Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20260120184214/https://www.thegl...

It will be very interesting to see how the Canadian government reconciles the existential need for a populace trained and armed to repel an American invasion and occupation with their political goals of banning private fireownership in Canada.

The Canadian government has recently banned many firearms and is forcing an incredibly expensive and unpopular gun buy-back program (the term is a misnomer -- people dind't buy the guns from the government so they're not actually buying them back.) This program has proved incredibly inefficienty and unpopular[0] with many leaders across the country including Police Chiefs and Provincial leaders refusing to support the program.[1][2]

It seems pretty clear to me that these two goals -- developing the skills to endure an invasion and repel an occupation and eliminating private gun ownership are completely incompatible and it isn't clear what the Carney government is going to do.

At the end of the day if you want a country that can win assymetric warfare you need a population proficient with firearms. That means training teens how to use them in extra curricular clubs like Air Cadets or Boy Scouts. That means the promotion of regional and national marksmen championships. That means the creation of properly equipped and sanctioned paramilitary groups that offer the public frequent opportunities to learn and practice activities like squad maneuvers, orienteering, and marksmanship.

If the Canadian government is serious about raising a force that can potentiall repel American invasion it needs to start putting guns in the hands of kids. It needs to start opening firing ranges in rural and urban environments and encouraging the responsible and safe use of firearms.

The Liberal Party of Canada has no choice but to re-embrace firearms as a part of Canadian cutlure and identity while rejecting the worst impulses of pacifists who would rather see Canada disarmed and vulnerable than armed and defended.

[0] https://archive.ph/7Byer

[1] https://archive.ph/r72mb

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-ucp-agm-legi...

Well done America, you made your neighboring country work on insurgency tactics because an imperialistic attack from you is now a real possibility. Think about that a second.

In international land conflicts I always like to imagine it as the following scenario: you get a letter in the mail telling you that you’re going to be forcibly relocated to country X.

But what about your friends and family, you might say. Will you still be able to see them? You would surely fight to not be isolated from them. Well, good news, they’re being relocated as well.

What about your home, your possessions? You would surely fight to not lose them. You’re in luck, also relocated.

But the land will be different, the weather. Good news, the land and weather are also being relocated.

But what about the government, whom you love dearly and would miss terribly. Sorry to say, the government is the only thing not being relocated.

So, will you pick up a gun and risk death, even near certain death in some cases, to stop yourself having the same life, except for the government? Really? Is the other government really that different from yours?

That being said in this case the notion of USA invading Canada is ridiculous and won’t happen. It’s just reality TV guy pushing the deal landscape wider so he can get the modest-by-comparison thing he actually wants. He has a whole book that talks about how he does this. It’s weird how people still take him seriously when he does this.

'The West Wing’ had an episode where the US plan to invade Canada was a plot point (https://westwing.fandom.com/wiki/A_Good_Day). Of course there is a US plan to invade Canada - no matter who the president is, the armed forces would try and be prepared for any eventuality no matter how unlikely (in the episode the plan was over a hundred years old, but it existed). Similarly, it would not be unusual for Canada to have war gamed a US invasion.

The world hasn't seen an AI activated IED yet that monitors the surrounding using a local visual model, detonating when the classification chain triggers. The catch is that it would need a substantial amount of fuel to stay powered, but "that's what a car is for".