The right thing to do. Ford, the PM of Ontario, is also barring contracts with US companies while the tariffs are in place.
This seems very escalatory. I do worry that retaliatory cycle could lead to some in the US saying that Canada's retaliations are a "casus belli" for war.
> War with Canada would end up with nukes, French ones, blowing up in US.
The future is hard to predict but I will call this out. There is no reason why France risk itself to save Canada. Or the UK or Germany. No European power is going to nuke or threaten to nuke the US over a Canadian invasion.
A decision will have to be made at that point. The whole purpose of NATO is to defend NATO members from aggressors, especially larger aggressors. They had the Soviets in mind when the alliance was formed, but if that larger aggressor ends up being America, and NATO fails to defend Canada, then the alliance is de facto done. There's no point.
At this time it's pretty clear Trump doesn't even want America to be a part of NATO, and wants to destroy the alliance. So the alliance can either fulfill its original duty by coming to Canada's aid, or it can completely disband much to Putin's joy. But the one thing it can't do is leave Canada out to dry and then continue existing as if it's a defense agreement with any teeth.
Yeah, this is delusional. I want to assume that you have seen maps and are aware of the size of France vs the U.S. This is kind of an absurd thought experiment but now apparently the French have a mightier military and a much more powerful nuclear arsenal than the U.S., perhaps you don't think the U.S. has nuclear weapons, maybe you even think the Earth is flat, I don't know. But, this is crazy-talk.
What if, even if so? The US is the country that was defeated in one day of fighting against Hezbollah, and that has invaded Canada... four times and lost? I forget.
I dare say that sane people at the Pentagon will stop war.
> The US is the country that was defeated in one day of fighting against Hezbollah, and that has invaded Canada... four times and lost? I forget.
With regards to Hezbollah, there wasn't really a strategic reason to actually fight Hezbollah.
The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US and their troop numbers were comparable. Very unlike the situation today and the UK is not likely to get involved at this point.
>The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US
Yeah, lots of people say this, but the folks who fought the war were the people who lived in Upper and Lower Canada. The Boston Tea Party is considered by many historians to be an important turning point in American history, and is viewed as an American protest against taxation without representation. In much the same way, Canadians tend to consider the war of 1812 one of the watershed moments leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada (even though that didn't happen for another 55 years).
Without British North America fighting back against American expansionism (among other things) that lead to the war of 1812, Canada would not have existed as it did then, and the borders have stayed mostly consistent (modulo some small disputes around Alaska and coastal islands) since 1818.
> They were british subjects, who identified themselves as british subjects, fighting under the british flag for the british crown. No canadian fought in the war of 1812. No canadian flag existed then. No canadian nation. No canadian identity.
You are very quick to dismiss the establishment of Canadian identity, and disregard the history of the development of Canada. You are correct that the Canadian flag didn't exist then, but then again, the American flag didn't exist until close to the end of the American Revolution.
> Canadians do so because they have very little history to cling to. So they steal a bit of british history for themselves
Canadian military history includes British military history because we too were a colony of the British Empire. It turns out that there are a large number of Canadians who can trace their ancestry back to folks who settled in Canada well before Canada was a country. Their military service includes fighting for the French and the British before Canada was a country, including during the Revolutionary War. You could do some reading on this, there are many great books on the topic, and there is a ton of information on Wikipedia that outlines the history.
> Also, the british created the dominion of canada, not canadians. What do you think dominion means?
Specifically, in that era? It means a sovereign territory within the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada was established by the 1867 British North America act.
> Almost 3 whole generations. But even then you are off by more than a century (1982).
Yes. Change takes time - the American Revolution took almost 20 years, and didn't start with the Revolutionary War. Even after the Revolutionary War, there were additional rebellions and invasions into what would become Canada and it took time for things to settle down. Canada was established as a nation in 1867, and 1982 was absolutely a watershed moment where Canada established it's own Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but dismissing Canada's role as a nation prior to that is historically inaccurate.
> Other than having to kick out the british in the PNW in the 1840s/50s.
That didn't actually result in border changes that were different from what was established in 1818, it did however, lead to clarification that those borders were in place and would be defended.
> If you are curious about who won the war of 1812, go look into british land claims and american land claims prior to 1812.
I am not sure what you are on about here. The Treaty of Ghent included terms that dictated that the borders would return to the pre-war state. Neither the British nor the Americans won - that said, the US does have a history of failing in expansionism and labelling it a win, so I guess more power to you?
Beyond that, like I said, aside from some coastal island changes, and the Alaskan border, the majority of borders between United States and Canada have remained unchanged since 1818. The United States attempted to invade Upper and Lower Canada and take them over, and were repelled.
Why do people on the left say such strange things that have no relation to reality? You think the U.S. military could not handle to "win" a war against Hezbollah or Canada? I see this all over in this thread and throughout HN as if the U.S. is has the weakest military in the world; it's so absurd, it's as if the left has actually gone mad. I would gather that most of HN probably thinks Luxemburg could easily dispense with the U.S. military. To the extent that the U.S. "loses" any war against an insurgency is precisely because it is not as evil as the left believes and is unwilling to do what is in its capability simply to "win". Regardless, the fact that the left takes the idea of the U.S. going to war with Canada because "Trump says things" seriously just shows how far removed from reality and unhinged they are about the current president.
