US invasions of Canada and Mexico

[statquo]

The Trump administration under the guise of protecting its borders commences the invasions of Canada and Mexico with the goal of hemispheric control. The economic fallout is cataclysmic. Millions take to the streets in the United States alone. The US joins their new friends in Russia and North Korea as the new global pariah.

Nobody questions US military supremacy. But can the United States survive prolonged insurgencies and the economic fallout? Does backlash at home lead to domestic insurgencies? Can Trump purge the military of opposition to these plans? Do some US military servicemen outright refuse? What else? Discuss

 

[InExile]

Invading Canada, and even Mexico would involve breaking so many American laws and treaties that Trump would need to have dictatorial control over the Government before even contemplating such an action. Otherwise the ensuing fallout, the economic calamity and domestic disorder will boot him out office in short order.

On the other hand if the US were to overcome these obstacles and invade Canada as a dictatorship, Canada would be in a far worse situation than Ukraine when it was invaded by Russia. The population and Economic ratio of the US vs Canada is 10:1 (compared to about 3:1 for Russia and Ukraine) The other problem for Canada is that its population centre's are widely dispersed, and unfortunately concentrated near the US border to make any effective defense extremely hard. I was reading that almost 90 percent of Canada's population is concentrated in three widely separated zones; the St Lawrence valley (Toronto to Montreal), the Palliser triangle (Calgary-Edmonton-Winnipeg) and Vancouver. Given the proximity to the US border we can expect most of these areas to be overrun in short order; Edmonton with its military base, distance from the border and water barriers might hold on a bit longer.

Some forces might retreat to the North from where they might engage in guerilla warfare.

Given the political decay in the US the best bet for Canada to ensure its security would be try and rapidly grow its economy and population to the point where ratio is a bit more favourable. Not to overpopulate the existing cities but try, and get more immigrants to regions that have a milder climate but a low population, like the BC plateau or the Maritimes.

The low population in the region between Southern Ontario and Winnipeg is a problem but the climate and land there is probably too inhospitable to support a larger population.

 

[Monash]

The problem is getting immigrants to settle in the less sparsely settled regions. To begin with their sparsely settled for a reason. Chiefly? They don't generate much income outside of sectors like mining or agriculture which aren't labor intensive and without higher population densities they don't have much of a services sector to attract employees either. (That and the climate is unpleasant.)

Sure could offer visas to attract people willing to work in those provinces but how do you enforce them? People will sign up, move to Manitoba or where ever, grit their teeth and stay for couple of years or so and then move to the big cities which asap where all the jobs, services and infrastructure are. Not everyone will do this of course but many will so regulating it all would be very complex/expensive operation. Tax incentives would help as would government building programs for new homes but as I said - expensive.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Canadian guerrilla warfare would amount to nothing more than banditry. Simply put, there's no support. The supporting population for an insurgency would be few and far in between. Just scrounging ammunition would be a tough problem. That being said, getting caught would be a huge problem for the Americans. Blowing up a Cell Phone tower here and there or a pump station would be easy. But anything that would sway an insurgency into a full regime change? Not going to happen.

Look what happen after Little Big Horn? The Native Americans could not even replace the ammunition they've spent. All they could do is run.

The same would apply to Canadians.

 

[InExile]

The problem is getting immigrants to settle in the less sparsely settled regions. To begin with their sparsely settled for a reason. Chiefly? They don't generate much income outside of sectors like mining or agriculture which aren't labor intensive and without higher population densities they don't have much of a services sector to attract employees either. (That and the climate is unpleasant.)

Sure could offer visas to attract people willing to work in those provinces but how do you enforce them? People will sign up, move to Manitoba or where ever, grit their teeth and stay for couple of years or so and then move to the big cities which asap where all the jobs, services and infrastructure are. Not everyone will do this of course but many will so regulating it all would be very complex/expensive operation. Tax incentives would help as would government building programs for new homes but as I said - expensive.

I think unlike Australia, Canada does have regions, with relatively mild climate and decent land, where it could support a larger population; like I mentioned in my previous post, the interior British Columbia plateau and Atlantic Canada. Even the prairies could support substantially more people, inspite of the extreme cold in the winters. The St Lawrence valley and the lower mainland near Vancouver are probably too densely populated to grow much more though.

The difficulty as you mentioned is getting people to live in these regions in the absence of industry and opportunities. It would require incentives for new immigrants and industry/companies to invest in these regions. Building up the smaller cities like Kelowna or Saskatoon.

I think Canada could support around a 100 million people evenly distributed in the southern regions, except for the regions in Ontario which are part of the Canadian shield, too rocky and cold for a large population presence.

 

[Monash]

I think unlike Australia, Canada does have regions, with relatively mild climate and decent land, where it could support a larger population; like I mentioned in my previous post, the interior British Columbia plateau and Atlantic Canada. Even the prairies could support substantially more people, inspite of the extreme cold in the winters. The St Lawrence valley and the lower mainland near Vancouver are probably too densely populated to grow much more though.

The difficulty as you mentioned is getting people to live in these regions in the absence of industry and opportunities. It would require incentives for new immigrants and industry/companies to invest in these regions. Building up the smaller cities like Kelowna or Saskatoon.

I think Canada could support around a 100 million people evenly distributed in the southern regions, except for the regions in Ontario which are part of the Canadian shield, too rocky and cold for a large population presence.

For the most part the most temperate part of Canada (British Columbia) is already heavily populated. Generally that' those regions are coastal where the ocean moderates air temperatures anywhere. Away from the ocean you have a continental climate. The Southern most inland Canadian States like Alberta and Manitoba? Have climates similar to their opposite numbers south of the border like Montana and North Dakota and those States have the lowest population densities of any State in the US. People like warm weather - the farther north you go the less appealing the climate. I'm just surprised our good Colonel doesn't freeze solid every winter (personally I think it must be all that top shelf Whiskey he drinks )!

 

[tbm3fan]

For the most part the most temperate part of Canada (British Columbia) is already heavily populated. Generally that' those regions are coastal where the ocean moderates air temperatures anywhere. Away from the ocean you have a continental climate. The Southern most inland Canadian States like Alberta and Manitoba? Have climates similar to their opposite numbers south of the border like Montana and North Dakota and those States have the lowest population densities of any State in the US. People like warm weather - the farther north you go the less appealing the climate. I'm just surprised our good Colonel doesn't freeze solid every winter (personally I think it must be all that top shelf Whiskey he drinks )!

Freeze point of 80 proof (40%) is 27C but it all depends on his particular concentration level.

 

[InExile]

For the most part the most temperate part of Canada (British Columbia) is already heavily populated. Generally that' those regions are coastal where the ocean moderates air temperatures anywhere. Away from the ocean you have a continental climate. The Southern most inland Canadian States like Alberta and Manitoba? Have climates similar to their opposite numbers south of the border like Montana and North Dakota and those States have the lowest population densities of any State in the US. People like warm weather - the farther north you go the less appealing the climate. I'm just surprised our good Colonel doesn't freeze solid every winter (personally I think it must be all that top shelf Whiskey he drinks )!

Actually the regions of Southern Canada with continental climate are not too different from more denser populated regions. For instance Edmonton has basically the same climate as Minneapolis, a city with a larger population than Perth. Talking about Montana, Alberta has three times the population; I think the main reason is the wetter climate, there is far more agriculture in Alberta.

Not to deny that Canadian winters are for everyone, but I do think Canada can grow its population and economy to the level of say the UK or France, while distributing new immigrants across the country with better policy.