Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, structure of the N

Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> Hello all!
> 
> I didn't really mean to start a serious debate on the Canada/Quebec
issue -
> rather give a quick and dirty thought to the beginnings of how the NAC
came
> about, from a rather Canadian perspective.

Well, that's exactly it. And I had thought from maybe a 'historical 
observer' perspective. It wasn't meant to be about current day 
politics, just their impact on how the NAC came into being.

> OK Thomas, I have some responses to your responses to my responses,
but I'm
> going to snip out quite a bit...

Prudent, to be sure. 

> >As a corollary of that, the Mohawks and other Native People 
> >immediately vote to secede from Quebec and rejoin either Canada or
> >Nunavut or to form separate enclaves (depending on the group). Canada
> >deems their basic right to do so inalienable, whereas Quebec views
> >itself as indivisible and rejects the validity of these claims. At
> >first, protests break out, then an ongoing geurilla war backed (it is
> >thought) by US Native Peoples and by Canadian sympathizers. 
> 
> 
> This rather pessimistic scenario has been spoken of quite a bit.  I'm
a bit
> more optomistic, and think that it won't come to that.  I think
limited
> protests and some politically motivated violence may happen, but the
> leaders of all three communities (Les Quebecois, the First Nations
peoples,
> and the Rest of Canada) all realize the enormous potential for
destruction
> and violence - and will go a long way to make sure it doesn't happen.

You mean like at Arkwasasne, Ganawake and Khanasetake? The QPP moving 
in with army backup? The same QPP/Surete de Quebec that have had a 
large volume of complaints of their treatment of aboriginals filed? 
Led by the separatists in Quebec who're pretty bigoted (witness some 
of their comments)? And opposed by very frustrated Mohawks and other 
Native People's who've got various excellent military veterans and a 
lot of firepower on their side? I think if Quebec does not let the 
Indians secede, problems will occur, and they seem unwilling to let 
this happen. 

  Many
> people predicted a war in Czecholslovakia when it started to break up.
> Didn't happen, 'cause people there managed to take a step back, calm
down,
> and try to work it out.

And look what happened in Bosnia. There are numerous scenarios. I 
just think yours is unlikely. Ever been on one of those reserves? 
Ever spoken at length with the aboriginal peoples that live in those 
areas? I have met some of them, and I've been through one or two of 
the reserves. And I live right beside Quebec so I get a lot of 
stories about the Surete. And if you take a deep look at PQ and BQ 
underlying philosophy, you'll realize inclusion and tolerance are not 
really factored in. I think your scenario is kind of hopeful. (But, I 
concede, a possible outcome).

If there's one thing many Candians have learned through the
> years of watching Eastern Europe, Northern Ireland, and Africa tear
> themselves apart is that we don't want it to happen here.

I don't think they WANTED it to happen either....

  Yes there are
> lots of hotheads - plenty on all sides.  I think each of the various
> governments will squash them hard if they have to, to prevent a
devolution
> into war.

Like at APEC? (Sorry, Canadian joke - about a PM who siccs his 
Mounties on protesters....)

  To paraphrase (sort of) what someone else said in a recent post,
> Canadians have a radically different view or federal-provincial
relations
> AND patriotism/nationalism, and there really are not a lot of
Canadians who
> would be willing to fight and die to keep the country together.  Yes
the
> hot-heads, but not too many else.  Besides, if we did start to really
> fight, the Americans would be across the border in about six seconds -
what
> the heck else is Fort Drum for...?  :-)

Well, I think they'd wait till we were falling apart first, or were 
asked in which is quite likely. Quebec could not win a fight with us, 
but we won't fight them. They'll much more likely have internal 
security issues imposed by Mohawks, hardcore anglo Quebecois, and 
other minority groups. 

> >** No, due to the conflicts brewing up with the Natives. AND Canada's

> >defence establishment being stretched too thin and Quebec's desire to

> >(like any nation) have its own army. 
> 
> The sepratists have already started talking about post-separation
defense
> agreements as being logical...  Yes they want their own military - but
> there would not be much impetus to change the structure too
dramatically.
> It would not be in Quebec's interest to go it alone militarily - for
lots
> of reasons, and loss of international prestige and influence by losing
> membership in NORAD, NATO, etc would be one of the major ones.  The
Quebec
> military would be really tiny.

Yes, but then so is Canada's. Quebec's might be a fair size. And 
Surete would be powerful. Remember, the Surete de Quebec ordered 3 
Leopard IIs for 'transport of personel in conflict areas' or 
something like that. 
 
