Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'

Militarily it makes sense the Arctic Circle could become very important soon. We need a higher form of security than the Canadians can muster. All hidden under the guise of statehood and economic growth. Trump floats the idea of Canadian statehood and annexing Greenland because in a non-nuclear War NATO invasion scenario we would likely lose access to the Arctic Sea almost immediately. Lots of important communication cables are laid of the Arctic seabed






www.americansecurityproject.org...

National Security
China and Russia are the United States’ main competitors in the Arctic. China has claimed that it is a “near-Arctic state” to stay relevant in the region as I could help them economically, however, this designation is questionable considering the closest point to the Arctic circle in China is 811 nautical miles.

In terms of Russia, they have released many icebreakers that can launch cruise missiles giving the U.S. even less time to respond should one of them be launched. In addition, Russia is claiming territory up to the north pole extending their continental shelf definition past the agreed-upon 350 miles beyond the shoreline outlined in the U.N. Law of the Seas Convention. A continued focus for Russia is the increase of economic and strategic capabilities in the Arctic.

The growth of economic trade also has the potential to create national security concerns. With the small number of U.S. ice breakers in the region and limited military presence, there are limited ways to protect the integrity of the shipping routes that exist today, which will continue to expand with the melting of the Arctic ice caps.

www.thearcticinstitute.org...

The Foreign Threat
It is clear that many in the public see the Arctic Circle as a frozen, icy tundra when, in actuality, the region is quite imperative to international security and business. According to Scientific American “climate change and an accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice during summer months have opened the possibility of northern cable routes” while many nations “would favor less U.S.-centric cable routes and additional backup lines to avoid U.S. surveillance and disruptions in service.”6) From an economic and political perspective, there is clearly a desire from non-Western nations to circumvent the United States and acquire their own methods of telecommunications contact.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) has found that threats from foreign powers (like Russia) can come in the form of “cutting off military or government communications in the early stages of a conflict, eliminating internet access for a targeted population, sabotaging an economic competitor, or causing economic disruption for geopolitical purposes” alongside “tapping [these cables] to record, copy, and steal data, which would be later collected and analyzed for espionage.” CSIS’ commentary also found that Russia could be able to stage cyberattacks against these data pipelines which could “disrupt or divert data traffic, or even execute a “kill click” deleting the wavelengths used to transmit data.”7)

Already, Russia has been heavily involved in developing their abilities to tap undersea cables and have also been accused of playing “a role in the outage” of the furthest north “undersea fiberoptic cable located between mainland Norway and the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean”.8)

Publicly, it is unknown exactly how effective foreign powers are at tapping Western undersea cables, the amount of damage this can inflict upon a nation necessitates the United States take steps to protect themselves from these problems. A recent 2021 report by the Atlantic Council highlighted this issue, stating, “…authoritarian governments, especially in Beijing, are reshaping the Internet’s physical layout through companies that control Internet infrastructure, to route data more favorably, gain better control of internet chokepoints, and potentially gain espionage advantage” while also describing how private companies and industry as a whole are becoming more aware of these network security risks.9)

a reply to: onestonemonkey

Your Uncle Dennis was a wise Welshman.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: network dude

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it is inevitable, makes sense geographically speaking too. We can love or hate it depending on who is in office but in this game of survival we might not have a choice.
I will say one thing, don’t ever let a Canadian fix hot wings for you.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
Maybe make a deal with Charles. Everything east Manitoba...so Maintoba, Ontario, Quebec and those small eastern provinces can belong to the UK.

USA gets Nunavet, NW Territories, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

i would be nice to drive to alaska without leaving the US.

a reply to: gort69

Always said we'll welcome them back to the family fold with open arms when they see the light, just like the prodigal son.

Once they grow up it's inevitable.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: network dude

Lets just invade Canada. England took it away from the French so lets take it away from the British.

England took it away from the French.

