• SaltSong@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m pretty sure that if he publicly says he’s going to disobey orders, that’s grounds for removal, even under a sane president. (Although a sane president might not choose to remove him)

    • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is almost certainly why he won’t answer the question either way. If he says that he wouldn’t, Trump would just fire him and replace him with someone that says they would privately, away from any public scrutiny at all.

      It would be a net negative for everyone other than fascists.

    • puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s a pointless question. If he answers no truthfully he gets fired. If he lies and says ‘yes’ to keep his job we get undue anxiety when there already enough of that going around from memes and trade wars.

    • scrodumb@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      As a Canadian I wish they would all get fired. Fuck em. Worthless disrespectful people. Never met a US soldier worthy of the air they breathe. Inbred illiterstes the lot of them. Suckers and losers.

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 month ago

    Have they said no to any of the USA’s other illegal invasions? Don’t count on the bravery of Americans who tell you they would resist. Count on drones.

    • codydodd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      Jokes aside its quite possible. Ukrainian partnerships with canada on domestic drone production, the US would burn perpetually if they dared. They are projecting a weak canada to save face, but they dare not mistaken canadian politeness for weakness. There is a reason Trump says we are the hardest do deal with of any country. Because we are done putting up with their shit. To be Canadian means to not be Amerikkkan.

      • ohshit604@lemmy.halstead.host
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The Canadian military relies heavily on the US partnership, not to mention the average urban Canadian has never seen, held or heard a firearm, as much as liked to say that we have a chance it’s certainly would be a slim one.

          • rbos@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            Shutting down the St. Lawrence seaway would probably not be difficult for a determined insurgency.

            The strait of Hormuz might be pennies compared to that.

        • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          Forget the Canadian military, if the US couldn’t defeat the Taliban with NATO help, what hope do they have against Canadians without it?

          Canadians aren’t even a different skin color - what is the US going to do, stop and question every white person with a gun? Every white person traveling long distances in a car?

          Oh hey look now the Rocky Mountains are impassable by land because there are Canadian resistance hidden in caves all the way down to Mexico. But surely the western seaboard and its population will be loyal to Trump, right?

          And so it goes. An invasion of Canada would dissolve the USA in a few years.

          • ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            One major difference. Canada has had more Intel and data integration with the US for much much longer than Iraq or Afghanistan. This means palantir and other Intel gathering companies have far, far more shit on Canadians that might have an inkling of resistance against the US, and do not think they will spare or be nicer to Canadians. They will absolutely round up everyone they can or their families. It will actually be harder for Canadians to fight back than the others.

            • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 month ago

              Sure, lots of people will get rounded up, but how many will slip the net? How many hundreds of thousands of partisans are spread over tens of millions of square kilometers of rural Canada? How thin can US patrols and round-up efforts spread themselves before they become convenient sources of weapons and ammunition as they are set upon by IEDs and household drones with weapons taped to them? What does it help the US if they know the porn preferences of the guy living in the woods sniping US servicemen?

              And then there’s the American partisans who understand this is the best time to rebel they are ever going to get. With so many loyalists deployed to Canada, are there still enough to respond to riots, sieges of police buildings, prison breaks, acts of sabotage, etc. in the US? Maybe they can be tracked (or maybe the cameras will be destroyed en masse), but are there enough boots on the ground to stop them?

            • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              But the opposite is also true, and it’s much easier for Canadians to counter attack on US soil than for anyone else.

      • BurgerBaron@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The military isn’t my concern. I’m interested how many of us would form gangs jumping the vast undefended border to cosplay as MAGA while attacking infrastructure and lighting forests on fire for years and years. Hopefully I never find out.

  • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    The reporter pointed out that Paparo did not answer the question. The U.S. admiral said he was dismissing the issue, adding: “Would you ask me please also what my attack plans are for the Martians?”

    The reporter replied: “You belittle it and I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. This is a serious question about a serious issue.”

    A Nanos poll taken in February found that three in five Canadians are concerned about the U.S. being a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty. A majority also support making it illegal for Canadians to serve in the U.S. military, according to a poll commissioned by The Maple in April.

    Despite Trump’s threats, however, Canadian government ministers have continued to stress Canada’s continued cooperation with the Americans on military affairs.

    • healthetank@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve got some family in the military, and they’ve served in Europe both before and after Trump. They said there hasn’t been any actual decrease in cooperation while overseas between the US and us, and everyone they talk to makes it clear how ridiculously an order would be taken to invade.

      That being said, their last deployment was July last year, so things may have changed. Also he did note that none said they’d reject the order - just how ridiculous the whole situation was. Hoping we never have to find out.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    Said it before and will say it again. This is why I feel running to another country you have to think about. We have this insanely large military and a lot of damage can be done with it. We need to protest and refuse to work and whatever else we can do.

  • bowreality@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    Now that they charge themselves 100% tariff on drones …

    Jokes aside, I say we should get ready. Everybody can gain or polish some relevant skills that come in handy if it comes to it.

    Best case you have a new hobby, worst case we make their life miserable if they decide to try and attack us.

  • OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Well, I suppose it’s better than an enthusiastic “Yes!”

    At least they still have the decency to be embarrassed about it.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    We need people at the top who will resist when the shit hits the fan. They should tread lightly to hang on to their position.

    I condemn the ones who resign out of principle, they are the very people we need to stay in.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      You really shouldn’t trust the legal interpretations of an LLM. They’re frequently wrong, and, even more dangerously, they’re very, very good at making a wrong answer look right.

      In this case, it does seem to be correct, though. The treaty clause has nuances in the way it’s interpreted, but according to the article they’re considered roughly equivalent to federal law. (Sorry for overlooking that and answering wrong elsewhere)

      There’s still catches. Prosecution for following unlawful orders is light, and often rests on charging a perpetrator as if they were a private citizen. Violating an international treaty regarding diplomacy doesn’t really have much in the way of criminal penalties, and, even if they did, the NATO treaty doesn’t seem to have a “don’t attack other members” article. Like, it should, but it also doesn’t have a “remove members that attacked other members” clause, because that basically just wasn’t relevant when it was created. (BTW, looking over it, the US is already openly violating article 1 and part of 2)

      But sure, if this guy refused to invade Canada, and was court martialled for it, it seems like he’d have a defence.

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Dude, if your commander orders you to invade Canada, hate to break it to you, but that’s lawful. Now if they tell you to use chemical weapons or target civilians you can push back on that. The law they are referring to is United States law and a couple of conventions like the Hague and Geneva conventions which cover war crimes. Other international law doesn’t count. Nato treaties don’t mean boo when it comes to the lawfulness of orders, nor should they.

  • orioler25@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I get everyone is making jokes here, but that is serious. Even if many of you genuinely believe Canada could contend with something like a US invasion, I don’t think most of us could bear the cost of even a short conflict. How many of you are already having a hard time affording to live here or have dependents?

  • Bluedragon012@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    You better disobey or we’ll make sure that no one in the armed forces get any rights. We’d shoot you on sight along with anyone else that didn’t refuse the shitter in cheif. Behave and use your neglected moral compass.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    There has to be a strong precedent that’s a lawful order.

    If invading a country that it seems like you can’t justifiably invade counted, several recent American wars would be remembered quite differently.

    AN order like “start bombing schools in Canada” would be a different matter. (Inb4 someone links a time they bombed a school, 'cause West bad)