Contemplating the Unthinkable

A Thought Experiment About a US Invasion

Given the uptick in inflammatory rhetoric and some misconceptions about the U.S.-Canada relationship, I’m (very) often asked what a U.S. invasion might look like. While it’s a fantasy scenario, it’s worth exploring to better understand both nations’ capabilities and consequences. When I was serving, we used to call this “wargaming,” and it can be helpful in orienting decision-making and planning. In this case, things may not turn out as everyone assumes.

To be clear, despite some heated talk from some in the United States, I still regard this as incredibly unlikely. It’s a fantasy, nothing more. I’m not trying to predict anything and have no idea what will actually happen. I’m hoping all will be well, and that the talk and trolling out of the US remains just that. With that in mind, here we go.

Situation - Enemy

First, we need to describe the potential enemy. The United States possesses military forces unmatched by any other nation in the history of the planet. In size and capability, they are without equal and are supported by a technical and industrial base not found anywhere else. U.S. forces have the best equipment and access to the finest intelligence support. Their budget is the equal of the next nine largest defence budgets on Earth combined.

All of this is supported by a nuclear triad (air, land, and sea) that can incinerate any target within a few minutes of being given the order.

It must be understood that the United States cannot be defeated in a conventional conflict.

However…

The U.S. does not have a good record when fighting unconventional wars. They rely on those traits that make them so powerful in a conventional setting: massive firepower, technology, and unmatched logistics. These advantages are not so decisive in a guerrilla war or insurgency and they’re further tempered by a trait that I’ve mentioned in prior articles—hubris. It is a significant weakness.

Situation - Friendly

By comparison, the Canadian Armed Forces are tiny and have extensive issues, many of which I’ve discussed in previous articles.

If we were invaded, the Government of Canada would have several choices:

• Armed resistance, with the risk of very large casualties

• Token armed resistance

• Passive resistance or an unconventional insurgency after a U.S. occupation

• Surrender

Of these, the latter two are by far the most likely. However, it is possible that Canada might want to send a message by mounting at least a token resistance, hoping to cause U.S. casualties and demonstrating to the international community that the occupation isn’t voluntary.

For the purposes of this fantasy, we have to assume that this is the course selected.

The Royal Canadian Navy is split between the two coasts. It possesses 12 Halifax-class frigates that might be useful in a conflict, four submarines that certainly would be, and a dozen unarmed Kingston-class patrol vessels. In an armed confrontation with the U.S., the surface fleet wouldn’t last long. If it managed to put to sea, the U.S. Navy would have little difficulty sinking every ship. The submarines, however, are a different matter. Diesel-electric submarines are incredibly quiet, and there’s some potential for even one or two to do real damage.

The Canadian Army is centred on three major bases in Edmonton, north of Ottawa, and near Quebec City in Valcartier. It also has a large training base in New Brunswick and small reserve units scattered throughout the country. The latter are trained in most combat trades but for the most part only possess small arms or training equipment.

Because the Army is oriented for missions overseas, all but small quantities of training ammunition are held in two depots, far from any Regular Force units. This ammunition would need to be moved, or units would have to enter combat with what they have.

Similarly, the Royal Canadian Air Force is largely (but not entirely) centred on four bases: fighters at Cold Lake, Alberta, and Bagotville, Quebec, and transport aircraft at Trenton, Ontario. Maritime patrol aircraft are mainly based in Greenwood, Nova Scotia. The U.S. Air Force would possess overwhelming superiority in numbers, types of aircraft, and technology.

Resistance would, therefore, be localized—if only out of necessity. Canada might choose to make a token resistance in Edmonton, Ottawa, and Quebec City, but it wouldn’t last too long as ammunition stocks would be expended very quickly. If support to the combat brigades could be moved in time, fighting would last somewhat longer (Canadian soldiers are incredibly capable), but there would be no hope of success.

Similarly, if the RCAF could disperse and thus avoid immediate destruction at the hands of the U.S. Air Force, it might be able to mount some sort of resistance for a few days.

The objective would be to demonstrate resolve and to encourage the international community to oppose U.S. military action through sanctions and other measures. Is it likely? Frankly, I cannot picture any Canadian government selecting this course of action, no matter how much the soldier in me would want them to.

Allies

The role of Canada’s other allies comes up every time this subject is discussed. Surely, if Canada invoked NATO’s Article 5 calling for aid, the alliance would come to our assistance? Or the Commonwealth?

NATO. The alliance is rapidly rearming in the face of a renewed Russian threat, the Ukrainian invasion, and a sense that the U.S. is an unreliable partner. In theory, they could provide fairly significant assistance to Canada, should we invoke the mutual defence pact by triggering Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. The problem is that the expeditionary forces available to NATO in general are relatively small. The Alliance is aimed at protecting countries in Europe, never anticipating a conflict outside the European continent. It does not have the sealift or airlift capacity to move significant forces across the Atlantic, and logistic support would be nearly impossible to sustain.

Assistance also assumes that NATO would risk a confrontation with the United States. As I said earlier, the U.S. has vastly greater forces available to it, including forces based in many NATO countries. The risks to those countries would be enormous, and it might be too much for some. We might see significant disagreements or an even a fracturing of the alliance; meaningful military assistance would be virtually impossible.

The Commonwealth. Canada, of course, is a Commonwealth Realm and has deep historical links to many of its members. Moreover, three of those members—the UK, Australia, and New Zealand—are members of the “Five Eyes” intelligence and defence-sharing group. We could certainly anticipate diplomatic and economic support from most Commonwealth nations, but military assistance would encounter the same issues as arise with NATO: a lack of capability. Australia has forces roughly the size of Canada’s, and those are focused on regional issues. New Zealand has a small but capable defence force, but it has been ravaged by cuts and, again, is focused on regional security.

Britain and France. I’ve given Britain and France their own category because they’re significant military powers in their own right. Both have some strategic expeditionary capabilities (although these are a shadow of what they were) and, most importantly, are equipped with their own nuclear weapons. Both countries are also historical allies, with links to the UK being especially strong because of shared membership in the Commonwealth, NATO, and the Five Eyes group.

Despite this, we have to understand how preeminent the United States is militarily. In a normal world, Britain and France would be very significant powers. However, the weight of the U.S. military presence skews the equation. Even a Britain and France combined, with the addition of all of NATO, cannot equal U.S. military power. Worse, the UK is deeply intertwined with the United States because of the so-called “Special Relationship.” The UK hosts several very large American bases and has a nuclear sharing agreement with the U.S. Even its sovereign strategic nuclear forces depend on a missile pool shared with the U.S. Navy.

France is more “independent” and has a large defence industry capable of providing for virtually all of its own needs. However, the fact remains that despite this, it would be completely unable to assert itself militarily in a confrontation with the United States.

So What?

The picture is pretty bleak. Canadians might be in the mood to fight, but our ability to do so is severely limited. Even if we had a force three times the size of our current defence establishment, the U.S. would still roll over Canada in a day or two. As we have seen, military support from Canada’s allies would be constrained by their own lack of deployability and, probably, political will. The risks for NATO in particular would be extremely high.

But…

Canada could ensure that the costs to the United States if an annexation attempt were made are also extremely high. NATO would be ripped apart. The “special relationship” with the UK would be terminated in a blaze of controversy. Worse, the effect on the U.S. economy could be devastating should the G7 and others impose sanctions. The United States would become a pariah more akin to Russia than to the rest of the world’s democracies. What’s left of the international order would be shaken to its core.

Making matters worse for the U.S. is the potential for an insurgency on its northern border. Canada is a huge country with a vast amount of wilderness. The population is armed for hunting and would have access to the Canadian Army’s stocks, often from local Reserve armouries. There are approximately 400,000 Canadian veterans under the age of 60, many with combat experience. Canadians can integrate seamlessly with the U.S. population and would be nearly impossible to identify.

Historically, the United States does not do well fighting unconventional wars. There’s no reason to suggest that this would be any different. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the United States tended to rely on technological solutions and firepower, ignoring many of the basic elements of conducting a counterinsurgency campaign. This poor track record would be exacerbated by Canada’s vast terrain, unforgiving wilderness, and dispersed population centres, creating ideal conditions for an insurgency. Canadians could use this to their advantage—if they decided the country was worth actually fighting for.

The Takeaway

So the fantasy becomes a nightmare very quickly. The costs to the United States of any military operation against Canada, especially if it was actively opposed, would be incredibly high. Would Donald Trump and a bellicose U.S. administration attempt it? Possibly. His core supporters would certainly be in favour. Given Trump’s history of undermining NATO, cozying up to autocratic regimes, and flouting international norms, it’s not unthinkable he might gamble on such a move.

Trump isn’t a rational actor and might convince himself that he could limit the damage and that the international community wouldn’t have enough backbone to stand up to him. From a Canadian perspective, we have to convince him that this isn’t the case; we should be doing this now, not later.