King Charles of Canada makes a rare public speech calling for aid from the Commonwealth to support Europe in defending against the US. It’s broadcast on Canadian TV.

Who do you join? The US or the UK?

  • TOModera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Knee jerk response? Demand King Charles no longer be our king.

    Honest response? What’s the war over? If the UK is mass killing people (they have a history of that), then the US. The US is mass killing people (they have a history of that), then thr UK.

    Maybe we should grow beyond the last century’s call for war better get to killing response. Maybe Canada should feel bad about its role in the Boer war, for example, or question what we should have done differently in the Korean War, and perhaps nuance needs to be done.

    Maybe the two old heads of state on each side should have to fight to the death or negotiate rather than millions of the world’s poor sent through generational hell so one side can have more money.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Demand King Charles no longer be our king.

      Tell us you don’t understand the risks to our own government setup, why don’t you?

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I am much more suited to snarky online comments than actual combat.

    Gun to my head, have to choose a side for which to fight? Probably the UK, I trust it more than the US.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I wonder about that. On the face of it, yes they ought to. But a couple of thoughts might tip the scale:

        • an offensive war is much harder than a defensive one.
        • America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines .
        • America has a low tolerance for casualties, especially in foreign lands. Whereas Europe defending itself would probably be more tolerant. (Except for France. For French reasons.)
        • Such an invasion would cause huge social unrest at home. Presumably such an invasion would be instigated by trump who would then be compelled to deploy the military at home as well.

        And while I can’t vouch for the source, in a few categories the two actually seem relatively evenly matched: https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Union_EU_vs_USA

        I also wonder how much air superiority the US would really have. Assuming other countries weren’t letting the US use their air bases, they’d have to project air power from their carriers. Google seems to think about 64 fighters per carrier, as the US only has 20 carriers, which gives it an effective air fleet of about 1,300 aircraft compared to Europe’s 5000.

        • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago
          • an offensive war is much harder than a defensive one.

          Agreed

          • America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines.

          True, but America already maintains these, even without ongoing conflicts. If they moved carrier groups from the Pacific, even easier.

          • America has a low tolerance for casualties, especially in foreign lands.

          I don’t think so. They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam. Compounded with the likelihood most casualties wouldn’t be extracted to the US until the end of a major conflict, it gets even easier.

          • Such an invasion would cause huge social unrest at home. Presumably such an invasion would be instigated by trump who would then be compelled to deploy the military at home as well.

          Sadly, this could legally work. The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else. So long as an action isn’t unconstitutional, it’s legal if it comes from POTUS.

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines.

            Those supply lines aren’t subject to attack though. They’d have to defend them against submarine attacks across thousands and thousands of kilometers. In that sort of fight, advantage to the attacker.

            They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam.

            Not in the numbers required for a ground war in Europe. America lost some 7,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and its been considered a major debacle. Consider the number of casualties in Ukraine…

            The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else.

            Oh, probably legal. Buy there would be massive protests, maybe riots etc. It would be a huge internal headache and distraction.

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I need more details. When we say ‘support Europe’ do we mean just the UK?

    • CashewNut 🏴󠁢󠁥󠁧󠁿@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Due to your indecisiveness Bristol and Liverpool have been firebombed by the US Navy wiping out 1 MILLION Brits. Princess Eugenie of Canada and Home Secretary were among the casualties.

      The UK is part of Europe. Not the EU but defensive alliances still exist between the UK and Europe. The USA and Europe (+ UK) are at war across the Atlantic.

      President Macron calls for Aid from Quebec.

      The war is desperate! What do you do?!

  • voluble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Maybe it’s my lack of imagination, but I can’t imagine a dispute between those two nations that would be justified in any way at this time. Likewise, I can’t see how the relationship could degrade to point where war was the only feasible option.

    World being configured as it is today, I don’t see a reason to point a gun at anybody, for any reason.

    While we enjoy that luxury, it’s the perfect time to: talk with someone who you disagree with on a fundamental level. Get to know them as a fellow human being. Listen to their life experiences, & share your life experiences with them. Discuss deep questions openly and honestly. Don’t be afraid. Be honest, be sincere.

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Considering one of those 2 is across an ocean and the other bumps right up against our most populous areas, I think the choice is clear. Even if the US was objectively the bad guys I would rather we just roll over and surrender than try to fight an army that large

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Well like you said, we are under Britain

    We see ourselves as such anyway and hate Americans