> No, they wouldn't be happy.  I hypothesized a cleaner situation with a
> nicer result because that worked better with the story line.	The
markets
> would be skeptical, but desperate for stability - nobody likes to lose
> money. 

Somebody always makes money. I don't think the state of the market 
does more than affect the smaller powers. The big ones move their 
money around all the time and can deal with this. 

And I think a native uprising doesn't rule out anything in the 
future. It just requires a solution which lets Quebec, Ontario, the 
Natives, and everyone into the NAC in the long run.

> I don't buy the "Native Civil War" scenario, romantic tho' it may be. 

Call it Insurrection. Call it Guerrilla War. Call it acts of 
Terrorism. Call it confrontation. Civil War might be to harsh a word. 

 Yes,
> I remember the Oka crisis - but that was a very limited scenario, out
of
> which both the Native community and the Quebec and Canadian
governments
> learned a great deal.

Sure. I have less faith in the lessons taking than you do apparently. 
I see too many of the PQ and BQ statements that scare me, and I see 
the frustration that isn't going away on behalf of the Native 
community. Especially the youth. 

  If the James Bay project didn't get a war started,
> with the Natives losing hundreds of thousands of acres of their land
to new
> lakes, it isn't going to happen.  Especially if the seperatists are
smart
> and co-opt the Natives with a guarentee of land rights (which is
possible)
> as part of the negotiated separation agreement. 

Okay, the other thing is you are treating 'The Natives' as a group. 
In reality, they are a number of fairly different groups. I can see 
the Mohawks provoking armed confrontation and guerrilla wars. 

Do you think the separatists are that bright?
 
> No, they aren't going to impeach him.  It was, dare I say it, a
joke... 

Sorry. I realize now your reply was tongue in cheek in places. I'm 
sorry if I seem over serious. I just didn't realize you were joking 
and I'm interested enough to take this game-serious...
 
> >This might be the end result, but I believe you'll have Civil War 
> >between Quebec and the Indians and a few nasty incidents or 
> >attrocities could well drag Canada into it.
> 
> I don't think this likely, but it would make for interesting headlines
at
> the very least...  Probably even get a 10 second clip and two or three
> lines on CNN.  <cynical g>

Well, it might get on New York local news. 
"This is Channel 10 in Watertown. Large Convoys of 5 ton trucks seen 
heading North towards the Mohawk Reserve bearing crates believed to 
contain the latest generation of Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile."
 
> What a horrible thought.  ...generations of Parizeaus whining and
insulting
> immigrants... 

Life isn't what we want, just what it is. And yes, this sucks. I 
could smack the people who allowed this to happen in the first place. 

> >Resolution of this issue is almost more science fiction-ish than any 
> >of the PSBs I've heard this month.
> 
> But what the heck, we're writing (science) fiction - so why not build
in a
> convenient end to the problem...

I don't know, we like SG2 scenarios. Native Irregulars versus Quebec 
National Army in the suburbs of Quebec City sure sounds like an 
interesting twist....

  The real issue here is how did the NAC
> form and what was Canada's place in it.  As I pointed out in another
post,
> I think this clean-cut resolution to "the Quebec problem" is rather
utopian
> and convenient, but it works for the storyline - and given that we
know
> that Quebec joins the NAC, I liked this type of scenario better than
the
> idea of us going out and conquering them again. 

Sure. I'd like a cleaner way to get there. But its time for me to put 
up or shutup. I've put on my thinking cap, and I'll give you an 
alternate view shortly. 

> Ireland isn't exactly a resource rich area.  Neither is Singapore. 
Both do
> really well with higher value-added industries like the high-tech
stuff.
> With intelligent investment in the Maritimes, maybe by using the money
> saved by eliminating massive governmental redundancies, they can start
down
> the same route.  And thirty years from now, when this "story" takes
place,
> they could be alot better off.

I'd agree, but I'm not sure of that entirely. Ireland is now becoming 
a tech haven for some valid reasons that the Maritimes could emulate. 
But at some level, you still lack some of the resources that help to 
make growth easier. 
 
There were
> several locations in the running, and Halifax is one of the preferred
> choices 'cause it is such a good deep-water anchorage.  It has a good
> location from a ship-to-Europe point of view, also - hence it's use as
the
> major jumping-off point for the WWII convoys to Britain and the Soviet
> Union. 

As long as they don't bring Ammo ships into the harbour.

  OK, the immigration has been mostly to Vancouver, Montreal and
> Toronto, but there will be a trickle-down to the rest of the country.
> That's why Calgary has a Chinatown today.

