Want to take a star off the flag? Invade Canada.

Forget making Canada the 51st state—an invasion would end America.

I cannot believe I must write this, but here we are.

A viral TikTok with 20 million views is claiming that Canada is preparing for war with the U.S.—and people are taking it seriously:

@itskatarnettThis isn’t a joke, it’s extremely serious. If you speak to an American please tell them what is going on. #truenorth #canadian

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

My good friend Olivia has the right take: this isn’t about attacking Canada—it’s about pushing the boundaries of international norms. And that’s bad enough.

But let’s be clear: the idea that the U.S. would invade Canada is beyond insane. It’s not just reckless—it’s suicidal. America wouldn’t be adding a 51st state. It would be signing its death warrant.

And yet, we are led by a man who admires dictators, despises allies, and has no grasp of military strategy—so I’ve stopped saying “That would never happen.” If I were Justin Trudeau, I’d stop saying it, too.

So, let’s entertain the absurd: What if the U.S. actually tried to invade Canada?

The answer is simple: it would be the greatest strategic disaster in American history—one that could end the Republic itself.

Let’s talk about why.

Canada is not Iraq

Let’s be clear about who we’d be attacking. These are not insurgents running around in sandals with AK-47s, yelling “Allahu Akbar!” from behind rocks, or a rag-tag third-world army with crappy Soviet-made weapons and officers who had three minutes of tactical school.

The Canadians have front-line weapons, combat discipline, exceptionally well-trained leadership, and troops that are the best in the world. The Germans in WWII referred to the Canadian/American special combat force as “Die Teufelsbrigade” (The Devil’s Brigade), and with good reason. The Nazis called the Canadian forces at the battle of the Somme “Sturmtruppen” (stormtroopers - elite shock troops.) Canadian troops are well-armed and well-supplied, and they would be fighting on their own turf. They know the terrain better than any invading force ever could, and they would have every possible advantage.

This would not be Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, or even Vietnam. It would be the most serious conflict since the invasion of Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, or Gettysburg. And this time, the enemy would see us coming. The Canadians know American doctrine, strategy, and tactics inside and out. Why? Because they helped develop them. They are integrated into our intelligence channels. We gather intelligence alongside them. The notion that we could somehow keep an invasion of Canada a secret is laughable. The moment we cut off intelligence sharing, they would immediately know an attack was imminent. From that point forward, they would know exactly what to expect and how to counter it.

If this nonsense about annexing Canada into the United States as the 51st state is meant to be a joke, it’s not a funny one. If it’s meant to be serious, then we are dealing with a level of ignorance that is truly terrifying.

Canada is not Iraq. And Trump is not a leader.

Highly Trained and Capable Forces

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) consist of three branches: the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). Each branch operates with NATO-level training and coordination, ensuring that it remains combat-ready for a range of conventional and asymmetric threats. Canada has long deployed troops alongside U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and various peacekeeping missions, demonstrating its professionalism and battle readiness.

• Army – The Canadian Army is well-equipped with modern armored vehicles, artillery, and advanced surveillance systems. They operate Leopard 2 main battle tanks, LAV 6.0 armored fighting vehicles, and M777 howitzers—highly effective in defensive operations.

• Navy – The RCN commands a fleet of Halifax-class frigates, Victoria-class submarines, and Arctic patrol vessels that extend Canadian military reach beyond its borders. Their ability to patrol the North Atlantic and Arctic ensures significant control over key maritime areas.

• Air Force – The RCAF maintains a formidable fleet of CF-18 Hornets (soon to be replaced by F-35 Lightning II jets), CC-177 Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft, and a sophisticated air defense network. Their NORAD integration with U.S. forces ensures immediate threat detection and response.

Home Turf Advantage

The biggest factor in Canada’s defense strategy is geography. A U.S. invasion would require overcoming massive logistical challenges:

• Canada has vast, open landscapes with extreme winter conditions, making large-scale troop movements difficult.

• Canada’s road and rail networks are designed for economic use, not military invasions, creating natural chokepoints.