I’m confused so when the president says something I’m supposed to not take it seriously? So when he said he would pardon all J6 defendants, and all his sycophants including his VP said - well of course not the violent ones - we should or should not take him at his word? Is there some sort of magic decoder ring I’m missing?
The US military did try against Hezbollah, and after about 300 casualties the US military decided that maybe the goal wasn't worth it.
I think the US military absolutely could win, unless winning requires casualties. All the US military needs to win is an enemy that cannot choose where/howto fight. If the enemy chooses a way where fighting involves casualties, the US military will retreat into its bases, send some long-range bombers, maybe make a photo of the president saying "mission accomplished" on an air base, and finally retreat.
Which is cool I guess, if you live in one of the relatively small number of places in the world where that exists, in which case you wouldn't use Starlink anyway.
Many of Starlink's customers would otherwise be on VSAT, with 600ms+ RTT to geostationary birds.
It's secondary, the fact is that starlink is objectively 8x worse than what is currently considered the default. And there's no sense dealing with nazis to get something 8x worse.
36 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 78.6 ms ] threadThis seems very escalatory. I do worry that retaliatory cycle could lead to some in the US saying that Canada's retaliations are a "casus belli" for war.
It just makes me tired and if that chain of events leads to some stupid war (they all are, really) then so be it, we're outnumbered 10:1.
The future is hard to predict but I will call this out. There is no reason why France risk itself to save Canada. Or the UK or Germany. No European power is going to nuke or threaten to nuke the US over a Canadian invasion.
Why ? NATO is for defending against non-NATO enemies.
At this time it's pretty clear Trump doesn't even want America to be a part of NATO, and wants to destroy the alliance. So the alliance can either fulfill its original duty by coming to Canada's aid, or it can completely disband much to Putin's joy. But the one thing it can't do is leave Canada out to dry and then continue existing as if it's a defense agreement with any teeth.
I know a good joke when i see one. Maybe with another Charles, but Emanuel seems happy to dance as the White house sings.
I dare say that sane people at the Pentagon will stop war.
With regards to Hezbollah, there wasn't really a strategic reason to actually fight Hezbollah.
The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US and their troop numbers were comparable. Very unlike the situation today and the UK is not likely to get involved at this point.
Yeah, lots of people say this, but the folks who fought the war were the people who lived in Upper and Lower Canada. The Boston Tea Party is considered by many historians to be an important turning point in American history, and is viewed as an American protest against taxation without representation. In much the same way, Canadians tend to consider the war of 1812 one of the watershed moments leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada (even though that didn't happen for another 55 years).
Without British North America fighting back against American expansionism (among other things) that lead to the war of 1812, Canada would not have existed as it did then, and the borders have stayed mostly consistent (modulo some small disputes around Alaska and coastal islands) since 1818.
You are very quick to dismiss the establishment of Canadian identity, and disregard the history of the development of Canada. You are correct that the Canadian flag didn't exist then, but then again, the American flag didn't exist until close to the end of the American Revolution.
> Canadians do so because they have very little history to cling to. So they steal a bit of british history for themselves
Canadian military history includes British military history because we too were a colony of the British Empire. It turns out that there are a large number of Canadians who can trace their ancestry back to folks who settled in Canada well before Canada was a country. Their military service includes fighting for the French and the British before Canada was a country, including during the Revolutionary War. You could do some reading on this, there are many great books on the topic, and there is a ton of information on Wikipedia that outlines the history.
> Also, the british created the dominion of canada, not canadians. What do you think dominion means?
Specifically, in that era? It means a sovereign territory within the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada was established by the 1867 British North America act.
> Almost 3 whole generations. But even then you are off by more than a century (1982).
Yes. Change takes time - the American Revolution took almost 20 years, and didn't start with the Revolutionary War. Even after the Revolutionary War, there were additional rebellions and invasions into what would become Canada and it took time for things to settle down. Canada was established as a nation in 1867, and 1982 was absolutely a watershed moment where Canada established it's own Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but dismissing Canada's role as a nation prior to that is historically inaccurate.
> Other than having to kick out the british in the PNW in the 1840s/50s.
That didn't actually result in border changes that were different from what was established in 1818, it did however, lead to clarification that those borders were in place and would be defended.
> If you are curious about who won the war of 1812, go look into british land claims and american land claims prior to 1812.
I am not sure what you are on about here. The Treaty of Ghent included terms that dictated that the borders would return to the pre-war state. Neither the British nor the Americans won - that said, the US does have a history of failing in expansionism and labelling it a win, so I guess more power to you?
Beyond that, like I said, aside from some coastal island changes, and the Alaskan border, the majority of borders between United States and Canada have remained unchanged since 1818. The United States attempted to invade Upper and Lower Canada and take them over, and were repelled.
I think the US military absolutely could win, unless winning requires casualties. All the US military needs to win is an enemy that cannot choose where/howto fight. If the enemy chooses a way where fighting involves casualties, the US military will retreat into its bases, send some long-range bombers, maybe make a photo of the president saying "mission accomplished" on an air base, and finally retreat.
War ? Canada already has the capital city in Washington D.C. /s
Many of Starlink's customers would otherwise be on VSAT, with 600ms+ RTT to geostationary birds.
By whom?
3ms at the speed of light is 500 miles. Much of what your accessing will be physically further than that anyway.
Also, ever heard of CDNs?