http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Exactly as it says on the tin. What would a modern day War Plan Crimson look like?
Exactly as it says on the tin. What would a modern day War Plan Crimson look like?
What Would A Modern Day War Plan Crimson Look Like?
- Thread starter Puget Sound
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
You mean a plan for the United States to defeat Great Britain in war? I think the plan would like rather like a blank piece of paper.
The White House would hand a note to the Canadian ambassador that reads, "Your nation will offer its unconditional surrender at 1200 hours. Failure to comply will result in the deportation of Mr. Bieber to his country of origin."
Realistically It probably looks fairly similar to the historical document, with the possible addition of airborne units hitting major targets in the west. The core part of the military operation pretty well has to be cut the country in two at Winnipeg (or around Thunder Bay I guess, but that's just harder in all ways), take the major ports (Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax) and occupy the population centres (Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Quebec corridor historically and a decent case for Ablerta now as well).
That said, it's just not that relevant; the conventional military operation is so lopsided as to be inconsequential, the real question, even militarily, is what the bigger picture is and what that means an occupation looks like. Honestly even the paper strength of three Stryker like mechanized brigades and some light infantry reserves doesn't represent just how insanely dispersed and outnumbered the Canadians would be; aside from some short and potentially sharp actions at actual military bases (most easily handled with airstrikes IMO) the only real concern for American forces would, IMO, be logistics in terms of occupying a lot of sparsely populated territory and short term problems crossing rivers in Southern Ontario if the reserves manage to blow bridges in Niagara and along the Detroit and St. Clair rivers (more annoying than anything, both can be bridged with pontoons, and it won't be hard to take airfields, though I'll grant that this is damn near the only part of the country that could be defensible assuming something like equally matched forces).
So what does a war look like IMO? Armoured units in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal within hours of the start, the CF is pretty well destroyed by airstrikes. The USMC lands in Halifax to cut off the ports before land units can make their way through New Brunswick and slower paced units will move north along highway 2 in Alberta, along the 401 in Ontario from Qubec, Michigan and New York and into the Maritimes from Maine. It's not inconceivable that you'd see units moving into the Yukon from Alaska, or airborne troops speeding things up in the west, but both seem like unnecessary complications to a simple operation. In terms of opposition you could see some sharp actions where ground forces do meet, but the Canadians will probably be very dispersed unless everyone sees it coming miles away, and in any case are so outgunned in terms of air and artillery support that what they do on the ground just won't matter in terms of the strategic picture. The big issue will be doing this in a way that doesn't destroy general order and gets civilians more or less on side so that Canadian police can take over as much of the occupation duties as early as possible; the last thing the US will want is needing to station large numbers of troops to control huge amounts of largely empty territory right on its border, even if there isn't some kind of insurgency.
That said, it's just not that relevant; the conventional military operation is so lopsided as to be inconsequential, the real question, even militarily, is what the bigger picture is and what that means an occupation looks like. Honestly even the paper strength of three Stryker like mechanized brigades and some light infantry reserves doesn't represent just how insanely dispersed and outnumbered the Canadians would be; aside from some short and potentially sharp actions at actual military bases (most easily handled with airstrikes IMO) the only real concern for American forces would, IMO, be logistics in terms of occupying a lot of sparsely populated territory and short term problems crossing rivers in Southern Ontario if the reserves manage to blow bridges in Niagara and along the Detroit and St. Clair rivers (more annoying than anything, both can be bridged with pontoons, and it won't be hard to take airfields, though I'll grant that this is damn near the only part of the country that could be defensible assuming something like equally matched forces).
So what does a war look like IMO? Armoured units in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal within hours of the start, the CF is pretty well destroyed by airstrikes. The USMC lands in Halifax to cut off the ports before land units can make their way through New Brunswick and slower paced units will move north along highway 2 in Alberta, along the 401 in Ontario from Qubec, Michigan and New York and into the Maritimes from Maine. It's not inconceivable that you'd see units moving into the Yukon from Alaska, or airborne troops speeding things up in the west, but both seem like unnecessary complications to a simple operation. In terms of opposition you could see some sharp actions where ground forces do meet, but the Canadians will probably be very dispersed unless everyone sees it coming miles away, and in any case are so outgunned in terms of air and artillery support that what they do on the ground just won't matter in terms of the strategic picture. The big issue will be doing this in a way that doesn't destroy general order and gets civilians more or less on side so that Canadian police can take over as much of the occupation duties as early as possible; the last thing the US will want is needing to station large numbers of troops to control huge amounts of largely empty territory right on its border, even if there isn't some kind of insurgency.