• Canada’s major urban centers are clustered, making guerilla warfare and urban resistance highly effective.

Deep NATO Integration and Strategic Partnerships

Canada’s membership in NATO and its alliances with the U.K., Australia, and European partners mean any attack would likely trigger a global response. Canadian forces regularly train with U.S. and allied forces, meaning they know American strategies, tactics, and weaknesses.

Cyber and Intelligence Warfare

Canada’s signals intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), works alongside the NSA and GCHQ in digital warfare. Any U.S. attack would be met with immediate countermeasures in cyberwarfare, disrupting logistics, command structures, and even domestic infrastructure.

What It Would Take

The idea of attacking Canada is so absurd that Hollywood made a comedy about it - “Canadian Bacon,” starring Alan Alda, John Candy, Michael Moore, Rhea Pearlman, Kevin Pollak, Jim Belushi, and Rip Torn. (It also has “Never Start a Land in Asia!” from The Princess Bride, the great Wallace Shawn, whom I love as a character actor.) It’s hysterical - until now. Now it’s a freaking prescient Nostradamusian tome.

If the U.S. seriously attempted to invade and subjugate Canada without using nuclear weapons, it would require one of the most extensive military operations in modern history—on par with D-Day or the Gulf War. Success would not be guaranteed, and the effort would be fraught with extreme logistical, strategic, and geopolitical challenges. Here’s my “back of the envelope” (literally, I did this on the back of an envelope on my desk) calculation of what it would take¹:

1. Full-Scale Military Mobilization

The U.S. military would have to divert massive resources to launch and sustain an invasion of Canada. This would require:

• Hundreds of thousands of ground troops deployed across multiple fronts. The U.S. would need at least 750,000 combat troops (likely more, I estimated, about 60 divisions minimum) to establish minimal control over the major cities and infrastructure. This is minimal control. Minimal control is hardly what you want, I’d add. Ideally, you’d want 200 divisions (but we don’t have 200 to deploy.)

• Massive logistical support, including fuel, food, medical supplies, and winter warfare gear, given Canada's harsh climate. We’re talking $10K in supplies per person per day. That’s millions of dollars in weekly supplies for 60-200 divisions.

• Extended supply lines stretching thousands of miles across rugged, sometimes impassable terrain. Unlike Iraq, where supply routes were easily secured, Canada’s terrain would make resupply operations far more vulnerable to Canadian counterattacks and sabotage. That means the cost of supplies goes up, so now it costs 20-30K per man because we’re losing the supplies to insurgents.

2. Key Strategic Objectives & Theaters of Operation

To subdue Canada, the U.S. would need to control its major population centers, key transportation hubs, and critical infrastructure while cutting off Canadian military capabilities. Here’s what that would look like:

Eastern Front: Seizing Ontario and Quebec

• Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal are Canada’s largest and most strategically significant cities. Capturing these would be essential for controlling Canada’s government and economy.

• The U.S. would likely invade from New York, Michigan, and Maine, launching simultaneous assaults on major cities and cutting off reinforcements.

• Challenges: Canada’s highly urbanized population in these regions means massive resistance and guerrilla warfare, similar to urban fighting in Iraq but with an enemy that has modern weaponry and home-field advantage.

Western Front: Securing Alberta and British Columbia

• The U.S. would need to seize Vancouver, Canada’s key Pacific port, and Calgary and Edmonton, which are vital for oil and energy production.

• The Rocky Mountains present an enormous natural defensive barrier, making any invasion slow and costly.

• Canadian forces could use mountain terrain to devastating effect, harassing U.S. supply lines in ways that would make Afghanistan look like a minor inconvenience.

Northern Front: Controlling the Arctic & Resources

• Canada controls the Arctic’s vital waterways and resources, and the U.S. would need to secure these to prevent Canadian or allied reinforcements from retaking occupied territory.

• This would require dominance in Arctic warfare, an area where Canada already has an advantage. The extreme conditions would heavily favor defending forces.

3. Overwhelming Air & Naval Superiority

The U.S. military would need to completely dominate Canadian airspace and waters to prevent counterattacks and maintain supply lines.

