Miscellaneous News

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
View attachment 167671
We still have the SKS which they can't ban because the First Nations will say no.
Not that it matters. The First Nations people that Canada mostly eradicated are not about to turn around and bail it out from an attack by the US. Nor do they have the capability to do so even if they wanted to. Nor can an SKS shoot down bombers, fighters, or missiles. This is really scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel. It's honestly kind of pathetic, but very much fitting with Canadian standards.
 

A potato

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not that it matters. The First Nations people that Canada mostly eradicated are not about to turn around and bail it out from an attack by the US. Nor do they have the capability to do so even if they wanted to. Nor can an SKS shoot down bombers, fighters, or missiles. This is really scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel. It's honestly kind of pathetic, but very much fitting with Canadian standards.
I mean the Mohawks (One of the First Nations) did had a armed confrontation with the caf very recently over a town (OKA) wanting to a build a golf course on their lands.
 

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
I mean the Mohawks (One of the First Nations) did had a armed confrontation with the caf very recently over a town (OKA) wanting to a build a golf course on their lands.
First Nations resisting a tiny Canadian municipality is entirely different from fighting off a US military attack. If anything, the First Nations will laugh as the Canadian cities along the American border fall to American control while they sit back further up North and away from the major cities. You should really stop with continuing this line of inquiry as it is getting really sad how desperate you seem to hang onto the hope that the US cannot easily topple and take over Canada. It's a really sad delusion and you should just face the reality of power disparity. It's highly unpleasant and distasteful but it's the world we live in.
 
Last edited:

Proton

Junior Member
Registered Member
Or attacking Iran and letting speculators play their tricks.
___

No doubt, it's just not enough to give way to more production outside the US and close allies.
Should expect a continued policy towards degrading oil production in countries like Syria/Iran/Libya/Venezuela and over time even a country fully controlled like Iraq.

In 10 years all of these should approach a total of near 0 production.
Russia remains a target, but appears to be a more elusive one.
Then countries like Nigeria and Mexico may be next in line

It's a bit of an irony how "peak oil" - as in lack of oil - was predicted to drive wars, but in reality the last 15 years of US warmongering seem to come down to curtailing oil production outside of the US.
 

Chevalier

Major
Registered Member
The US is playing a game of leverage, here. We saw Trump tell Japan to not escalate the row with Taiwan - but he's been more or less silent on the topic of nuclear weapons. Recently, the US approved South Korea's plan for acquiring nuclear submarines, and on the whole there's a demand from Washington for its allies/vassals to pick up more of the slack on defense related matters. To me, this is a salami slicing tactic to eventually corner China, so that Trump can step in and use it as a bargaining chip either for trade deals or the trilateral nuclear control talks the US has been trying to restart.

Japan almost certainly has back room US approval for reviewing its nuclear doctrine; otherwise the potential for an embarrassing blow back from Washington would be too much for the face-obsessed Japanese, particularly after they already suffered such a blow back just a month before. So I don't expect there will be global sanctions by the US or the EU or even South Korea for this move.

I also expect that, per salami slicing, Japan will not immediately (be allowed) to acquire its own nukes, but there will be a transition process: the US will initially just deploy nukes in Japan and claim this does not violate proliferation because they're not Japanese nukes. Then, if China continues to rise and the US continues to decline in the Pacific, those nukes will eventually be transferred to Japanese control as the US disengages. This is the process that China will have a very hard time arresting.
Thankfully the Cuban missile crisis by the U.S. sets a precedent which makes Chinese interdiction of all U.S. shipping to Japan a likely and recommended action.


gotta love the internet memeification of politics
 

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
Thankfully the Cuban missile crisis by the U.S. sets a precedent which makes Chinese interdiction of all U.S. shipping to Japan a likely and recommended action.


gotta love the internet memeification of politics
PLAN can patrol all around Japan, outside their territorial waters, interdicting sea shipments. Chinese aircraft carriers can patrol further out along the West Pacific, between Japan and Taiwan, between Japan and Alaska, between Japan and South Korea, between Japan and South East Asia, and launch fighters to interdict air shipments. PLAAF can interdict air shipments routing over China, with Russian support to interdict anything going over/from Russia. Chinese export controls can internally cut off all Chinese trade to and from Japan. Japan no longer has sufficient conventional capabilities to stop such Chinese activities. China can also keep this up for much longer than Japan can do without imports. Japan is walking blindly towards a deep dark hole and they think they're on top of the world. It's honestly pathetic. The LDP will be known in history for driving Japan into another ditch. Pretty fitting considering much of the LDP's ancestry stems directly from the Japanese Imperial leadership in WW2 who drove them into that first big ditch. The shitty apple really does not fall far from the shitty tree.
 
Last edited:

Machiavelli

New Member
Registered Member
Also, people are assuming MAD whenever a country has nukes. That's not true. North Korea/Pakistan does not have MAD with Russia or the US. The size of your country, the size of the nuclear fleet, and technological level/fleet size of interceptors will still create a power dynamic. A small country with few nukes may be able to shoot off a couple of middle finger nukes and maybe 1 or 2 will hit, causing some damage to a target superpower but the nuclear retaliation from that superpower will be fatal for the smaller nation.
This is the exact thinking in the U.S. and why the U.S is calculating a potential nuclear war in the Pacific and its losses. A "limited" and "contained" nuclear war absorbed by the Phillipines, Japan, and Taiwan are acceptable loses, as it also is a potential conflict where the U.S can absorb the industrial capacities, investments, and human capital of those nations, should war break out, which aligns with the U.S effort to reindustrialize. Think Germany, as it is now losing its manufacturing base at an unprecedented rate unseen for over 80 years, and why Japan is openly stating it is pursuing nuclear deterrence capabilities. Make no mistake, Japan's nuclearization is supported by the U.S bipartisan behind the scene.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
But we do have one of the highest rates of gun ownership and our gun history is similer to that of America. Plus even if our army is underfunded and understaffed as fuck, we produce one of the best if not the best Infantry in all of NATO. Our Regforce Infantry (Vandoos, Patricias and RCR) is equivalent to the Green Berets. We can definetly become a new Vietnam for America given how shit they're at COIN aka Counter Insurgency especially when we have people who have a fought with the Americans in Afghanistan.
Just imagine if even 1% of Canada's population decide to fight back against the Americans via guerilla tactics; were looking at 400,000 people approximately! That's more than the Taliban was able to muster against the Americans.
 
Top