Armed Forces envision insurgency tactics like those used by Afghan mujahedeen, sources say. But officials and experts stress a U.S. operation is unlikely, and the scenarios are conceptual
Depiction of what Canada’s response would look like:
Difference being that a dog is cute when it rolls over
You made me want to pet the dog.
University of Toronto political scientist Aisha Ahmad said Canada needs to drastically boost its homeland defence capabilities, regardless of the potential U.S. threat to the border.
“The better Canada can embrace this approach to homeland defence, the less likely all of these horrible scenarios that nobody wants will ever come to pass,” she said.
This is just advocating grift for the military industrial complex. Canada would have to develop a domestic industrial capacity like Russia’s to have any hope of a deterrent, if that even.
I should have studied political science… it’s the best Graeberian bullshit job, where you’re paid to pull nonsense out of your mind palace.
It’s hilarious someone from UofT is saying this. They’re the squishiest liberals as a rule, and will sideline anyone with spicier takes than ranch dressing.
I should have studied political science… it’s the best Graeberian bullshit job, where you’re paid to pull nonsense out of your mind palace.
Basically the only way to get that sweet bullshit job is nepotism though.
I’m willing to suck off a few failsons if that’s what you mean
A longterm insurgency like that carried out in the middle east only works with a force that is ideologically committed to the war and willing to endure the hardship of it for in many cases very little personal gain.
I suspect western militaries will be full of deserters as soon as they aren’t getting paid and the very real prospect of death against a peer adversary exists.
there is a joke i think i heard from the 1dime podcast - that socialists/communist in the imperial core (canada) dream of dying in the struggle for a socialist republic, but are more likely to fight and die to maintain the sovereignty of the liberal federation
There’s some truth to that, you’re more likely to see left wing people line up to die to save the country than these people who are there for a paycheck and expected only to be fighting asymmetrical war against inferior opponents.
For the middle eastern groups it’s religion holding the groups together though.
Exactly - the problem isn’t who they are fighting, it’s what they are fighting for.
As a Canadian, I wouldn’t fight for the existing state, but I would fight for a socialist/communist-aligned partisan force if given the opportunity.
Many national liberation movements are usually a mix of all kinds of anti-occupation forces, too.
True. Imo, if there was such a scenario, the goal would be to basically turn any insurgent group into a revolutionary one, either by intent or effect.
Italian partisans by the end of ww2 were a motley crew of Christians, communists, monarchists, liberals, Jewish people, and resistance fighters from other places.
They made the fash bleed nonetheless.
That makes sense, except kkkanada and europe are not military peers to the US. Even collectively, they remain heavily dependent on US-controlled systems such as logistics, intelligence, satellites, encrypted communications, and weapons software, which gives Washington enormous leverage over their defense capabilities and limits their ability to operate independently in a high-intensity conflict.
Effort post about the chinese military incoming.
The only true near-peer military competitor the US currently faces is China, and even then only in the context of a US-initiated conflict in East Asia. The PLA is not structured for global expeditionary warfare like the US military, but rather for regional denial, escalation control, and defeating intervention forces before they can establish dominance. That difference in mission profile is crucial for understanding the balance of power.
In terms of current military capabilities, the US still maintains advantages in global power projection, combat experience, nuclear submarine quieting, long-range bomber operations, and alliance integration. The US operates 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers supported by a mature carrier air wing doctrine and worldwide basing network, something China does not yet possess. The US also retains superiority in strategic airlift, overseas logistics, and sustained multi-theater operations.
However, China’s advantages lie elsewhere, and increasingly in areas that matter more in a modern industrial war.
China now possesses the largest navy in the world by ship count, and more importantly, the world’s most powerful naval shipbuilding capacity. Chinese shipyards can produce major surface combatants at a pace the US cannot dream to replicate. Type-055 destroyers (equivalent in displacement to cruisers) are being launched at rates comparable to US WWII production, while the US struggles to replace aging hulls. In a prolonged conflict, this industrial replacement capacity alone dramatically shifts the balance.