• Air Superiority: The U.S. would deploy massive air assets, including F-22s, F-35s, and B-2 bombers, to destroy Canadian air defenses. However, Canada’s NORAD integration means it would have prior warning of any attack.

• Naval Dominance: The U.S. Navy would blockade Canada’s eastern and western ports, cutting off international reinforcements. However, Canadian submarines and naval forces would still pose a serious threat.

4. The Force Required to “Win”

Assuming Canada fights to the bitter end, here’s what it would take for the U.S. to subjugate Canada:

• 500,000 to 1,000,000 U.S. troops deployed across the country.

• Full air and naval dominance for extended bombing campaigns.

• Multi-year occupation force of at least 300,000 troops, with ongoing counterinsurgency operations.

• Trillions of dollars in war costs, supply chain logistics, and reconstruction efforts.

Even if the U.S. achieved initial military victories, occupying Canada would be more challenging than occupying Iraq or Afghanistan. The Canadian population would likely resist occupation at every level, forcing the U.S. into a long, drawn-out insurgency.

Attacking Canada wouldn’t just be an act of aggression. It would be the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history. People will fondly remember Custer after Trump invaded Canada.

General Trumpster & The Trail of Idiocy

Despite having the most powerful military in the world, the United States does not have the necessary force structure to invade, occupy, and control Canada successfully. The logistical, manpower, and strategic requirements far exceed the capacity of the U.S. military as it exists today. Here’s why:

1. The U.S. Military is Not Built for Large-Scale Territorial Conquest

The U.S. military is designed for power projection, not occupation. It is structured to deploy overwhelming force in short, decisive campaigns—not sustain long-term occupations against well-armed, industrialized nations.

• Force Size: The U.S. has roughly 1.3 million active-duty personnel and 800,000 reservists. But only a fraction of this force is combat-ready for sustained operations.

• Combat Troop Availability: At any given time, less than 500,000 ground troops (Army and Marines) are deployable for high-intensity combat. This is nowhere near enough to subdue and hold a country as large as Canada.

• Occupation Requirements: Military doctrine suggests that effective occupation requires 20 troops per 1,000 civilians. With 39 million Canadians, that would require nearly 800,000 troops for long-term stability operations—which the U.S. simply does not have.

In contrast, even during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the U.S. struggled to maintain a 150,000-troop presence in just two relatively small countries.

2. The Geography Problem: Canada is Too Big to Control

Canada’s sheer size makes military control nearly impossible. With nearly 10 million square kilometers, it is the second-largest country in the world—larger than the entire U.S.

• The U.S. would have to stretch its military across multiple time zones, controlling vast forests, tundras, mountain ranges, and sprawling urban centers.

• There are only a few key roads and railways connecting Canada’s population centers, which would be easily sabotaged by Canadian defenders.

• Canada’s winter conditions would severely limit U.S. troop movement, supply chains, and combat effectiveness. Even in modern warfare, logistics is everything—and Canada’s geography favors defenders.

A force struggling to control Baghdad and Kabul would be completely incapable of subduing Canada’s massive, diverse terrain.

3. U.S. Industrial and Logistical Capacity is Insufficient

Even if the U.S. were willing to commit to a full-scale invasion, its military-industrial complex does not have the production capacity to sustain such an effort.

• Ammunition and Equipment: The U.S. is already struggling to produce enough munitions for Ukraine and Taiwan. A war against Canada would require exponentially more tanks, armored vehicles, and precision-guided munitions.

• Manpower Shortages: The U.S. military is facing a recruitment crisis, struggling to meet enlistment goals. Expanding the military to invasion levels would require a draft, which would be politically impossible.

• Supply Lines Vulnerability: Unlike previous wars fought overseas, U.S. supply lines in a Canadian invasion would be constantly disrupted by sabotage, harsh weather, and Canadian resistance fighters.

Put simply: the U.S. military was not built for a war of this scale.

