What Would A Modern Day War Plan Red Look Like?

I think it sort of depends on the why of the conflict. If Canada's suddenly gone hog-wild for fascism and murder (for God-knows what reason), lopping the head off that regime is a totally different story than the President getting up one day, looking at a map, and idly commenting to the Chiefs of Staff "You know, guys, North America would look a lot neater without that big dumb Canada thing on it. Do something about it for me, 'kay?"
 
The biggest change in the lives of Americans, Canadians, Britons, Australians and New Zealanders if any of them were occupied by the others would be changes to the tax rate, healthcare and debates on gay marriage.

It's not quite as simple as a change in tax rates. If it was, European nations would still have globe spanning empires.
 
It's not quite as simple as a change in tax rates. If it was, European nations would still have globe spanning empires.

It's a desire to have homerule and determine your own course in the world. Which I understand. Still among the UK, the US and the former dominions I don't think there's any differences that great that anyone would see the war as a fight to the death. Obviously to get to a war things would probably have to change some and this might not be the case any more. But I don't see anyone in charge in these countries at the moment determining that nuclear retaliation is preferable to defeat in a conventional war.

For the record though a lot of it does come down to taxes. The American Revolution being one of the most blatant examples.
 
You really need to take into account the sheer length of the border. Holding down all that territory wouldn't be easy,and although the Canadian army would quickly be defeated, many would band together and form resistance groups together with civilians and police and continue to fight.
 
You really need to take into account the sheer length of the border. Holding down all that territory wouldn't be easy,and although the Canadian army would quickly be defeated, many would band together and form resistance groups together with civilians and police and continue to fight.

True, but then you'd also have the Vichy Quebec shadow government collaborating with the Americans.
 
Again this board devolves into 'modern nations couldn't fight without nuking each other'. I'm pretty sure if you polled Canadians asking whether they'd prefer to be occupied by the US Army or let the war go nuclear you'd get over 99% for the former. War Plan Red isn't the Eastern Front of WWII. No one's talking about extermination or forced labor camps. The biggest change in the lives of Americans, Canadians, Britons, Australians and New Zealanders if any of them were occupied by the others would be changes to the tax rate, healthcare and debates on gay marriage. No one would rather kill 2 million people with the push of a button and ensure your own death than do that.

I agree, I don't think nukes would be used. The other question I ask is, how would the rest of the world react? Would the likes of China and Russia sit things out? What about the rest of Europe? Surely an Imperialistic USA would be of utmost concern?
 
Originally Posted by kspence92
You really need to take into account the sheer length of the border. Holding down all that territory wouldn't be easy,and although the Canadian army would quickly be defeated, many would band together and form resistance groups together with civilians and police and continue to fight.

We canadians could give the US a war that would make Vietnam look civil :mad: Especially in the west and north and east (basically anywhere that isnt the wide open prairies, lol). Plus, Canadians can be hard to tell apart form Americans. We could easily infaultrate the states and cause havoc behind the lines...all sorts of nasties from blowing up rail bridges to attacking factories to laying charges against ships in harbour. It would be interesting to see how the American moral holds up with a guerrilla style conflict being fought on their own soil :eek:
 
I agree, I don't think nukes would be used. The other question I ask is, how would the rest of the world react? Would the likes of China and Russia sit things out? What about the rest of Europe? Surely an Imperialistic USA would be of utmost concern?

You need to have a why before you have a clear picture of how everyone would react. The US annexing Canada for Glorious Manifest Destiny is totally different from US invades Canada to put down totalitarian, mass-murdering dictatorship.
 
You need to have a why before you have a clear picture of how everyone would react. The US annexing Canada for Glorious Manifest Destiny is totally different from US invades Canada to put down totalitarian, mass-murdering dictatorship.