This industrial advantage extends across the force. China produces missiles, drones, ships, and aircraft domestically with minimal reliance on foreign suppliers, while the US defense industry has become highly consolidated, slow to scale, and dependent on long supply chains. American production of key systems such as precision munitions, interceptors, and naval platforms cannot currently match the consumption rates projected in a peer war.
China’s missile forces represent perhaps its greatest asymmetric strength. The PLA Rocket Force is the largest in the world, fielding thousands of conventional ballistic and cruise missiles. Systems such as the DF-21D and DF-26 (often described as “carrier killers”) are designed specifically to deny US naval access inside the First and Second Island Chains. China has also deployed the DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle, giving it operational hypersonic capability years ahead of the United States. In contrast, the US has yet to field hypersonic weapons at scale.
In the air and maritime domain, China has built one of the densest integrated air defense networks on Earth, combining HQ-9 and HQ-22 systems with early-warning radar, counter-stealth detection research, and layered missile coverage. This significantly constrains US airpower near China’s coastline and forces reliance on long-range standoff weapons.
China’s progress in space, cyber, and electronic warfare is equally central. The PLA treats space as a warfighting domain, not merely a support function. It has demonstrated direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles, co-orbital systems, electronic jamming, and satellite-interference capabilities. The US, which relies far more heavily on satellites for navigation, targeting, and communications, is structurally more vulnerable in this domain.
A major factor often ignored in surface-level comparisons is industrial and economic integration. China’s military-civil fusion system allows civilian industries: shipbuilding, electronics, AI, telecommunications, robotics, and aerospace to be rapidly adapted for military production. Dual-use manufacturing is not an exception but a foundation of PLA modernization. This gives China the ability to surge production during crisis in ways the US system, divided between civilian and defense sectors, struggles to match.
Access to critical minerals and rare earth elements further reinforces this advantage. China dominates global refining and processing of rare earths essential for advanced weapons systems, including: jet engines, radar arrays, guidance systems, precision munitions, drones, and electric motors. Even US weapons production remains partially dependent on Chinese-processed materials, creating strategic vulnerability that cannot be solved quickly.
In emerging systems, China is advancing rapidly. The PLA is heavily investing in autonomous and AI-enabled warfare, emphasizing mass over boutique platforms. Drone swarms, loyal-wingman aircraft, autonomous surface vessels, and underwater drones are being developed to overwhelm defenses through scale. Drones displayed at recent Victory Day parades including stealth UAVs, long-range strike drones, and cooperative swarm platforms indicate a doctrine focused on saturation and system disruption rather than platform-to-platform parity.
Looking forward, several major programs could significantly alter the balance.
China’s navy is expected to transition from conventionally powered carriers to Type-004 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which would eliminate endurance limitations and allow true blue-water operations. While China currently lacks carrier experience comparable to the US, even one or two nuclear carriers would mark a fundamental shift in operational reach during the 2030s.
In the air domain, China continues expanding its fifth-generation fleet with the J-20 and J-35, while credible evidence points toward the development of a tactical stealth bomber or medium-range stealth strike aircraft, filling the gap between fighters and the H-20 strategic bomber program. Combined with loyal-wingman drones and long-range precision strike, this would significantly increase China’s ability to contest air superiority regionally.
China is also modernizing its nuclear forces, moving from minimum deterrence toward a survivable second-strike posture. New missile silos, road-mobile ICBMs, submarine-launched JL-3 missiles, and early-warning systems indicate a maturing nuclear triad, even if total warhead numbers remain below those of the US and Russia.
Taken together, the competition is no longer simply about who has more advanced individual platforms. It is about industrial depth, sustainment capacity, access to resources, dual-use integration, and the ability to replace losses under wartime conditions.
The US still holds decisive advantages in global reach and experience, but China now holds clear advantages in missile warfare, regional denial, shipbuilding capacity, and industrial mobilization. As China’s carrier force, long-range aviation, autonomous systems, and nuclear infrastructure mature, the gap continues to narrow.
Type-055 destroyers (equivalent in displacement to cruisers) are being launched at rates comparable to US WWII production
Holy shit, that’s fucking wild. Got a source? Not that I doubt you, if anyone could do that it’s china, but… Holy shit.
