Who in their right mind would not? If im the leader of a European country, and I see the US go rogue and annex their closest neighbour and longest ally, thats a clear message that the US can not be trusted.

Sure, but in that case you might be more preoccupied with securing your own position rather than risking intervention on a continent you have no foothold in.

Securing your own position is contingent on having a proper deterrence to US invasion or belligerence. Unless you are thinking of appeasing them, but I doubt that European defense minds would consider that.

You realize most European armies have tons of US equipment right? They are barely able to hold back Russia, with US help. Now they're supposed to build up their domestic DIB, hold off Russia, and fight a war on unfamiliar territory?

I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.

I do realize that. The war in Ukraine is not being supported by Nato. They are sending supplies but the alliance is not entering Ukraine against Russia so as to not create a wider conflict. Note that Ukraine is not a NATO signatory while Canada is. In the case of the US annexing Canada,the strategic analysis would give two options. Either immediately oppose US aggression and form a bloc independent of them, or tacitly approve of it and leave yourself open to the same thing happening to you and your neighbours.

Sending munitions/equipment to one side means that you support that side ;)

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.

Directly support as the commenter I was replying to was implying. Europe is not barely holding back Russia. Ukraine is. Article 5 would be invoked and the NATO states would decide what support to send. Greece and Turkey fighting over some islands isn't the same as the strongest nation in the world annexing its neighbours. There would be broad public support in Europe to oppose the U.S. simply on principle, let alone the security concerns.

Even more equipment if they force US troops to abandon their posts and their equipment as they are all now PNG from whatever country we have foreign bases.

Any country or group with a grievance. It would be open season. Lots of soft targets in the US that could give people pause in their support for Operation Canadian Bacon

The King of Canada would probably want to defend his people regardless of the cost.

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.

> 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)

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?

Me personally? Doesn't matter what I'd do. I'm just some gobshite on the internet.

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.

Yes, it's the internet and we can discuss of a lot of outcomes if Trump decides Canada is too big for the Canadians to have all for themselves.

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.

The entire point of NATO and other treaties is that every signatory is willing to risk their country to protect the other signatories. It makes the game theory choice to attack stupid.

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.

Armed forces are friendly to who they are being ordered to be friendly. And they don't have a an issue with any other armed forces unless being ordered to have an issue.

And US armed forces have been ordered to be friendly to UK and Canadian armed forces since WWI over 100 years ago (and even more friendly since WWII).

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.

The us military is also too professional to consider following orders to attack Canada. They would not accept the risk and reputational damage that would come with breaking the NATO treaties and undermining the general security of the west.

Well... if we're living in a imaginary/video game world where US invades Canada it wouldn't be too far fetched to expect Britain and France to intervene? I mean which is more absurd?

At that point, Mexico could run up the middle and take back what was taken from it. That would be chef's kiss response to Trump