Yes, this is a frustratingly unclear situation the world is in lol
 
We canadians could give the US a war that would make Vietnam look civil :mad: Especially in the west and north and east (basically anywhere that isnt the wide open prairies, lol). Plus, Canadians can be hard to tell apart form Americans. We could easily infaultrate the states and cause havoc behind the lines...all sorts of nasties from blowing up rail bridges to attacking factories to laying charges against ships in harbour. It would be interesting to see how the American moral holds up with a guerrilla style conflict being fought on their own soil :eek:
That would just make the US madder

Kill enough US soldiers on your soil, the US will eventually give up

Kill US civilians on US soil and we just get madder

We've seen what guerrilla war on US soil looks like, see Bleeding Kansas, Most of the South 1861-1865

In any case the US had one advantage against Canada in a guerrilla conflict, Canada only has a land border with the US
 
Canada has the resources and expertise and infrastructure to crash produce several nukes within 6 months. In an extended period of hostile buildup, North America has some cites go boom.

Thank you! Canada has enough nuclear experience to easily produce some very deliverable weapons.
 

Orsino

Banned
Again this board devolves into 'modern nations couldn't fight without nuking each other'. I'm pretty sure if you polled Canadians asking whether they'd prefer to be occupied by the US Army or let the war go nuclear you'd get over 99% for the former. War Plan Red isn't the Eastern Front of WWII. No one's talking about extermination or forced labor camps. The biggest change in the lives of Americans, Canadians, Britons, Australians and New Zealanders if any of them were occupied by the others would be changes to the tax rate, healthcare and debates on gay marriage. No one would rather kill 2 million people with the push of a button and ensure your own death than do that.
I disagree.

I mean this would be kind of an unprecedented scenario and unlikely to take place within our lifetimes but Canada is never going to simply accept annexation and other countries have security commitments to Canada. It is possible that the rest of NATO/EU/UN would roll over and accept the situation rather than risk war with America but War Plan Red is explicitly an attack on the British Empire, and while Canada is no longer a part of the British Empire if we were to update the scenario in the letter and spirit of the original I would assume UK involvement.

So it isn't just Canada being attacked, it is the UK, and the UK can't hope to defeat the USA in a conventional war, it is hard to judge because of the black swan nature of the situation but escalation and nuclear exchange does not seem unlikely.

Which brings us to the real question, how does nuclear warfare between the UK and US play out? Can the USA eliminate the UK's retaliatory capabilities or are we looking at a mini-apocalypse here?
 
I'm assuming this is simply an attack on the Commmonwealth realm? So UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and a bunch of Caribbean islands.
 
That would just make the US madder

Kill enough US soldiers on your soil, the US will eventually give up

Kill US civilians on US soil and we just get madder

We've seen what guerrilla war on US soil looks like, see Bleeding Kansas, Most of the South 1861-1865

In any case the US had one advantage against Canada in a guerrilla conflict, Canada only has a land border with the US

You'll just get madder? True - but at who will you be the most mad at? The country that is simply defending themselves, or the government that brought this war upon you? It's easy to say the americans will simply rally against the canadians - but if it was the americans that launched an unprovoked attack on Canada...

1861-1865 would pale in comparison (assuming we canadians fight this to the full extent of our powers). This wouldn't be happening on the fronteir - this would be happening inside major cities and across the northern states from Maine to Washington. None of the cities would be safe. Any time, any where something could go "boom" or a bridge could suddenly go "boom" or gunshots could errupt... how long do you think the Americans would be willing to put up with this? How long would their moral last I wonder?

Your "advantage" is actually Canada's advantage - the longest boarder in the world means it's much, much easier for us to infiltrate the US and so much harder for you to guard said boarder. Heck (if I wanted too) I know places where you can easily cross the US/Canada boarder and there are not even signs.



Which brings us to the real question, how does nuclear warfare between the UK and US play out? Can the USA eliminate the UK's retaliatory capabilities or are we looking at a mini-apocalypse here?