4. Canadian Resistance Would Bleed the U.S. Dry

I found this idiotic flag available for sale on a website when I was doing research for this piece as “Trump Flags” about the 51st State. I’m beside myself. There were about five such flag variants you could buy at various MAGA/Trump websites, all looking to cash in on “51st State” lunacy. As H.L. Mencken allegedly said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”

Let’s assume the U.S. somehow captured key Canadian cities—then what? The real fight would begin.

• Canadian Guerrilla Warfare: The moment an occupation began, every Canadian town and province would turn into a high-tech insurgency.

• NATO and International Backlash: Unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, Canada would immediately receive massive military aid from the United Kingdom, the European Union, and other NATO allies. The U.S. would be fighting not just Canada, but a global coalition.

• Domestic Political Chaos: The American public would not support a drawn-out war against a democratic neighbor. Protests, economic turmoil, and potential civil unrest would cripple the U.S. war effort.

Even in the best-case scenario, the U.S. military would be bled dry by a protracted conflict. And then, things get interesting because we haven’t even talked about how the war widens when the rest of the NATO alliance gets involved, and they will get involved.

Canada’s Allies and the NATO Response

Even if the U.S. could overcome its logistical, manpower, and strategic shortcomings, it would face an even more significant obstacle: Canada is not alone. An attack on Canada would trigger a global military and economic response that would turn a disastrous invasion into a full-blown catastrophe for the United States.

1. NATO’s Collective Defense Clause (Article 5)

Canada is a founding member of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the world’s most powerful military alliance. According to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

• The moment U.S. forces crossed the border, every NATO member would be obligated to respond militarily.

• This would immediately turn a Canada-U.S. war into a NATO-U.S. war, with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and other major European powers deploying troops, aircraft, and naval assets.

• The logistical burden on the U.S. military would increase exponentially, as it would no longer be fighting a single country but a coalition of industrialized nations with cutting-edge militaries. We’re not fighting one great military, but 12 of them - France, Germany, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy (not to mention 18 decent ones that make up the 30 in NATO.)

Even if the U.S. were arrogant enough to believe it could defeat Canada alone, it would never survive a war against NATO.

2. The United Kingdom: Canada’s Closest Ally

The United Kingdom, Canada’s historic and military ally, would immediately intervene.

• While smaller than the U.S. forces, the British military is highly capable and technologically advanced. They would provide airpower, special forces, and naval dominance in the Atlantic.

• The SAS and British Royal Marines would train and assist Canadian resistance fighters, just as they did against ISIS and the Taliban. Again, we’re facing another special force that knows our doctrine, strategy, and tactics. They also have a detailed understanding of our infrastructure in all of our major cities since these special force brigades have been assisting the United States in fighting terrorism for the past twenty years.

• The Royal Navy, backed by NATO fleets, would blockade U.S. trade routes and disrupt American supply chains. They would also be able to attack US naval assets, including US carriers. The British and French submarines are just as good as US submarines; they know our tactics and have similar weapons and capabilities. Naval losses could be staggering.

A war against Canada would inevitably become a war against the UK, turning global opinion against the United States.

3. The European Response

While the U.S. remains a dominant military power, a war against Canada would shatter its European alliances.

• Germany, France, and other EU powers would likely contribute forces to Canada while using their economic leverage to cripple the U.S. war effort.

• Military support from NATO could include Eurofighter Typhoons, Leopard II tanks, and advanced air defense systems, making an invasion even more costly for the U.S. The Leopard II is just as capable as the M1A2 Abrams currently deployed (they even use the same armaments package.)

• Sanctions and Economic Warfare: Even if European nations didn’t engage militarily, they would cripple the U.S. economy with severe sanctions, cutting off vital resources and trade.

The United States depends on European allies for logistics, intelligence, and technology. A war against Canada would destroy these relationships overnight.

4. Australia and New Zealand: The Pacific Front

While they may seem distant, Australia and New Zealand would almost certainly respond in defense of Canada.

• Australia’s military is deeply integrated with Canada’s and would likely deploy forces to assist in logistics and active combat.

• New Zealand’s intelligence capabilities (part of the Five Eyes alliance) would be used to counter U.S. movements and support Canadian cyber operations.