Only parts of it. Newfoundland, Labrador and Nova Scotia were never French Colonies.

lets take it away from the British.

You tried to in 1812, that didn't end well for you.

We’ve enough of our own problems that need to be resolved before we inherit any other country’s BS. I don’t think for a second that Canada would allow it anyway.

a reply to: KrustyKrab

Wether the US were to acquire Canada or this all leads to a much better relationship both from a border security and economic standpoint THE IDEA that somehow IF the US acquired Canada then Canada would somehow be less Canada is, in my opinion not the case. Canada would always keep their values and culture irregardless, just like the 50 states have so I do think that angle is being a bit overplayed here. Americans love Canadians and a potential union would be beautiful if not then lets do a better job together on trade and border security.
Strange Brew is a classic movie. So to all you hose heads, Take off eh!

I don't think we'll get any of Canada but they are always welcome to apply if the need arises. I do hope we can get Greenland and the canal back but we'll see what happens.

On a somewhat more serious note, I think what Trump is actually doing is reinforcing to Canadians just how worthless Trudeau is. He needs to go, and go now! For all intents and purposes, Canada is already part of the US. Were a large scale invasion to ever take place in Canada by Russia, the US would be at the tip of the spear all the way across the northern edge of Canadian territory. Canada simply doesn't have the military firepower to defend itself against that kind of an invasion. Oh sure, they'd participate to their greatest abilities (so no slight there), but those abilities are just limited. They simply don't have the budget to sustain a military force capable or repelling something like that. And, building that level of a military force up doesn't happen overnight.

Canada knows this. Trudeau might not because he's too immature, but Canada as a whole does.

Case in point, Canada doesn't currently possess a single heavy bomber. Not even one. The only combat aircraft Canada has are F-18's, and they only have (92) of those...all of them old. That's it. Sure, they have a few transport aircraft and a couple reconnaissance assets and some other stuff, but when compared to the sheer land mass of Canada it's almost laughably insufficient. Canada's Army is only about 50,000 strong, and their Navy is (12) frigate sized warships and (4) subs, all of them nearly 30 years old. In a full scale invasion, Canada (without American involvement) would be defeated in a matter of days, possibly just hours.

Compare this to the USAF who operate nearly (80) B-52 heavy bombers alone, coupled with (45) B1-B heavy bombers, and (19) B-2 Stealth heavy bombers. The USAF operates over (2,000) Fighter Bombers, and literally thousands of other aircraft of the Attack, Transport, Reconnaissance, SAR and Multi-Mission aircraft. The differences are staggering. Then there's the US Navy with (11) Aircraft Carriers, over (250) Surface Warships, (4,000) Aircraft and nearly (70) Ballistic Missile Submarines. And, this doesn't include the US Marines, or the US Coast Guard. And let's not forget the Army with nearly (1,000,000) uniformed personnel, (4,000) more aircraft, (5,000) Tanks and Heavy Artillery.

The US Military's budget alone is half (50%) of Canada's entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 32x larger than their military budget.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Canada doesn't have a very robust military (again, not taking anything away from their soldiers) for two reasons. One, they can't afford it, and two, more importantly, because they have already accepted the fact that they depend on the US Military for their ultimate defense in a large scale military invasion.

edit - Canada's land mass is 1.6% larger than the USA, just for reference. But Canada's population is only 10% of the US population.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
There's one little problem with Trump's plan..... one King Charles III.
Has anyone told Trump?
Rainbows
Jane

Canada has nothing to do with the British monarchy other then symbolism.

The idea of Canada joining the US is nothing new though its been brought up a bunch of times since at least the 80s.

Fun to think about but it will never happen

Edited to add they would have to make Canada into at least 2 states, the West and the East. The West has a lot of conservatives especially Alberta. Alberta has a conservative government and a lot of the East really looks down on Alberta for this reason. Alberta is always called "the Texas of Canada" because of the oil and gas industries, lots of conservatives, conservative government, they like their guns in Alberta, love Football. Eastern Canada is where most of the woke folk are.

originally posted by: network dude
I suppose the only downside would be Canadians would be subject to US government rather than Canadian, run by Trudeau, if that's a downside for anyone.