Well if the US attacks britain with Nukes - the EU will respond and the US will then strike the EU... and it all depends which side Russia and China and Isreal come in on. Eitherway, it's not going to be pretty the next few decades.

~

Of course this is all hypothetical... :) So long as the Americans stay in the south, they won't awaken the sleeping giant ;) :p lol.
 
You'll just get madder? True - but at who will you be the most mad at? The country that is simply defending themselves, or the government that brought this war upon you? It's easy to say the americans will simply rally against the canadians [1] - but if it was the americans that launched an unprovoked attack on Canada...

1861-1865 would pale in comparison [2] assuming we canadians fight this to the full extent of our powers). This wouldn't be happening on the fronteir - this would be happening inside major cities and across the northern states from Maine to Washington. None of the cities would be safe. Any time, any where something could go "boom" or a bridge could suddenly go "boom" or gunshots could errupt... [3] how long do you think the Americans would be willing to put up with this? How long would their moral last I wonder?

Your "advantage" is actually Canada's advantage - the longest boarder in the world means it's much, much easier for us to infiltrate the US and so much harder for you to guard said boarder. Heck (if I wanted too) I know places where you can easily cross the US/Canada boarder and there are not even signs.





Well if the US attacks britain with Nukes - the EU will respond and the US will then strike the EU... and it all depends which side Russia and China and Isreal come in on. Eitherway, it's not going to be pretty the next few decades.

~

Of course this is all hypothetical... :) So long as the Americans stay in the south, they won't awaken the sleeping giant ;) :p lol.

1. Killing Americans on American soil is generally not something we tend to like, regardless of the circumstances. The perception that Americans are dying abroad for a cause that isn't ours is something that will cause public support to waver, the perception that Americans are vulnerable in their own home against an enemy will get you record numbers of Army volunteers.

You're taking this from the point of view of someone that is rational, a simple matter of asking people in the midst of a complete uproar to remain calm and evaluate things, in reality things like that tend to sort of dull the senses. If someone sets off a blockbuster bomb in a crowded apartment complex in Detroit people aren't going to think "Oh goodness how awful we should end the war", people are going to think "Let's go put those guys in a box".

2. It really wouldn't. The scale and intensity of conflict simply isn't the same. It should occur naturally that a war with a foreign entity with 1/10th the population of the United States is different from the bloodiest war in American history with half the country split away. The fact that you assume people from a comfortable existence as an affluent developed nation are going to fight like the guerrilla fighters from generations of guerrilla fighters is gravy. The will to fight will of course be there, the experience and know-how perhaps not so much.

3. General rule of thumb: when you're killing sons, daughters, husbands, fathers, mothers, that sort of thing, many people will be at first terrified and helpless. Eventually that kind of thing generally tends to solidify as anger or hatred. Hitler dropping bombs on London during the Blitz didn't scare the British public into submission, it merely set their resolve to achieve victory. Once it gets to the point of avenging lost American lives, it really doesn't matter if it takes a month or 10 years, it is going to be pursued to its conclusion.

On an entirely unrelated note, I would expect pretty widespread use of internment camps to detain the civilian populace at the start of a conflict, I simply can't imagine something like this where the intention is to occupy Canada and not merely change a government as being anything other than an absolute conflict, a total war. Nations do not declare war on their cordial friends and close trading partners of more than 100 years of uninterrupted peace and alliance without a damn good reason to do it.

And by the way, these camps wouldn't be the Boer War style horrorshows that you can't tell apart from Treblinka, these would probably be primitive, but pretty reasonable accommodations designed to make the occupation as painless for the Americans as possible while ensuring that those who are interned get at least a decent show of things.
 
3. General rule of thumb: when you're killing sons, daughters, husbands, fathers, mothers, that sort of thing, many people will be at first terrified and helpless. Eventually that kind of thing generally tends to solidify as anger or hatred. Hitler dropping bombs on London during the Blitz didn't scare the British public into submission, it merely set their resolve to achieve victory. Once it gets to the point of avenging lost American lives, it really doesn't matter if it takes a month or 10 years, it is going to be pursued to its conclusion.

