Only 11 nuclear bombs to 'take out' Canada

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | 7 January 2002 | David Pugliese

[Styria]

There are Indians in Madagascar.

[Poohbah]

Scott beat them with Regulars and Jackson beat them with Militia and swamp pirates

And our invasion of Canada was an abject failure, Washington, DC was torched, and the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent, which basically said "no hurt, no foul."

Oh, and the Royal Navy continued press-ganging sailors off of American ships well into the 1830s.

After Waterloo they could have come back, but they didn't!

The war had been over for almost a year by that point, and the British had achieved their strategic objectives. Why go back when you don't NEED to?

WE WON .... BIG TIME!

Let's see, the British objectives were to (a) hold Canada, (b) destroy American overseas trade, and (c) obtain war termination on favorable terms--in particular, retaining the right to press-gang sailors from American merchant ships. All accomplished. Our goals were to (a) seize Canada from the Great Lakes eastward to the Atlantic seaboard, on the assumption that the rest would just fall into our laps afterward, and (b) end the Royal Navy's practice of grabbing sailors off of American ships, thus allowing for (c) war termination on favorable terms. None of these were accomplished.

Nations go to war to obtain things unobtainable by peaceful means. Please note that WE started the War of 1812. We failed to achieve our national goals in same.

Any questions?

Yeah. Is your historical ignorance a product of the public education system or Hollywood?

[Poohbah]

Whoa. Did I just enter a B-movie?

Yes.

[Dr. Luv]

"with a country with an entire population of what? 20 Million if that,"

Sigh, another example of someone educated in the public school system...

[HamiltonJay]

"with a country with an entire population of what? 20 Million if that,"

Sigh, another example of someone educated in the public school system...

Oh I'm sorry, its actually just over 30 Million, that makes the country so much more impressive. Don't get me wrong I like canadians, they are funny people and during the cold war it was good to know there was some cannon fodder up north in case the russians came over the pole.

But please, no nation that lets itself be ruled by wanna be french liberals is ever, EVER going to be taken seriously in the modern world.

Hey what every happened to that Molsen guy, that was the personification of everything Canadian? What was that characters name Joe Canada? Oh right, he came down to america so he could have more opportunity and earn more money... So much for Mr. Canada.

[HamiltonJay]

"with a country with an entire population of what? 20 Million if that,"

Sigh, another example of someone educated in the public school system...

Oh I'm sorry, its actually just over 30 Million, that makes the country so much more impressive. Don't get me wrong I like canadians, they are funny people and during the cold war it was good to know there was some cannon fodder up north in case the russians came over the pole.

But please, no nation that lets itself be ruled by wanna be french liberals is ever, EVER going to be taken seriously in the modern world.

Hey what every happened to that Molsen guy, that was the personification of everything Canadian? What was that characters name Joe Canada? Oh right, he came down the U.S of A. so he could have more opportunity and earn more money... So much for Mr. Canada.

[Leisler]

Don't tell me Canada is a island in the Indian Ocean. Hey, "Indian"? Oh, my god, there must be thousand of islands. Hey, maybe it is an "11" island chain? Hummmm......

[Dr. Luv]

Good gravy man - does your stupidity have ANY boundaries? Canada is the second largest nation on earth and is home to a wealth of resources that we need - now and in the future. Canada is our largest trading partner - we buy and sell more stuff to Canadians than we do with any other nation

Canada is more like the U.S. than any other country. We share a similar economy, culture and values with these folks and they were always there when we needed them (the Iranian crisis comes to mind). This pointless and idiotic Canada bashing must stop. I am embarrased that Canadians may think that all conservatives despise them as much as you do.

You sir are sad proof that not all Freepers have above average IQs.

[Mr. Lucky]

I think what amuses freepers about Canadians is that such an inherently fine and decent people are so adamant to become vassal servants to an ever more lunatic series of socialist governments. In other words, in Canada we see America's future. Ours is just gallows humor.