Pierre Poilievre should be taking over Canada pretty soon.

Trudeau has been in there long enough, since 2015 he's going on 10 years in power

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Canada has nothing to do with the British monarchy other then symbolism.

King Charles III is Head Of State of Canada, and Canada's Armed Forces pledge allegiance to The King. More than symbolism mate.

originally posted by: Solvedit
How would the people vote, though?

The interesting part about Canada is that it comprises of 10 provinces that are more loosely bound together than America's States. Over the decades the argument for the rights for secession has come up over and over. Quebec has fought hard for their right to secede anytime they want with just a majority vote, so it is very possible, more than one would think.

I'm not sure how many people remember that Quebec was supposed to be the 14th American colony, and they decided no, so we are more attached than what many would suspect.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Canada has nothing to do with the British monarchy other then symbolism.

King Charles III is Head Of State of Canada, and Canada's Armed Forces pledge allegiance to The King. More than symbolism mate.

Sounds like symbolism to me...

As a constitutional monarch, His Majesty King Charles III doesn't "rule" the country. However, as Canada's Head of State, he remains a fundamental part of Canada's system of government and our sense of identity.

The King's Role

As the personal embodiment of the Crown, His Majesty's role is to unite Canadians and give a collective sense of belonging to our country.

In his declaration to the Accession Council on September 10, 2022, His Majesty King Charles III stated:

I am deeply aware of this great inheritance and of the duties and heavy responsibilities of sovereignty which have now passed to me. In taking up these responsibilities, I shall strive to follow the inspiring example I have been set in upholding constitutional government and to seek the peace, harmony and prosperity of the peoples of […] the Commonwealth Realms and Territories throughout the world.

New Canadians swear allegiance to The King, so as Members of Parliament and the Legislatures, military and police officers.

We do not swear allegiance to a document (a constitution) or a political entity. Rather we swear allegiance to a person who embodies all these as well as our collective values.

www.canada.ca...

Edited to add... King Charles has no sort of power in Canada at all.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I can remember back in the late 70's or early 80's when Quebec almost did secede from Canada. In fact, I seem to recall some obscure technicality prevented it from actually happening. This was back when Quebec was going koo-koo about French being the only language. As I recall, part of the solution was that everything (signs, etc) had to be printed minimally in French, and possibly also English (but the English part was a concession). The people of Quebec are nutty about their French.

On a side note, I'd love to see how the people of Quebec deal with all the influx of Mexicans and Spanish speakers! I'll bet that gets their Foie Gras and Croissants in a real twist! I can just see the berets exploding of the top of their pointed heads from here!

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

The US President holds the same role i.e. Head Of State and The US Armed Forces pledge allegiance to The President.

That must also must be symbolism then.

Gotcha.

originally posted by: TheMisguidedAngel

Pierre Poilievre should be taking over Canada pretty soon.

Pierre is one of the sharpest politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
The people of Quebec are nutty about their French.

On a side note, I'd love to see how the people of Quebec deal with all the influx of Mexicans and Spanish speakers! I'll bet that gets their Foie Gras and Croissants in a real twist! I can just see the berets exploding of the top of their pointed heads from here!

I went to High School in Paris, and you are 100% right that the French are nutting about the preservation of their language. If you speak French to them and are not perfect, they act like they do not know what you are saying, and then they reply in their broken English to not taint their language perfection. I think one can still be fined if they use a non-French word in a French publication.

a reply to: Boomer1947

The entire point and discussion blew right over your head. 😎

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Strange Brew is a classic movie. So to all you hose heads, Take off eh!

*koooo roo koooo koo koo roo koo koo!*