That's right. We will be angry and we will hate and we will come and kill Americans. Because at that point we're in the blitz and they're dropping bombs on us.

I suppose they will eventually win when there's no-one left to fight here. But it won't be pretty and they won't come out looking good.
 
"I'm assuming this is simply an attack on the Commmonwealth realm? So UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and a bunch of Caribbean islands."

Well the Commonwealth is a lot larger than that - India, Pakistan, Malaysia, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya etc etc. In a full scale Plan Red scenario that adds up to a lot of opponents for the US. Not many of them would be in a position to actively strike US soil but they would still need to be considered. Of course this contributes to the whole ASBish nature of the idea.

"Nations do not declare war on their cordial friends and close trading partners of more than 100 years of uninterrupted peace and alliance without a damn good reason to do it."

Exactly, which is why this scenario no longer makes sense. The hows and whys leading to this possible modern day Plan Red are unknown, to talk about how the world or the US public respond is pure conjecture because it would depend on the unknown causes.

With all those unknowns taken into account, and suspending disbelief in such an unlikely event, I think the scenario would play out with;

i) US occupying Canada, Carribean islands and other small British, lightly defended, territories either near US territory or of some strategic worth (e.g. Ascension, Samoa).

ii) Resistance in Canada leads to a brutal ongoing insurgency in Canada with attacks made in the US.

iii) US bases in any Commonwealth country are quickly overrun. US forces stationed in neutral countries leave. Afghanistan becomes an even bigger mess as all western troops get recalled, probable reversion to warlordism with the Taliban increasing control over time.

iv) US controls the seas and airspace anywhere it is serious about. This allows the US to neutralize strategically important targets (airbases, ports etc) in the UK, India, Australia etc. However, the US lacks the planes now to control the skies everywhere simultaneously, so counterstrikes by UK and allied forces are still possible.

v) US army is too small to conquer much else so the war reaches strategic stalemate, assuming a non-nuclear conflict. International trade plummets, UK and US economies stagnate and then crash due to closure of traditional trade routes (even US shipping will suffer serious losses) and escalating tit-for-tat economic warfare. Cyber warfare becomes increasingly important, with boundaries being pushed as to what is acceptable (e.g. should we target an enemy's utilities if that risks newborn babies in hospitals? Just how far would you go to 'strike back' if the situation gets desperate?). Standards of living and social cohesion in US/UK/Aus/NZ all suffer. India's electrical system is destroyed by the US, although this could almost happen anyway without US involvement. Other British allies suffer too but probably to a lesser degree as they are on the periphery.

vi) Rest of the world concludes we are idiots. So does most of the populations of the involved countries, social unrest goes through the roof and if any of these countries hold democratic elections then there will be changes in government. It takes decades to repair the economic damage to both sides. US is finished as the global power as no one trusts them (an unremarked but vital requirement for being the global superpower).

Basically, no one's a winner, except perhaps China. and Russia.
 
"I'm assuming this is simply an attack on the Commmonwealth realm? So UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and a bunch of Caribbean islands."

Well the Commonwealth is a lot larger than that - India, Pakistan, Malaysia, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya etc etc.

commonwealth realm refers only o those commonwealth members that still have the queen as head of state. the rest have their own presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm


this actually is a question that have been brougtt up earlier. Just how big is the hypothetical British "empire" in this scenario.
 
But India, Pakistan etc (those without Liz as head of state) are still members of the Commonwealth, they participate in Commonwealth HOG meetings, Commonwealth institutions and the Commonwealth Games. So I think they will still count in terms of this scenario. Since the OP implies it's the same disposition of territory as existed at the time of the original plan then the literal extension is that successor states for parts of the old British Empire circa early 1900s would all be involved.
 
Top