• The Pacific region would suddenly become a second front in the war, further overextending U.S. forces.

A war with Canada would not stay confined to North America—it would become a global war spanning multiple continents.

5. The Economic Fallout: China and Russia’s Opportunity

While China and Russia might not intervene militarily, they would exploit the situation.

• China would likely use the distraction to increase its influence in Asia, challenge U.S. dominance in the Pacific, or even invade Taiwan.

• Russia would see this as an opportunity to expand its sphere of influence in Europe or the Arctic.

• The U.S. dollar, stock markets, and global trade networks would collapse as sanctions and trade wars erupted worldwide.

The global balance of power would shift—and not in America’s favor.

This entire time, I’ve been ignoring my friends in the Pentagon. While the “battle abroad” would be one thing. The entire idea that we’d attack an ally unprovoked would create a “battle at home” that would fracture civilian/military relations and create an unparalleled crisis.

How U.S. Military Leadership Would Respond

An order to invade Canada would immediately divide the U.S. military’s leadership, creating a historic crisis within the chain of command. While some generals and defense officials would undoubtedly recognize the insanity of such an operation, others—particularly those who have aligned themselves politically rather than strategically—could be willing enablers of a disastrous war.

1. The Military’s Oath: The First Line of Resistance

Every officer and enlisted member of the U.S. military swears an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

• An unprovoked attack on Canada would be illegal, violating international law and the U.S. Constitution, which binds the nation to its treaties, including NATO.

• Military leaders are trained to recognize and resist unlawful orders—a doctrine reinforced since the Nuremberg Trials.

• Professional military officers—those who take their duty seriously—would resist this order, refuse to carry it out, or work behind the scenes to delay, stall, or outright block it.

However, the question isn’t whether the generals know this is a reckless, unwinnable war. They do. The real question is: would they all resist it?

2. The Professional vs. Political Officers

The modern U.S. military is not immune to political influence. While the majority of senior military leaders are professional, strategic, and duty-bound to the Constitution, recent years have revealed a growing faction of politically motivated officers who are less concerned with military strategy and more concerned with ideological loyalty.

• Career officers with battlefield experience—those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and worked alongside Canada in NATO operations—would immediately recognize this war as suicidal and work to prevent it.

• Trump-aligned political officers, such as those promoted or supported for their loyalty rather than competence, could encourage the decision rather than oppose it.

• Figures like Pete Hegseth (the “DUI Hire”), a media personality with deep influence in Trumpist circles, would likely cheer this on, pushing a narrative that America must "reclaim" Canada or "teach Trudeau a lesson." These figures, lacking strategic experience, would provide political cover for a disastrous war.

This division within military leadership would create chaos inside the Pentagon, with some generals openly resisting, resigning, or leaking information. In contrast, others execute reckless plans to curry favor with political leadership.

3. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Would Face a Defining Moment

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. Armed Forces. While the CJCS does not have operational command authority (meaning they do not give direct orders to troops), their influence over military planning and execution is unparalleled.

• If the Chairman is a seasoned, independent-minded officer, they would likely advise the President against the war, stall operations, or leak to Congress to trigger resistance.

• If the Chairman is a political appointee more concerned with loyalty than strategy, they could greenlight the operation, pressure lower-ranking officers to comply, and actively suppress dissent.

This decision would define the future of the U.S. military, determining whether it remains a professional force bound by law and strategy or a politicized tool of a reckless executive.

At the moment, General Charles Brown is a seasoned, competent, independent-minded officer. That is partly why President Trump and his cronies have talked so much about reviewing officers and dismissing those they find disloyal, attempting to bring officers into these positions more “pliable,” to their point of view. I believe that Gen. Brown would oppose any decision to attack an ally. I also believe that the Combatant Commanders (who also exercise tremendous authority under Title X) would oppose and refuse to execute orders to attack an ally. I believe their command staff would refuse such an order to attack an ally. How far that refusal to attack an ally would go remains unclear.