[watcher1]

The war had been over for almost a year by that point

Not True

Waterloo and Napoleon's capitulation and exile happened in June of 1815.
That's about 6 months after the treaty and about 5 months after the Battle of New Orleans.
If the brits thought they could take us, they would have come back. They didn't

BTW I studied the official US Army version of Military History.

What branch of the government taught you?

[Tennessee_Bob]

Of course, at the current exchange rate, it would actually only take 8.5 US Nuclear Weapons.

[watcher1]

We share a similar economy, culture and values with these folks and they were always there when we needed them

Nonsense

Don't get me started!

[Poohbah]

Yeah, the "official" history that glosses over such things as Bladensburg (the Marines fought it alone because the vaunted RACs and the vaunted militia were fleeing for their lives).

Like I said, the British accomplished their national goals--American overseas trade was destroyed (to be replaced by English goods and merchants), they were still able to press-gang American sailors from American ships (and did so), and they lost no territory. They didn't NEED to come back. And we accomplished WHAT, exactly? Please remember that the US declared war on England first.

As for my sources of education, it's from my own reading. The public schools do a fine job of glossing over 1812, mostly because it's so damn embarrassing.

Note that the folks that STARTED the war didn't savor the fruits thereof--or just how do you think Andy Jackson got to be President, anyway?

[watcher1]

and they lost no territory

Or it could be said that WE lost no territory.
We took on the most powerful army in the world and fought to a draw.
That's a big win

[Poohbah]

That would be something--if it were (a) against the most powerful army in the world (the Russians might disagree with you) and (b) it was really a draw (any war with England is going to be a test of seapower--and that test was most assuredly a failure on the American side).

I measure our performance in the War of 1812 against our accomplishment of our objectives vis-a-vis English accomplishment of THEIR objectives. We had certain goals in mind when declared war in the first place. We achieved exactly ZERO of those goals. The British accomplished all of their objectives.

That's a pretty solid win in my book.

[watcher1]

That's a pretty solid win in my book.

OK, OK....Lets get our definitions straight.
My definition of loosing a war with england is loosing our sovereignty i.e.. becoming subjects again. Queen on the money, tea time, no guns, etc.

Your definition of winning is: conquering canuckistan, hanging the queen and sinking the fleet.

We're never gonna se eye to eye on this one Amigo.
Let's call it a draw.

[Poohbah]

OK, then by your definition, Vietnam was a win-win.

Dude, it is entirely possible to lose a war and not lose one's sovereignty--witness America in Vietnam, England at the time of the Treaty of Amiens, the USSR in Afghanistan.

[watcher1]

Vietnam was a win-win.

No. We were never a colony of Vietnam's. We were a colony of england's.
We went to war with england ( for whatever reasons ) and retained our independence.
That's a win.

BTW The aim of the brits was to conquer us and bring us back into the empire. Yes or No?

[GOP_1900AD]

I am with you there. My statement was 100% in terms of his politics. In his principle areas of study in Physics, he was a great man.

[GOP_1900AD]

You might be overstating the effects of the warheads. For example, to completely devestate the greater Los Angeles area, somewhere between 30 and 60 warheads would be required. It would all depend on yield and altitude, with the obvious trade offs of ground bursts being ones of high overpressure and rapid radial decline in power, versus airbursts, with overall lower overpressure but impacting a wide area with moderate overpressure. Topography also plays a role. The thing about nukes is the law of diminishing return - due to the disipation of the energy (both mechanical and radioactive) with the square of the distance from the detonation point, it requires a huge increase in megatonnage to noticeably increase the effects of a given warhead. That's why most nuclear powers have steered away from the "citybusters" of yore in favor of warheads in the 1 - 50 KT range of yield. Not only are they smaller and MIRVable, they are adaptable to multiple platforms and uses, ranging from counterforce attacks against an adversary's own nuclear forces, to more mundane uses such as punching large holes in conventional forces and supply lines. Just really big munitions, with some radioactive side effects, but no nuclear winter, no doomsday. The sooner we realize this, the better prepared we will be for their eventual use (against us and by us). Peace never lasts. War always arrives.