World News

Frankly, if he could channel that anger into a power system that doesn’t require purging immigrants, there’d be room in the discussion to consider him second-to-worst, or better, on the president rankings.

doesn't care how many die

He'd have to understand in order to care. I don't think he's capable of fully understanding the harm he does. Anything that doesn't harm him is incomprehensible to him.

I think that's a fair take, but I believe the person you're replying to was more looking at how the US under Trump is currently saber rattling with:

• Greenland
• Venezuela
• Mexico
• Canada
• Iran

While it would be one thing if the US was only saber rattling with Canada, but they're actively courting wars with up to five different nations, including one in the Eastern hemisphere, all at once. I believe the point they were making is that it would be impossible for the US to handle all those wars, even if it's conceivable that they could invade and take over Canada alone. Greenland is being actively threatened to the point that NATO soldiers are being sent there, Canada is not being actively threatened in the same way. Mexico is also being threatened with military action to "stop the cartels" (which probably means just taking over the cartels).

Asymmetric warfare is the name of the game, and you are correct in that Ukraine’s creative implementation of low-cost, accessible technology to generate combat power is something which any force fighting an asymmetric war should seek to emulate. Drones are a fantastic resource for equalizing a resource/materiel disparity and filling capability gaps, as we have learned. Unfortunately, though, looking at the way that Ukraine is fighting their war currently is not likely to be as helpful as looking at the way that Ukrainians were preparing to fight this war.

As it stands, the war in Ukraine turned out to be much closer to a peer conflict than the absolute overmatch that was anticipated, so the type of fighting we see now became an option. Before Feb. 2022, however, the focus was much more on providing civilians and irregulars with the arms and resources needed to become persistent thorns in the side of an occupying force. That is, rather than preparing to fight a war, focus was on preparing an insurgency. The US is unlikely to be atrophied in the same way as Russia, and while there are many valid criticisms which can be leveled at the US Military, the operation in Venezuela proves that the US retains the ability to coordinate a combined arms offensive in a way that Russia simply cannot.

That’s not to say it’s a guaranteed instant loss: Canada is a very large country, with many environmental advantages which skew the odds heavily away from an invading force, but I think that this is much more likely to be an overmatch than Ukraine was. If nothing else, though, the expeditionary wars in Asia and the Middle East tell us that a dedicated insurgency always wins over a long enough time frame against America.

To any Canadians (or Greenlanders, for that matter) worried about a US invasion, I would recommend the Swedish government’s In Case of Crisis or War brochure. There’s some information in there that is Sweden-specific, but it contains a lot of good information about prep and adaptation during wartime conditions. Additionally, the Simple Sabotage Field Manual by the US Office of Strategic Services remains a great resource in making yourself a more destructive nuisance to an invading force.

Also, get a gun and learn how to use it. Hopefully it just gathers dust, but in the worst case, you’ll be glad you have it. Know that if the US invades, I’ll be doing my best to be a domestic saboteur.

Great idea! Instead of fine alcohol, we can just leave barrels of shit behind.