- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How long would an all-out war between the US vs. Canada/Mexico last?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:23 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:23 pm to lsupride87
quote:
the canadians are some of the fiercest soldiers out there....
Times have changed.
US would take Canada in less than a week.
2
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:25 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Trudeau would be eating American bacon and dressing in 1700s colonial garb in 3 days
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:28 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Maybe. But the hockey leagues I am around, they are still the meanest and toughest mother frickers out there
Times have changed.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:30 pm to toosleaux
Operation Beaver Hunt
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:31 pm to jlovel7
quote:
Luckily the weakest part of our country
Oh, you think the rural north doesn't have weapons?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:35 pm to Montezuma
quote:
Oh, you think the rural north doesn't have weapons?
Yeah I laughed at this. But I think like 90% of Canada's population is in the southeast above New york and in that area so they probably wouldn't be invading through North Dakota and Montana and those places.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:35 pm to SaturdayTraditions
quote:
Cyanide in the maple syrup and salsa... both of those countries die quickly!
i'd be dead before the week's end. chips 'n salsa is a staple.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 3:38 pm to TigerChief10
Give em a couple days, The Montanans and the upper midwest folks will be snowmobiling into Upstate NY to frick shite up 
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:01 pm to toosleaux
What's the objective? To repel the invasions? One day, tops.
If you want to invade and occupy, then it gets hairy. The Mexican government and military are nothing, but the cartels could run guerrilla ops quite effectively. Better to just build the damn wall....
As for Canada, they are our closest ally and trading partner, even if the current PM is a spineless cuck.
So, silly thought, but just to indulge you, the invasion and occupation would be relatively easy since about 95% of the population is within 100 miles of the US border. Alaskan military bases would be effective support from the North.
The much bigger problem would be everyone else. Per Mexico, it might have a uniting effect on the rest of Latin America in opposition to the US.
Per Canada, well... bye bye NATO. Bye bye close alliance with the UK (Our most reliable military ally).
If you want to invade and occupy, then it gets hairy. The Mexican government and military are nothing, but the cartels could run guerrilla ops quite effectively. Better to just build the damn wall....
As for Canada, they are our closest ally and trading partner, even if the current PM is a spineless cuck.
So, silly thought, but just to indulge you, the invasion and occupation would be relatively easy since about 95% of the population is within 100 miles of the US border. Alaskan military bases would be effective support from the North.
The much bigger problem would be everyone else. Per Mexico, it might have a uniting effect on the rest of Latin America in opposition to the US.
Per Canada, well... bye bye NATO. Bye bye close alliance with the UK (Our most reliable military ally).
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:03 pm to toosleaux
we could use machine guns for Mexico. paintball guns for Canada. 
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:11 pm to Montezuma
I have a feeling new hampshire and pennsylvania would be able to hold them off while reinforcements came.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:25 pm to toosleaux
So what you would have is Texas vs Mexico. The other 49 vs Canada. I’d bet on Texas
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:29 pm to OMLandshark
Depends. What is the objective?
Capitulation and occupation?
Genocide?
Military domination?
Capitulation and occupation?
Genocide?
Military domination?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:37 pm to Montezuma
quote:
Oh, you think the rural north doesn't have weapons?
I'm sure all 30 of you have quite the arsenal
Posted on 3/1/18 at 4:45 pm to toosleaux
Quick-strike capabilities at the onset would serve the US very well. Scrambling squadrons quickly to knockout enemy airbases quickly would mean that we would not have to worry about losing air superiority. Mexico conscripting mass numbers of fighters would be worrisome but that takes a lot of time to mobilize and gunships can wreak havoc on masses of infantry and armor. There’s plenty of armor in Texas deal with an initial assault and the M1A1 is still the baddest bitch around. Honestly, the biggest worry about Mexico would be the high probability of them placing undocumented paramilitary assets inside our country before war was to be declared and killing a lot of civilians while also disrupting the movement of material. As a whole, Canada would be a very small threat due to their population. If we play defense, no worries. Going into Canada could get hairy, though.
The only way we lose is if the progressive and far left sabotage a war effort from within because of stupid shite like “taking down the patriarchy”, or “they’re only invading us because we’ve been oppressing them for millions of years and we should give them what they want”.
The only way we lose is if the progressive and far left sabotage a war effort from within because of stupid shite like “taking down the patriarchy”, or “they’re only invading us because we’ve been oppressing them for millions of years and we should give them what they want”.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:46 pm to TheGator
frick ground war fare. We could bomb the shite out of them. Complete devastation.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:09 pm to musick
quote:
Less than a week. We would crush either of them.
Do you actually think we could mobilize infantry and armor assets to two fronts and achieve victory in less than a week?
Think harder.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:11 pm to toosleaux
About as long as it took me to read your post
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:12 pm to musick
quote:
You're looking at it the wrong way. Alaska gets us strategic placement to end the Canada portion before it even starts.
If Canada starts marching across the border we would stage a pincer attack from alaska and it would be over before it really even started. This post was edited on 3/1 at 2:34 pm
Okay, it's official ... you're fricking retarded.
You need to take a look at a map and pay attention to distances and terrain features.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:13 pm to toosleaux
350 minutes
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News