RuneGloves
Banned
There is no reason for Canada to want the Caribbean colonies. Whereas Alaska gives them a Western port, and is a natural extension.
The Province of Alaska
- Thread starter Bojeffries
- Start date
But there is. It's warm islands. I know plenty of people who love the idea of Canadian Caribbean. Look at the snow birds, the money being lost to the US would stay with Canada.
There was an OTL proposal that Canada and the Bahamas was seriously considering, it's not as far fetched as you're thinking.
They have plenty of help for an offensive war: the Americans and NATO. Even two carriers and 10x the budget isn't going to let the RCN invade the entire Communist bloc on its own. All they need to do is hold the Arctic and the Bering Sea long enough for the cavalry to show up.
Maybe, maybe not. Anchorage's population alone is eight times larger than all of Yukon put together, and that'll be hard to ignore on election day.
That's if it achieves OTL growth, which there's no guarantee of.
All the help is now way down south. The US has no reason to have its big powerful nave way up north without Alaska(AKA any allied Navys are at least a day away). Now I'm not talking about one strong enough to invade(I never even entertained the thought), just enough that they could push them out of Canadian waters. A single aircraft carrier will do.
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure Americans went to Alaska to solidify their claims, whereas Canada wouldn’t have to, and not as many people will migrate to Alaska.
While I think it would have a smaller population than IOTL, I do think it would be more developed than the OTL Canadian territories as it is in a more strategic location, along the Pacific. Also, some parts of its coast are not that cold.
America and Canada are defensive allies, as is every NATO member - they have an obligation to help each other if one is attacked - and Pearl Harbor and Kitsap are each roughly two days away from Alaska. If anything, Russia or China will strike America first because it's the bigger threat, and Alaska will be a sideshow.
Thing is, a carrier's main role nowadays is to strike land targets from the sea. Anything else can be done just as well with other vessels. And you need two carriers, in case one needs repairs - more proof that Magnificent and Bonaventure were prestige projects.
Even if the RCN has two, and the commies somehow make Alaska the main target, exactly what are the carriers going to do that destroyers and subs can't?
Last edited:
It makes us NOT look weak, it makes us look strong. Every Nation in the world thinks we are weak. Our Navy made up of nothing but subs and destroyers are weak. Why of course they will invade through the US in OTL the only coastline we own is British Columbia. A tiny cost line with US Alaska having most of it up north. Now there is a much bigger Canadian Pacific coastline. If we stay with the weak looking Navy they will push through and invade. Taking this opportunity to invade through WEAK Canada
I'd actually guess that they'd keep 54'40 as the border right to the continental divide - so OTL far North BC and Yukon join Alaska.
(Even Prince George is south of 54'40).
If we're looking at bigger warships just for showing off, it'd be cheaper to buy a pair of battleships off the British or Americans. Lower operating cost, and they're looking to get rid of them.
Carriers would be for prosecuting the war all the way across the Pacific to Vladivostok - and we're really not capable of that. Our subs routinely sink American carriers and other ships in joint exercises. Destroyers come with missiles for doing the same. That's plenty of naval strength for holding Alaska against Russia or China until our friends show up (and once again, even 10x the RCN's budget does indeed mean we still need friends).
Interesting - maybe that makes Prince Rupert a viable large city?
I'm always up for Canadian battleships but the era of battleships is coming to a close at the time point we're talking about. And besides I am running under the assumption the the Careers would be second head too. Of course we need friends everyone needs friends. It's just those friends are no longer as close without the US owned Alaska.
This level of national self-loathing is weird. Yeah, our military isn't huge, but have some national pride. As it stands, we don't need carriers, and even if we had Alaska we wouldn't either. Carriers are far better suited for offensive operations, and unless we're talking about some kind of alt-Canada that has somehow achieved superpower status, they would be a total waste of money and materials.
It's irrelevant anyway, because if the Cold War still happens in any recognizable way then nukes exist, and as real life is not Call of Duty or Red Dawn or Fallout, any invasion of North America (or any NATO country) ends in thermonuclear fire (which either destroys the vast majority of the developed world, or mostly just the Eastern Bloc depending on the year we're talking about). Being that the Soviets weren't catastrophically stupid, they aren't going to ever try.
You're missing the point: carriers are as unnecessary as battleships for the RCN. They're for attacking. We'd be defending.
All we need to do is keep the enemy off Alaska for 2-3 days while the States reinforces us, and destroyers, frigates and subs are more than enough for that kind of mission. The OTL navy's only problem is that we don't have enough of them.
I'm in a military group with Americans stuffing their glory battleships like New Jersey down my throat. I have had my national pride beaten out of me.
Nephi
Banned
I know it requires one hell of a butterfly net, but imagine if somehow you end up with the same people more or less moving around the same way, so you get a Sarah Palin who probably wouldn't be premier, but interesting now times, Putin and his cronies like to say Alaska was leased (which is ridiculous it was bad enough at the time it was purchased let alone leased and hell there was no reason to return the Panama canal at all, Panama itself would be part of Colombia still if America hadn't wanted to build it there or Colombia had just agreed to sell that strip, but even then the US didn't annex it, or even keep Panama as some kind of satellite state, and then made good on its lease agreement, and if that was the case with Alaska then, well, they probably wouldn't have given it back to the Soviets, but I could see the US setting it up with some recognized this is the true remnant of Russia government, and the point it would have been returned to "Russia".
Now Putin makes that calim with a Canadian Alaska well, here we have a Canada that after the cold war really chilled (pun entirely intended) on those defenses, we don't need that as much just a coastguard.
February 24, 2022 he decides to make good on that and invades Canada.
Now Putin makes that calim with a Canadian Alaska well, here we have a Canada that after the cold war really chilled (pun entirely intended) on those defenses, we don't need that as much just a coastguard.
February 24, 2022 he decides to make good on that and invades Canada.