I thought that had more to do with the Japanese and Chinese running 
out of stuff to buy in Vancouver (and it getting more expensive) so 
they naturally take their investment capital inland.... which is by 
no means a bad thing for them or Calgary. 
 
I've been there. Good Tavernas and Restuarants. 

  We have the largest Carribean celebrations
> outside of the Carribean.

That's a huge tourist event. It lives in part because it makes huge 
tourist dollars. 

  We have one of the largest urban Italian
> speaking populations in the world, including many cities in Italy. 
You can
> go to restaurants from over 90 different cultures.

Vancouver has you beat for Restuarants. Something like 6500 or 
something like that. 
 
  But there's lots of
> faces to this city - it's a big place.  Multiculturalism here WORKS,
and
> works rather well.  Better than just about anywhere else, actually.

Hmm. That's a Toronto bit of propaganda I think you've bought into. I 
think it works pretty well in Sydney, London, Vancouver, and probably 
some US centres. But Toronto I do give credit for doing some things 
right. It just got too damn big for my personal taste. 

> >If the civil war affects Seattle, it'll affect Vancouver almost 
> >automatically.
> 
> Why?	Look at Yugoslavia.  Didn't (yet) suck in Romania, Austria and
some
> of the other CLOSE nations, and that has been a long, ugly war.

Not suck them in, but surely it affected them seriously.

> >Large.... ummm.... well, I guess to a Canadian... I think our 
> >southern neighbours wouldn't think they were too huge. 
> 
> Who knows what the Germans and the Brits will have parked out in the
> Prairies thirty years hence, with Germany already out of space and
Britain
> almost equally so...

Well, since Germany has had calls to withdraw its Battle Group and 
Britain has talked about doing the same, the truth may be nothing. I 
don't think so, but I don't think we'll see more than (at most) twice 
the current force levels.
 
> >This presumes Europe is stable enough for Germany to spare the force.

> >or had you only in mind the German Kampfgruppe in Manitoba?
> 
> I was only thinking of the German whatever in Manitoba, but see my
previous
> comment.  Heck - even now they have more tanks in Canada than we do -
well,
> so do the Brits actually, and it isn't saying much since we've only
got
> maybe a hundred...

Well, considering our tanks are Leopards.... the Germans could be 
said to have a LOT of tanks here....
 
> >Large relative to the battered survivors in the USA. not really large

> >compared to Pre war force formations. 
> 
 there'd be plenty of motivation to prevent some warlord from getting
> clever and annexing Alberta...  Remember this is taking place a long
time
> from now.  Look at the thirty years from 1918 to 1948.  We went from a
WWI
> army of *divisions* of troops, to an army with less than 500 regular
> officers pre-WWII, to over 1 million in uniform, and back down to what
-
> maybe a couple of brigades in 1948.  Don't sell us short.

Never. But don't cling to outmoded views of what war will be like, 
the time frames, or the cost of forces. I concede we can grow, but if 
we want to grow and maintain quality and professionalism levels we 
won't grow like we did in WW2. This is also NOT a hot war as you 
point out. 
 
> And yes, it would not be compared to pre-war formations.  But I highly
> doubt that the US military in 2020 will be as large as it is today.

A fair assessment. Shrunk by 20%, it will still leave us in the dust. 

  Not by
> a long shot - there's no way they'll be able to afford it, and
introduce
> all the wonder-tech they want to.  Not at $100 million per fighter and
$5
> million per tank.

Which is seen by the wiser heads as an error, but will likely be 
how they do it. 

  After several years of civil war, I imagine most of the
> high-tech gee-whiz stuff will have worn out or been destroyed -
probably
> much of it at the beginning of the conflict - and with the US
industrial
> infrastructure disrupted, they won't be replacing it as they destroy
it.

What about all the mothballed tanks and weaponry? Even their mothball 
storage might be equal to our best efforts.... and esp if those 
mothball reserves were captured by nutzo factions....

> So if Britain and Canada were to field large formations of troops,
> well-equipped *compared to their potential opposition*, they may well
be
> able to make a difference.  We aren't INVADING the US after all, just
> helping things get organized and aiding the US in helping itself -
that
> would be the ONLY way we could make a real difference, 'cause the US
is
> just too big.

Agreed. I just didn't see this enough in what you wrote. In defence 
of your story though, you tried to tell a huge sweeping epic in a 
couple of pages.
 
> Anyway, that's as far as Thomas got in this post.  I'll try and summon
the
> energy to tackle the other one sometime soon.

Not trying to kill anyone. Just want to participate and contribute. 
  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/