Last edited:
hmmmm...i would think the biggest part of the plan would be how to stop domestic terrorist attacks from the million or so canadians who live in the USA .Then there all those potential terrorists infiltrating the northern 
border.Something about being indistinguishable from American citizens.
Kinda makes Iraq look like childs play.And why would they want to have to deal with Quebec.Best bet is the blank piece of paper filed under WTF.
Actually i belive the original plan was pretty much considered asb from a political point.Like why would the US want to.
border.Something about being indistinguishable from American citizens.Kinda makes Iraq look like childs play.And why would they want to have to deal with Quebec.Best bet is the blank piece of paper filed under WTF.
Actually i belive the original plan was pretty much considered asb from a political point.Like why would the US want to.
More like was a plan that was implausible enough not to cause political waves at a time when planning for war with Germany or Japan was completely unacceptable given the popular support of isolationism.
That said, I would be absolutely shocked if there aren't document in existence contemplating military operations in Canada, if not explicitly planning for a complete invasion; in fact it could be considered irresponsible NOT to have them somewhere given the nature of the border.
There probably are given that there are documents contemplating a mass uprising by Girl Scouts.
The USA military problem essentially is how to deal with guerilla warfare that would encompass the United States as well as Canada. Canadian freedom fighters would, presumably, have the nous to target the US economy and infrastructure as well as military targets so the US would have to plan to cope with losing major road and rail bridges, electricity networks, vessels sunk in port entrances, airfield fuel stocks, rail locomotives and switching, fuel stores and refineries etc. from the Mexican border northwards.
It would require severe fuel rationing for the US civilian population and it's a big country to cross on minor roads with heavy freight and uncertainty of finding fuel along the way and coping without imported items.
And that is without trying to suppress the Canadian people, armed resistance and civil protest at home. The National Guard would be overstretched in dealing with the domestic situation so they are not a resource for the invasion and the sheer size of Canada dilutes US troops on the ground and Canadian urban resistance eats troops in cities the size of Toronto or Vancouver for example so rural troops would be reduced to isolated pockets and there is no way they could control the tens of thousands of miles of roads and railways.
Nowadays what protection could a US government provide against cyber attacks based in the US by committed hackers who will accept the risk of being caught?
The Lord alone knows what the US loony right wing libertarian/survivalists might do in opposition to state opression.
A bit difficult to trade if the Royal Navy targets US merchant shipping never mind the NATO Treaty allows Canada to call on military support from the rest of NATO and the UN to act to, at a minimum, impose sanctions and at a maximum organise UN armed support to free Canada. Could the USA prevent UK/NATO transporting troops etc. across the North Atlantic with air and ASW protection from NATO, Russia and China.
And the plus side for the USA would be?
A Plan Crimson would be a Plan Rainbow and a possible dissolution of the USA as states try to ditch any connection with the loonies in Washington and a mutiny as the US forces refuse to carry out the plan.
It would require severe fuel rationing for the US civilian population and it's a big country to cross on minor roads with heavy freight and uncertainty of finding fuel along the way and coping without imported items.
And that is without trying to suppress the Canadian people, armed resistance and civil protest at home. The National Guard would be overstretched in dealing with the domestic situation so they are not a resource for the invasion and the sheer size of Canada dilutes US troops on the ground and Canadian urban resistance eats troops in cities the size of Toronto or Vancouver for example so rural troops would be reduced to isolated pockets and there is no way they could control the tens of thousands of miles of roads and railways.
Nowadays what protection could a US government provide against cyber attacks based in the US by committed hackers who will accept the risk of being caught?
The Lord alone knows what the US loony right wing libertarian/survivalists might do in opposition to state opression.
A bit difficult to trade if the Royal Navy targets US merchant shipping never mind the NATO Treaty allows Canada to call on military support from the rest of NATO and the UN to act to, at a minimum, impose sanctions and at a maximum organise UN armed support to free Canada. Could the USA prevent UK/NATO transporting troops etc. across the North Atlantic with air and ASW protection from NATO, Russia and China.
And the plus side for the USA would be?
A Plan Crimson would be a Plan Rainbow and a possible dissolution of the USA as states try to ditch any connection with the loonies in Washington and a mutiny as the US forces refuse to carry out the plan.
deathscompanion1
Banned
Militarily Canada is occupied in a week and any attempts to aid it end badly.
politically it would be pointless.
This could well exist as an excersie for cadets.
politically it would be pointless.
This could well exist as an excersie for cadets.
