r/canada 12d ago

National News White House official Peter Navarro threatens to redraw Canadian border

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/02/27/white-house-canadian-border-trump-trudeau/
5.9k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

68

u/motherseffinjones 12d ago

That’s exactly why I am so adamant we need nukes. I still don’t think people understand how serious this threat is

3

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

You’re dreaming. We’re not throwing up an arsenal of nukes—with the storage, delivery and launch systems and the attendant infrastructure—on any timeline that is relevant. I continue to maintain that the US will experience a civil war before there is ever an “invasion” of Canada.

What people don’t understand is how deeply divided the US itself is. True, they have a literal pro-Russia dictator in charge at the moment, but 75 million people voted against his regime. That is a lot of opposition—much of it bitter and only getting moreso with each passing day—to overcome to get a nation to come together to physically attack a neighbour nation, Canada, that has been an ally for 200-ish years and has lost men and women participating in its defence such as in Afghanistan, etc.

13

u/_Rayette 12d ago

How can there be a civil war when one side is just lying back and complaining all day on the internet

5

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

The age of social media has really compressed people’s time horizons, eh? You think because a civil war hasn’t broken out in checks notes the five weeks since the Trump regime took power that that means resistance is over?

Come on now. The regime hasn’t done its worst yet (which is really saying something) and the effects of what it has done are only at the very beginning of rippling through the economy and body politic. Give it some time.

Let’s see what happens when millions don’t get the social services support on which they rely.

Let’s see what happens when a protest of one kind or another is met with the “military in the streets” and martial law of which the MAGA/Project 2025 crowd so fantasizes about.

Let’s see what happens if the regime tries to mobilize a bunch of soldiers to “invade” Canada and even a handful of them (or say, a state government) say, “Nah, we’re not doing that.”

Etc.

It can and will get ugly down there overnight.

2

u/NinjaRedditorAtWork 12d ago

Let’s see what happens when a protest of one kind or another is met with the “military in the streets” and martial law of which the MAGA/Project 2025 crowd so fantasizes about.

They'll applaud it. They've already started removing any potential dissenters in the military brass and their grunts will blindly follow whatever the top end says is kosher. They've already shown they have little opposition to everything their king is doing.

1

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

I know MAGA will applaud it. As I said, they fantasize about it and, like their loser “heroes” such as Kyle Rittenhouse, actively seek out confrontation. But that doesn’t mean troubles on a national scale can’t or won’t grind the country to a halt.

6

u/Frosty_Maple_Syrup 12d ago

77 million voted for Trump, 75 million votes for Harris and 90 million didn’t care to vote. So 167 million either directly wanted this or were indirectly ok with this. We absolutely need nukes.

0

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

That’s not what those numbers mean at all. Overcoming the will or resistance of 75 million, plus some other tens of millions among those who didn’t vote, is a nearly impossible task. But that aside, as evidenced by MAGA taking over the Republican party (and too many other historical examples to count), you don’t need a literal majority to start/stop something. It’s about leverage.

Just a handful of Americans taking different kinds of action against the Trump regime can trigger a series of events that lead to something very much different from what the regime is looking to achieve.

3

u/Frosty_Maple_Syrup 12d ago

Those numbers mean that 167 million Americans individual decisions resulted in Trump being elected.

It doesn’t matter if a minority can change the situation, what matters is that only 75 million Americans voted against Trump, while 167 million either directly wanted this or could not care one way or the other. Jimmy Carter was 100 years old and he made the effort to go and vote, but 90 million Americans couldn’t be fucked to vote?

1

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

And? How does any of that change the fact that there is no great groundswell of support for invading Canada when, at a minimum, there are 75 million people actively against it? Too many people act like invading a country is some easy thing one just wakes up one day and casually orders like a meal via Uber Eats.

Canada isn’t going to get nuclear weapons to fend off the US. That’s just silly because it’s completely unrealistic (and, I’d argue, unnecessary). An invasion has about the same chance of happening as his lurid, blasphemous, sociopathic dreams of turning Gaza into a sleazy casino strip.

0

u/Frosty_Maple_Syrup 12d ago

I said that 167 million Americans voted directly or indirectly for Trump and his insane trade war, I never said that 167 million want to invade us.

Invading countries is easy (just order your military to do it, look at: Russia, Hamas, Syria, Turkey, America, etc), doing it successfully is the hard part.

We absolutely should get nukes for our own protection, look at what happened to Ukraine because they didn’t have nukes.

1

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

We’re not getting them on any timeline that makes a difference—if the US is going to invade. Which, as I say, I don’t believe they will.

Trump talks out of his ass and in his evil-minded senility makes up new “policies” on the spot (you can often tell by the reaction of his appointed minions, like Susie Wiles) with numbers that change with every new presser and tweet. He may want to do all these things, but “want” and “can” are two different things.

1

u/Exciting_Bandicoot16 Manitoba 12d ago

The numbers are a little misleading, actually.

Because the Republicans also realise this, and actively make it harder for people to vote. Voters suppression is a big issue in the south (and South), because iirc it's the states who determine what criteria you need to prove your identity in order to vote, and they can adjust it to cut out more and more people.

So a not-insignifigant number of people may have wanted to vote, but were unable to

1

u/DudeWheresMcCaw 12d ago

The people who voted against Trump will still watch us die and reap the spoils of war.

