out and the disparity of forces is equalized by France fighting at the end of a long naval log train. It would be somewhat similar to the situation between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands in 1982. A single battalion of the PPCLI dug into STPM would be a difficult nut for the French to crack, especially because of the much closer proximity to mainland airbases in contrast to the Falklands.

Of course, France also has an advantage that Canada can't just leave the rest of the coast undefended from a French landing, meaning the CF will need to employ essentially all of their forces in holding those islands.

Canada might have had better odds in the early to mid 1990's than today. Their airforce and army were larger and I don't believe the rafale fighter had entered French service yet. On the down side I don't think the Canadian air force had pgm's in the early 90's.

The real deciding point is going to be how neutral is the US to Canada.
 
Top