4. The Internal Revolt: Officers Would Resign, Leak, and Resist

If an invasion of Canada were ordered, expect a wave of resignations, internal sabotage, and leaks to the press and Congress from those who refuse to go along with it.

• Senior generals, admirals, and intelligence officials who recognize the suicidal nature of this war would likely leak details to allies, NATO, and the media in a desperate attempt to stop it.

• High-level resignations would send a clear message that the war is illegitimate, but that wouldn’t necessarily stop those who remain in power from proceeding.

• Junior officers and field commanders might follow the lead of their more experienced superiors, creating mass confusion in the chain of command.

A U.S. military divided against itself would be one of the greatest vulnerabilities in such a conflict. The moment the Pentagon fractures, the war is already lost.

5. The Role of Congress and Civilian Oversight

The military does not exist in a vacuum—Congress has oversight of military funding, war declarations, and the ability to impeach a reckless Commander-in-Chief.

• A bipartisan coalition in Congress would likely emerge to stop the war, knowing that such an invasion would cripple the economy, alienate U.S. allies, and likely destroy America’s global standing.

• Congressional hearings, investigations, and threats to cut off military funding could slow or halt the operation—assuming the executive branch didn’t attempt to bypass legislative authority.

• However, if the President had enough loyalists in Congress willing to rubber-stamp his actions, it could create a constitutional crisis, where the government splinters over the war's legality.

This wouldn’t just be a war against Canada—it would be a war that fractures the very foundations of American democracy.

The Pentagon Would Be at War With Itself

A U.S. invasion of Canada wouldn’t just lead to disaster on the battlefield—it would ignite a civil-military crisis within the United States itself.

• Professional military leaders would resist, resign, or attempt to block the order.

• Loyalist officers, political appointees, and ideologues would push the war forward, regardless of the consequences.

• The Pentagon would descend into chaos, with internal sabotage, leaks, and infighting tearing apart U.S. military cohesion.

• Congress and civilian leadership would face a constitutional crisis, with some factions working to stop the war while others enable it.

At best, this would end in the largest military mutiny in modern U.S. history. At worst, it would set the stage for an internal power struggle that cripples American democracy itself.

The only war the U.S. would win in this scenario is the war against its credibility. And history would remember it as the moment America destroyed itself over a delusion.

Conclusion: The only winning move is not to play

At every level—militarily, strategically, politically, and economically—the idea of the United States successfully invading and occupying Canada is an outright impossibility.

1. The U.S. lacks the manpower, logistical capacity, and political will to sustain an occupation of Canada.

2. Canada's military is highly trained, well-armed, and deeply integrated with U.S. doctrine, making them a formidable opponent.

3. The terrain and climate would make a U.S. invasion a nightmare, stretching supply lines and exposing vulnerabilities.

4. Canada’s allies—particularly NATO, the U.K., and the European Union—would turn this into a global war, ensuring the U.S. could never win.

5. The economic fallout would be catastrophic, pushing the U.S. into a deep recession or even collapse, while adversaries like China and Russia seize the opportunity to advance their own interests.

6. The entire idea threatens to cause an implosion of the greatest military ever created in the history of mankind and destabilize the entire United States Government in the process.

At the end of this thought experiment, one thing is obvious: the only war we’d win in this scenario is the war against our own credibility. A war against Canada wouldn’t just be an act of madness—it would be the moment America ceases to be a global power. The United States wouldn’t just lose a war. We’d lose everything.

The only sane course of action is maintaining Canada as an ally, not an enemy. Any leader who seriously suggests otherwise is either delusional, dangerously incompetent, or both.

If Trump wants to be remembered in history for all time, invading Canada is one way to do it. It’d be the last thing anyone remembers before the U.S. ceases to exist.

If you’ve considered upgrading to The Long Memo (TLM), now’s the time. Through February 28, annual plans are 25% off—for just $5 a month (billed annually). That means a full year of exclusive deep dives, analysis, book club access, and all future paid-member benefits—at the lowest price it will ever be. This deal won’t happen again.
If you’re already a paid subscriber, thank you for supporting the publication.

