Problem is that they aren't the ones in power in the USA.
Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
>In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.
The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
At least China and Russia only forcibly attacked independent countries that were once united with them.
The US imports pretty much everything consumers consume. Ooops
The US would have nobody to sell anything to. Ooops
The US is now in a local conflict that a very large % of citizens does not support. What happens after the next election?
It is a fun fictional exercise, ala Man in the Highcastle
which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.
I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics you make when you say NATO doesn't support the war in Ukraine, but it actually does - with the NATO SG going to Ukraine in a show of support.
AFAIK, there is no precedent to what will happen if a NATO country attacks another NATO country - we came close to that when the Turks and the Greeks almost started fighting a few years back.
The British Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to the King not the British government.
If he says go, they go.
It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh).
This conversation is so stupid though.
As I initially asked: would you be willing to end your own country just because you feel like you need to defend another country on another continent against an adversary you have no chance of beating?
In this hypothetical situation the opinions that matter are those of the men in the subs that have just seen their family and friends wiped out.
They've got roughly 120 active warheads to play with and realistically no one is going to stop them all.
So if you add up the damage from that plus the loss of a major trading partner and military ally it kind of seems unlikely to be a profitable venture for anyone involved.
I think it would be a bigger loss for the UK to do something stupid than for the US do to something stupid.
I guess we have to see how it plays out with Greenland - most likely scenario would be he'd go after Greenland first if it ever comes to that.
But it’s all academic anyways. The US military would eagerly lead a coup before willingly attacking the UK or Canada, particularly if non-conventional means are threatened.
Consider that nearly every officer has done several war games or exercises alongside UK or Canadian officers. This is true both of NCOs and senior leadership. Being friendly with their armed forces is institutional. It would be easier to convince the Marines to attack the Army than to convince them to attack their Canadian counterparts.
That doesn’t go away quickly without good reason even with new orders.
An attack on a Anglophone Five Eyes NATO member is militarily close to a civil war and could rapidly lead to a civil war.
Why is this hard to comprehend?
Sanctions hurt everyone involved. If China stopped trading with the US, their economy would tank too.
Furthermore, there are ways around sanctions.
The US is much more self-sufficient than Russia.
It is not hard to comprehend, but it is also not a surefire way to deter an invasion.
And of course remember that not all actors on the stage will behave "rationally"... US leadership especially.
There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.
Also, a president doesn't have to declare war to engage in military conflict.
"For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[2] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
This is an interesting statement in that, sadly, the person making the threats is not joking yet to those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept.