Canada

I'm pretty sure that if he publicly says he's going to disobey orders, that's grounds for removal, even under a sane president. (Although a sane president might not choose to remove him)

Have they said no to any of the USA's other illegal invasions? Don't count on the bravery of Americans who tell you they would resist. Count on drones.

If the USA invades, the white house gets burned down again and Trump gets ICC arrested.

What a stupid ragebait headline. Of course a geneneral is not going to even suggest they would disobey a hypothetical lawful order. Why would someone end their career for some journalists gocha question?

Says nothing about his private thoughts or what he would actually do. Zero information value.

That means he would.

If the US tried it Canada would make Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc look like a casual sunday stroll in the park. If the US couldn't handle Guerrilla warfare against people who DON'T look like them, imagine how well they'll do against people that do. And the further north they got the more fucked they'd be. Ever been in a fight with a pissed off Indigenous individual? try it, see how far you get. Not only that you got all the dudes living in the bush with rifles and god knows what else.

The reporter pointed out that Paparo did not answer the question. The U.S. admiral said he was dismissing the issue, adding: “Would you ask me please also what my attack plans are for the Martians?”

The reporter replied: “You belittle it and I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. This is a serious question about a serious issue.”

A Nanos poll taken in February found that three in five Canadians are concerned about the U.S. being a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty. A majority also support making it illegal for Canadians to serve in the U.S. military, according to a poll commissioned by The Maple in April.

Despite Trump’s threats, however, Canadian government ministers have continued to stress Canada’s continued cooperation with the Americans on military affairs.

Said it before and will say it again. This is why I feel running to another country you have to think about. We have this insanely large military and a lot of damage can be done with it. We need to protest and refuse to work and whatever else we can do.

We need people at the top who will resist when the shit hits the fan. They should tread lightly to hang on to their position.

I condemn the ones who resign out of principle, they are the very people we need to stay in.

Invade with what?

Didn't they waste all their armament on Iran? And I doubt U.S. soldiers would actually follow that kind of order without any objection. They're stupid, but not that stupid.

However. Maybe it's time I apply for that gun license...

Well, I suppose it's better than an enthusiastic "Yes!"

At least they still have the decency to be embarrassed about it.

Now that they charge themselves 100% tariff on drones …

Jokes aside, I say we should get ready. Everybody can gain or polish some relevant skills that come in handy if it comes to it.

Best case you have a new hobby, worst case we make their life miserable if they decide to try and attack us.

You better disobey or we'll make sure that no one in the armed forces get any rights. We'd shoot you on sight along with anyone else that didn't refuse the shitter in cheif. Behave and use your neglected moral compass.

Paparo, who serves as U.S. commander for the Indo-Pacific region, visibly took issue with the question. He said: “I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous.”

He added: “I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question.”

Look at his left chest - a billboard of medals and citations. He didn't get those by giving the wrong answer, or by basing his statements or actions on his personal opinion. His 'preposterous' statement would be a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. Here are some of the facts that are behind the factual 'preposterous' statement.

Any order that comes down the chain of command, keeps going down the chain of command. At every step of the way, the officers would have the option to follow the order by 'advancing to the rear'.

From Google AI: Presumption of Legality: Routine orders carry a legal presumption of lawfulness, and a soldier must obey normal commands. However, that presumption breaks down when an order directs an overt, clear violation of domestic or international law (such as targeting unresisting civilians).

Also: The defense of "just following orders" (historically known as the Nuremberg defense) is not legally valid in the US military. If a soldier carries out an order that a person of "ordinary sense" would know is illegal—such as executing a surrendered enemy combatant—the soldier can be criminally prosecuted alongside the officer who gave the command.

Also: The Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties made by the United States are part of the "supreme law of the land."

Treaty Conflicts: If the U.S. has a formal treaty or defense pact with an ally, attacking that ally could violate U.S. treaty commitments, which hold the status of federal law.

Since both countries are members of NATO, any order to attack Canada from the Commander-in-Chief could easily be interpreted up and down the chain of command as an illegal order. This would put every soldier in the predicament of possibly being prosecuted for obeying such an order, right up and down the entire chain of command. It also presents the possibility of the POTUS being charged and convicted of the crime of issuing an illegal order. Thus, answering the question as stated is factually 'preposterous'. The POTUS could not, as Commander-in-Chief, be reasonably seen as being able to give a legal order to attack Canada.

But it is also very clear that he is indirectly accusing Trump of being needlessly emotional in even insinuating the possibility that Trump could give such an illegal order.