You’re right, I dug back into it and the specific “WWII-level destroyer production” line was me mangling a few different sources that were making related but not identical claims.
What is well documented is that China’s shipbuilding capacity and tonnage output absolutely dwarf the United States today. A 2025 CSIS study cited by Navy Times found that a single Chinese shipyard produced more commercial ship tonnage in 2024 than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry has built since World War II, which is where I likely had the WWII comparison stuck in my head. https://www.navytimes.com/global/asia-pacific/2025/03/11/chinas-shipbuilding-dominance-a-national-security-risk-for-us-report/
That same report notes that China now produces over 50% of global shipbuilding tonnage, while the U.S. accounts for roughly 0.1%.
Separately, U.S. Congressional Research Service and Navy assessments estimate that China’s overall shipbuilding capacity measured in gross tonnage is over 200 times larger than that of the United States, largely due to its integrated civilian–military shipyard system. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33153
In terms of actual naval output, a senior U.S. Indo-Pacific Command admiral has stated that China is currently producing roughly 3–4 times more naval tonnage per year than the United States, even before accounting for its massive commercial shipbuilding sector. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-outpacing-us-shipbuilding-top-indopacom-admiral-says-2025-4
So the WWII comparison was overstated, but the underlying “issue” is arguably more serious for the US. China controls roughly half of global shipbuilding capacity, much of it in dual-use yards that can be partially redirected under wartime mobilization. The United States, by contrast, represents only a fraction of a percent of global shipbuilding and lacks the industrial depth to rapidly replace naval losses in a prolonged conflict. Apologies again I will have to avoid posting so early in the morning without rechecking my sources.
China controls roughly half of global shipbuilding capacity
Even wilder! Dang.
I don’t think that’s accurate, the PLAN had 8 Type 055s built in 4 years, and another 8 on the way in the same timespan. The USN in WW2 had over 100 cruisers built.
If we’re talking about potential though, Chinese shipbuilding capacity dwarfs the US, and in a hypothetical war scenario (that somehow doesn’t turn nuclear) with full wartime production the gap widens more. However I expect that given their expense and the fact that they’ll be priority targets that the PLAN will likely use their submarines and Type 054A/B and Type 052Ds to do the heavy lifting, since a loss of a frigate or destroyer isn’t as crippling and they’re much faster and cheaper to build. It’ll be like that image where the US navy has a handful of decades old arleigh burkes and trump battleships vs the latest batch of PLAN destroyers, laid down 2 months ago, commissioned last week, with another 4 dozen on the way.
A longterm insurgency like that carried out in the middle east only works with a force that is ideologically committed to the war
I don’t know if I’d agree. I don’t know if there was a particularly ideologically committed insurgency in Iraq, nor do I think the Taliban in Afghanistan are a unified force. While not ideal, I think asymmetric warfare lends itself well to disparate factions. It’s what makes traditional warfare almost seem like a fantasy these days
I think any sort of insurgency in Europe imand Canada would be large enough and strong enough to cause major problems in guerilla conditions.
An insurgency could be created yes but it would pop up out of the conditions, it would need to seek volunteers rather than operate on a professional paid military basis. Its participants would be doing so not to be paid but because they believe in that cause. It’s completely different to the motivation the existing soldiers have who signed up expecting (at worst) to get sent to fight asymmetrical warfare on the stronger side.
professional soldiers are still indoctrinated and trained if their paycheques stop coming. not saying most or all would go partisan but they’re more disposed to than average
I don’t know if I’d agree. I don’t know if there was a particularly ideologically committed insurgency in Iraq, nor do I think the Taliban in Afghanistan are a unified force.
Uhh what? The Iraqis and Taliban were/are fighting an overtly xenophobic, anti-muslim imperial occupation. They hate the west.
There’s no such cultural/racial/ideological differences between Canada and the US. Once the average white Canadian realizes the status quo remains largely untouched for them they’ll sit down and shut up
I like how they say Mujahedeen and not Taliban so they don’t sound like evwil scawy terrorists.
