Front Burner Podcast Summary

Episode: What if the U.S. Invaded Canada?
Host: Jayme Poisson
Guest: Howard Coombs (Director, Queen's Centre for International and Defence Policy; retired CAF officer)
Date: February 18, 2025

Overview

In this gripping episode, Jayme Poisson explores a chilling and highly theoretical scenario: What would happen if the United States decided to invade or otherwise forcefully subsume Canada as its 51st state? With expert guest Howard Coombs, a military historian and policy expert, the episode examines the historic roots, practical likelihood, and possible repercussions of military or economic aggression. Through sobering hypotheticals and historical comparisons, the conversation uncovers the vulnerabilities, challenges, and urgent questions facing Canadian sovereignty in a time of renewed friction with the U.S.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Theoretical Possibility of a U.S. Invasion

• Likelihood:

  • Coombs emphasizes that a U.S. military invasion is an “incredibly remote possibility” (03:13) but argues it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility if economic coercion fails (05:24).
    • “The chances I think of it occurring are slim at the most.” (03:13, Coombs)
  • Current tensions are unprecedented in post-WWII history, but prior U.S.-Canada hostilities and war plans existed in the 18th–early 20th centuries.

• Economic War Already Underway:

  • Coombs provocatively suggests that the U.S. is already “at war” with Canada—through economic instruments rather than military force (05:24).

2. How a Military Takeover Would Unfold

• U.S. Military Doctrine:

  • Any action would likely mirror old U.S. “War Plan Red”–style plans:
    • Targeting western, central, and eastern fronts; isolating population centers like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Quebec City.
  • Size and Readiness Gap:
    • U.S. could mobilize about a million troops (National Guard, Reserve, active) versus Canada's all-in of ~60,000 (06:55).

• Tactics and First Steps:

  • Likely opening with cyber/information operations—disabling communications and infrastructure before any physical incursion (07:59).
  • Use of precision strikes and special operations, aiming to minimize civilian casualties and physical destruction:
    • “You would see special operations used to a significant degree... the United States Special Operation Command ... is almost as large as the Canadian forces.” (09:32, Coombs)
  • Comparison to NATO’s occupation/engagement rules in Afghanistan: minimize collateral damage and civilian harm (08:43).

3. Historical Comparisons to Occupation and Resistance

• Examples of Overrun Nations:

  • Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (1979); Nazi occupations in Europe (Netherlands, Norway, France).
  • Most of the population complied or stayed out of resistance, with very few active resisters (12:39).
  • “It divides population in three groups... The resisters were a very small group...” (13:12, Coombs)

• Canadian Precedents:

  • Instances of homegrown resistance/insurgency: the FLQ in Quebec (1960s), Oka Crisis (Mohawk of Kanesatake, 1990) (16:19).

• Viability of Canadian Resistance:

  • Coombs is skeptical a significant insurgency would materialize, citing historical patterns and lack of geography for outside support (17:10):
    • “Sustaining it over time is very difficult without outside support...” (17:10, Coombs)
  • Vietnam, Algeria, and Irish examples all relied on porous borders and substantial foreign backing.

4. Why Outside Support Is Unlikely

• Geography and Military Realities:

  • Canada is geographically isolated, with no “friendly borders” for smuggling arms or supplies into an insurgency (18:02).
  • NORAD makes it extremely difficult for aircraft or subs to resupply resistance operations (19:00).

• Allies’ Limitations:

  • Even strong allies like the UK would struggle to effectively support a Canadian resistance compared to European resistances during WWII (18:40).

5. Economic Domination as the Real Threat

• Client-State Scenario:

  • Most likely, Coombs predicts economic coercion could lead to client-state status, as the U.S. has done elsewhere (e.g., Philippines):
    • “United States doesn’t need to physically invade us to dominate us. And we’re already seeing this...” (21:38, Coombs)

• Canadian Weaknesses:

  • Canada has little effective military capability or preparedness:
    • “We have no air defense capability left in Canada. We have almost no tanks... almost no artillery...” (22:45, Coombs)

6. Potential Off-Ramps and What Canada Must Do

• Sovereignty and Self-Reliance:

  • Need to reestablish an industrial/home manufacturing base, look for new alliances, and reinvest in essential sectors—not just throw money at the military (24:00).
    • “We need to start encouraging home industries. We need to start re establishing our industrial base ... and our high tech sectors...” (24:07, Coombs)

• Military Investment:

  • Beyond short-term spending, the answer is a long-term strategy for recruitment, training, and procurement (25:27).
    • “Our military right now is at such a low capability, we could throw money at it... and it wouldn’t change much...” (25:27, Coombs)
  • Canada needs to reclaim its status as a “middle power,” form new international ties, and recognize that economics is now a front line of conflict (26:46).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the (Im)probability of Invasion:

  • “The chances I think of it occurring are slim at the most.” (03:13; Coombs)

• On U.S. Economic Leverage:

  • “I would argue that right now the United States is at war with us, and they're using their economic instrument of power...” (04:26; Coombs)

• On Canada’s Military Capacity:

  • “We have almost no tanks left in Canada. We have almost no artillery left in Canada.” (22:45; Coombs)
  • “Their [U.S. special operations forces] command is almost as large as the Canadian forces.” (09:32; Coombs)

• On the Limits of Resistance:

  • “Sustaining [resistance] over time is very difficult without outside support...” (17:10; Coombs)
  • “If the United States did a physical invasion ... and it was accomplished fairly quickly, the desire to fight them would be very low.” (12:53; Coombs)

• On National Self-Reliance:

  • “We need to start encouraging home industries... and reinvest in Canada as a nation ... it's doable.” (24:07; Coombs)

• Jayme’s Closing Tone:

  • “It was useful and interesting and I would also say equal parts disconcerting.” (27:08; Poisson)

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 03:13 — Coombs outlines the remote possibility of U.S. invasion and sets historic context.
• 05:48 — Steps of a hypothetical U.S. military offensive against Canada.
• 07:59 — Detailed breakdown of tactics: cyber/infrastructure attacks, special operations.
• 11:20 — Historical analogies (Afghanistan 1979, Nazi occupations, Dutch resistance).
• 16:19 — Canadian resistance history: FLQ, Oka Crisis, Alberta militias.
• 17:45 — Viability (or lack thereof) for a Canadian insurgency/guerrilla war.
• 18:40 — Why outside support from allies is an unlikely lifeline.
• 21:01 — Economic domination and the “client state” scenario.
• 24:07 — Prescription for independence: home industries, alliances, military reform.
• 25:27 — Realistic assessment of military investment and national priorities.

Tone and Conclusion

The episode offers a sober, unsentimental, and sometimes unsettling perspective on the vulnerabilities of Canada—militarily, economically, and geo-strategically—in a new era of American pressure. Coombs’s reflections, rooted in military history and candid realism, challenge Canadians to confront their complacencies while recognizing the profound costs and responsibilities of true sovereignty.

For listeners seeking a “what if” scenario grounded in expert analysis and real-world constraints, this episode of Front Burner delivers both a wake-up call and a nuanced look at Canada’s vulnerabilities in a rapidly shifting geopolitical moment.