…. and now… this.

1. En arguendo, I’m assuming that while we’re reckless, we’re not suicidal—meaning we won’t use nuclear weapons against Canada. The second a nuke goes off, we quickly find ourselves in a “The Guns of August” scenario:

The moment the U.S. drops a nuclear weapon on Canada, the United Kingdom, and France—both nuclear powers and NATO allies—would be forced to respond. France’s Force de Frappe and the U.K.’s Trident submarine fleet exist explicitly to deter rogue nuclear aggression, and their doctrine is clear: an attack on an ally is an attack on them.

Within one to three hours, the U.K. and France would launch retaliatory nuclear strikes on Washington, D.C., and U.S. military command centers. At that point, the U.S. would have to decide: retaliate against NATO or accept total defeat.

Now, what we would all hope at this moment is that our military gains sanity and arrests the President, along with everyone involved in this lunacy, and we regain control of the Government, surrendering to NATO forces, ending the conflict. However, if we find ourselves with Trump standing there, like Martin Sheen in Dead Zone going, “Gentlemen, the missiles are flying!” and the U.S. retaliates, it turns a single nuclear event into a full-scale nuclear exchange between Western allies.

Within six hours, Russia and China would go on high alert. Given that the U.S. just nuked what was an ally and is now at war with NATO, both Moscow and Beijing would see this as the collapse of the U.S. and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to eliminate a superpower. Russia, constantly paranoid about U.S. first-strike capabilities, could decide to launch nuclear weapons at U.S. cities and military installations preemptively. As a betting man with Putin, I’d almost guarantee it. Within eight hours, I’d expect a full commitment of Russian nuclear forces against the U.S., which means I’d expect a full commitment of the remaining U.S. forces against Russia (at this point, predominantly our bombers and submarine weapons.) China, unsure of U.S. intentions, would have little choice but to follow suit, hitting U.S. Pacific bases in Guam, Hawaii, and potentially the US mainland (most likely our bases on the west coast, assuming they’re not already gone.) Again, in response, the U.S. would retaliate with its remaining submarine-based nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons aboard carrier-based aircraft. This would be the final salvo of the remaining weapons in the U.S. arsenal. At this point, nearly all nuclear warheads nations have would likely have been expended. I have no idea what India and Pakistan would do, but for the sake of argument—sure—they either stay out of it or they nuke each other; it’s irrelevant what they do either way. It is the same for Israel; what they do in this scenario is also irrelevant. Maybe they do some last “hurrah” and nuke their enemies; it won’t matter in the big scheme.

By the 24-hour mark, the full-scale nuclear war is over. Humanity is destroyed in less than a day. Thousands of warheads are exchanged across North America, Europe, and Asia. The U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, Russia, and China suffer near-total devastation. This is a multiple of the amount necessary to end civilization. Most defense experts (myself included in this mix) and scientists agree that the threshold to end civilization is somewhere around 15-25 warheads.

At this point, the initial nuclear blasts are no longer the most significant problem—the secondary effects are. The immediate aftermath:

• The collapse of global supply chains—nuclear detonations wipe out ports, railways, and fuel reserves, making large-scale food distribution impossible.

• Nuclear winter—the massive amounts of ash and soot launched into the atmosphere block out sunlight, dropping global temperatures by 10-20 degrees Celsius within months.

• Mass starvation—with agriculture collapsing, billions die from famine.

• Governments fall—the few remaining survivors are left in a lawless, post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Within a few months, human civilization will end. The majority of the human race is wiped out, either from direct nuclear blasts, radiation poisoning, starvation, or disease. Within a generation, possibly two, total extinction of humanity is possible as remaining survivors face a radioactive, frozen, and barren world. It’s entirely possible that mankind's ability to reproduce could also be damaged because of the effects of radiation on the DNA of surviving humans. Some research suggests that could be why mankind cannot survive even if it overcomes all of the other challenges.

So, I’m going to ignore that problem because one “shit sandwich” at a time per article. Should the “orange orangutan” start talking about nuking Canada, I’ll revisit the issue.