Our brave freedom fighters vs their scary terrorists meme but time is a flat circle so it’s the word associated with the Soviet-Afghan war because libs never miss a chance to toss shade on the legacy of the USSR
A few thoughts:
-
Canada can’t claim to be taking the threat of american invasion seriously while continuing to buy American military hardware
-
The average Canadian won’t take up arms unless they or their loved ones are targeted first. Plenty of Canadians would roll over like dogs
-
That being said I do think there is potential for asymmetric warfare shit what with the long border and a potentially hostile population that speaks the same language/is largely culturally similar to Americans. It’s not like Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/Libya/Vietnam/Korea/pretty much any other American invasion where they have an ocean between them and their target.
I still think that if america does invade (and I’m beginning to lean into that being possible, especially if they go ahead with a Greenland landgrave) it’ll be mostly a “change of management” invasion, though it also depends on how they treat the average Canadian. The easiest way to start an insurgency is to kill people’s family, friends, and neighbours
though it also depends on how they treat the average Canadian
i have literally no idea why so many people ITT are assuming the United States would not kill people and deeply harm the Canadian quality of life through annexation
Oh I assume america would use the same door-kicking family-annihilating strategy they’ve used the world over, I just think white Canadians are so cucked that america taking over the country & killing people wouldn’t spur them to action until it affected them personally.
I agree that indigenous people & other POC would bear the brunt of any American occupation, but them being treated poorly hasn’t been a problem for many white Canadians so far. So many white Canadians are racist AF, if American troops can refrain from shooting/bombing them specifically they’ll be waving the stars and stripes happily
They’re white. Generally, the white supremacy empire isn’t killing white people.
not all canadians are white; a proportion of those whites don’t speak english, and on top of that canada is not going to be an equal participant! the status quo of passively reaping from US empire was that. annexation is subjugation
Defence of the homeland bs, afraid of giving up the comfort and spoils of labour-imperialism to naked us-imperialism. The Canadian government already does and did horrendous shit to its indigenous and minorities. The first enemy is still the Canadian political system and the Canadian bourgeoisie.
Plenty of Canadians would roll over like dogs
Not before they blot out the very sun with the sheer force of their apologies.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
A key move was a joint US Army-Navy attack to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting off the Canadians from their British allies. Their next objective was to “seize Canadian Power Plants near Niagara Falls.” This was to be followed by a full-scale invasion on three fronts: from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, from North Dakota to take over the railhead at Winnipeg, and from the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario. In parallel, the US Navy was to seize the Great Lakes and blockade Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.
The first strike with poison gas against the port city of Halifax was used to seize it, preventing the Royal Navy from using the naval base there, and cutting the undersea cable through Halifax, severing the connection between Britain and Canada.
American war planners had no thoughts of returning captured British territory: “The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become U.S. states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace.”
US Navy was to seize the Great Lakes
they still had naval ships in the lakes in the 20’s? surely they don’t now though
You know it is kind of interesting how every US war plan immediately unleashes massive quantities of NBC weapons onto the enemy
Royal Navy
lol
Didn’t the Royal Navy reorganise itself as a support service to the US Navy and cease operating anything more than a token force like more than a decade ago?
Armed Forces envision insurgency tactics like those used by Afghan mujahedeen
Ought to be pretty straightforward when you take all the guns away
the long gun registry will be used to return confiscated arms
If carney govt did this, at least a third of the albertan seperatists would become lifelong carney stans and their movement would deflate overnight
would they? or would he just be “one of the good ones”
Albertans dont think some liberals are good, they believe them all to be ontologically evil daemons bent on destroying their freedom to bear arms and guzzle oil.
Especially if theyre named trudeau.
Imo if carney keeps tearing up enough of trudeaus policies (and the tories keep failing provincially and federally) we’ll see the tories split into “progressive conservatives” who support the liberal party federally and the new progressive conservative party in alberta, and “outright fash” who will support the tories and ucp
Disarms the working class
“We will mount an insurgency in the name of the current state of Canada!”
Uno reverso when they become a part of the US tho.
You tried defeating empires….and where did that lead you?
Afghan
Back to me
critical support for the Red Green intifada
History repeating itself but first as farce: Canadian Bacon (1995) trailer
And now, as an even bigger farce.
Like sticky maple syrup dribbling down the northern border
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