I am sure that there is a set of offices in the Pentagon who do nothing but write "War Plans" for numerous contingencies, including The Girl Scout Uprising, The Zombie Apocolypse, The Liberation of San Marino, and the Occupation of Grand Fenwick.
I'm sure Canada is on the list, somewhere.
add a certain mr shatner to that
Zombie girlscouts occupying Grand Fenwick?
Someone should make a timeline about this
Ending with a war crimes tribunal....
Unconsensual
Banned
Let's see:
Convoys of National Guards heads north towards Canada.
They are stopped at the border by world-dreary guards, to which they display a show of Governmental authority and declare a statement of their intention.
The border guards relent and the National Guards continue their drive on towards major strategic distribution centers.
Five minutes after, Canada's defense minister Peter Mackay is informed of this to which he replies: Good thing we turned down the F-35.
Ten minutes after, the CBC starts broadcasting the convoys of National Guards as they did not have any better content and that it is legally required as a part the communication laws mandating 20% Canadian content.
Attrition takes it's toll as traffic jams and sub-zero conditions chaffs at the figurative gonads of the drivers. After about a 5 hour advance all major population centers are reached with the exception of Ottawa, stopping to rest and refit the national guards hunkers down in their local Tim Horton's and Harvey's. However it turns out that due to a lack of resistance the advance airborne insertions had already occupied the best locations and the National Guards are forced to secondary locations with lower concentrations of pretty girls.
After 4 weeks and 2 moose-related incidences later someone actually gave a damn as Peter Mackay realized that National Guards were clogging up the line at Tim Horton's and demanded that they order in bulk to speed up the line. Homesick and hung-over from a lower legal drinking age the National Guards dismissed the demands with a wave of their hands and hopped back into their trucks for a sobering 5 hour drive south.
In other news a firefighter rescues 2 kittens stuck in a bonsai tree.
Convoys of National Guards heads north towards Canada.
They are stopped at the border by world-dreary guards, to which they display a show of Governmental authority and declare a statement of their intention.
The border guards relent and the National Guards continue their drive on towards major strategic distribution centers.
Five minutes after, Canada's defense minister Peter Mackay is informed of this to which he replies: Good thing we turned down the F-35.
Ten minutes after, the CBC starts broadcasting the convoys of National Guards as they did not have any better content and that it is legally required as a part the communication laws mandating 20% Canadian content.
Attrition takes it's toll as traffic jams and sub-zero conditions chaffs at the figurative gonads of the drivers. After about a 5 hour advance all major population centers are reached with the exception of Ottawa, stopping to rest and refit the national guards hunkers down in their local Tim Horton's and Harvey's. However it turns out that due to a lack of resistance the advance airborne insertions had already occupied the best locations and the National Guards are forced to secondary locations with lower concentrations of pretty girls.
After 4 weeks and 2 moose-related incidences later someone actually gave a damn as Peter Mackay realized that National Guards were clogging up the line at Tim Horton's and demanded that they order in bulk to speed up the line. Homesick and hung-over from a lower legal drinking age the National Guards dismissed the demands with a wave of their hands and hopped back into their trucks for a sobering 5 hour drive south.
In other news a firefighter rescues 2 kittens stuck in a bonsai tree.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Would Canada be able to either stop or sabotage dynamos at major hydroelectric plants and destroy powerlines that supply power to the US Eastern Seaboard?
Does a large part of the Canadian population still have access firearms? I would think most urban areas would be pretty lacking. And society in the West today seems unlikely to produce large percentages of hardcore 'freedom fighters' willing to toss away lives. And before I get flamed from passionate Canadians, let me state that this opinion includes all Western countries. Sure some would resist (guns or explosives), but especially those same urban society with limited access to arms to resist ... makes me question whether there would be more kitten rather than wolverine in the long run.
Hmmmm, there might be rationing but I think most of the operations would be pretty concentrated enough that this wouldn't alter any outcomes.
Well, again I have differing views on the amount of resistance that would be seen or felt. And I would think for any plan, there would be a requirement of much more of a regular army size than currently seen so that objectives could be properly met before undergoing the plan.
Don't see this as altering much militarily.
Depending on what you call loony, I think anyone opposed to state oppression wouldn't fit that title.
Here is the stickler. First, the RN isn't going to be able or willing to act alone as it is on the seas that the US dominance is going to be felt most. For this plan to be even implemented you have to assume that NATO has diplomatically and politically fallen apart so there would likely be no binding agreements to force governments to act. That being the case, Europe would be in zero position to do much at all as seen in their pathetic state of supplies and logistics during the limited Libyan campaigns.
Granted a fair question, but one not really needing to be looked into based on the OP question.