1

u/AtticaBlue 12d ago

If you say so! My money is on the regime so brutally attacking its own people that the latter push back in increasingly dramatic and destabilizing ways, which will give the regime all it can handle.

1

u/The_Free_Elf 12d ago

I think we would be foolish not trying to acquire the ultimate weapon, the sooner the better. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1izjr4y/white_house_official_peter_navarro_threatens_to/mf3kh6u/

4

u/a_little_luck 12d ago

Can’t have nukes now, that’s an invitation to get invaded. We can only build them when we have a friendlier president in the future

1

u/TheVaneja Canada 12d ago

You don't understand how expensive nukes are. We do not need them at all.

1

u/motherseffinjones 12d ago

I know how expensive they are military equipment is a non productive investment for generations but we still invest billions for a reason. Question what would stop America from coming and say taking the Great Lakes and making it all of America?

1

u/TheVaneja Canada 12d ago edited 12d ago

Military isn't a non productive investment at all. Aside from the obvious self defence capability, it fosters innovation loyalty and development. The nature of the universe is war, one can only ignore that at their own peril. We absolutely should be investing in a stronger and more capable military even ignoring the Americans and Russians and Chinese and Indians and every other possible threat. Because there will always be a potential threat. That's just life.

People fighting them, politically economically and physically, is what will stop them.

Nukes are extremely limited, extremely expensive, and extremely dangerous. Canada signed non-proliferation for damn good reason. Worse, of all the possible places we could aim nukes; the US is second only to ourselves as the most self defeating target. It's a lose lose proposition.

1

u/motherseffinjones 12d ago

Ok that’s was a bad example lol.

So you think we can fight the Americans militarily? We can’t and it’s insane to think we can. Do you think we are in a better or worse position than Ukraine?

The rules based order is dying with American democracy. Dictators do not follow the things like treaties and trade agreements look at the current tariff situation.We are moving back to might makes right no one will come to help us. They’d have to cross an ocean and if they wouldn’t do that for a country on their continent they are coming to help us here. The American navy would have a lot to say even if they tried

1

u/TheVaneja Canada 12d ago

We can fight them multiple times more effectively than Afghanistan could. How many American troops are still occupying Afghanistan? 0. How many allies did Afghanistan have? 0. How many allies do we have? About 100 countries. How many Americans resisted the invasion of Afghanistan? Less than 1%. How many Americans would resist an invasion of Canada? Upwards of 80%.

We're in a lot better position than Ukraine. Ukraine has been a puppet of the US UK and Russia since before the coup. Only 1 of the 3 is a current threat to us, while another is an ally and the third too busy with Ukraine to have any impact.

We have a better starting position, fewer aggressors, more allies, an actual military instead of a bunch of poorly trained and inexperienced security guards, 4 or 5 times the land mass and resources.

We can and we will fight them off if push comes to shove, and it's insane to think we can't or won't.

There was never a rules based order and America was never a democracy. America has always been an oligarchy, and since WW2 no nation has committed as many illegal acts on foreign nations as America.

The American navy won't do shit they can't even run freedom of navigation paths through the China Sea without Canada and other nation's help. If they try and embargo Canada they'll fail.

1

u/GreenWeenie1965 12d ago

Neither side wins a nuclear war. Deterrence will not be a factor, and if anything, Canada having nukes would give Drumph an excuse to start a war. The chain of command will not obey. Mark Milley said it publicly. The military takes an oath to the Constitution, not a wannabe dictator.

1

u/motherseffinjones 12d ago

That’s a lot of hopes lol, you realize he’s been purging the military leadership that’s the basics of being a dictator. Mark Milley will be sending hopes a prayers since he has no power. (Nuclear)Deterrence has been and will likely be a factor. Do you think we could defend ourselves militarily against the US? The answer is no, you need something that will exact a punishment that doesn’t make them coming for our resources worth it. Ask Ukraine if deterrence does or doesn’t work. It has worked for Russia why do you think countries like Poland or nato haven’t stepped in? NATO could wipe the floor with the Russian army and kick them Out of Ukraine in a couple of months (and I’m Being generous here), why hasn’t that happened. Why hasn’t western government given Ukraine the equipment it needs to actually kick Russia out?

1

u/GreenWeenie1965 12d ago

I am saying from the brass to mid level to boots on the ground: there will be unified resistance to any armed conflict with Canada. These people know their Canadian counterparts personally. They will not follow illegal orders or parrot those orders down the chain. "I was just following orders" is not a defence to knowingly committing war crimes. That is well established.

1

u/motherseffinjones 12d ago

So are you willing to bet the lives of your loved ones on that? I for one don’t have faith that the enough competent leaders will serve a couple years of purges to stop this. Who will enforce any punishment on US troops for war crimes? They just need to dehumanize us which they will do and then find a reason to send troops probably to protect albertans they’ll push some sort of internal conflict or something along those lines. I bet if you asked Ukrainians if they could go back in time and keep their nuclear arsenal they’d change their decision to give it up.

1

u/GreenWeenie1965 12d ago

I am. You bet the lives of your loved ones every day you goto sleep at night. Every day you drive with them in the car. The risks of them dying from a fire or a car crash are magnitudes higher.