Ever wonder how rich in mineral resources and potential energy North Korea has?

Minuscule compared to Canada. But nonetheless, via ruthlessly exploiting their people, the Kims have funded their weapons programs by - among other things - exporting minerals, and importing tech from China.

Yeah, but to fight the US we'd need guerilla / insurgent tactics. Military spending is pointless.

1. Preparation for guerrilla warfare is also expensive and also takes a lot of time. Where's the mass training? Where's the prepositioning of assets? Nowhere, that's where.

2. Military spending is absolutely not pointless. The USSR could certainly have conquered Finland if it really wanted to. But Finland made the cost of doing so far too painful to be worth the gains.

And it did not do this via "guerilla warfare", though that was certainly a part of it. It did so through "military spending". They have for example the largest artillery park in Europe.

Given where it appears in the Azure portal, I had assumed that Entra ID is the new name for Azure Active Directory.

"so broke"

Canada is the 18th highest wealth per-capita in the world, times ~40 million people - just under Finland but above the UK. Get some damned perspective.

And the limits to your natural resources and people not being exploited are because - at present - you're not someone else's colony to exploit at will.

If Trump invaded Canada, it would start a civil war in the US.

Once again: you're betting your sovereignty on a fantasy.

That's just not how these things work.

Your sovereignty isn't preserved because of some imaginary scenario where Americans will mass rise up against against their military and not be instantly put down. Or where some large chunk of soldiers will ignore their commanding officers' orders. Protests and random defections will not save you if the order is given. Get out of this fantasy.

Canada is a country of ~40 million people with a land area larger than the US and immense energy and mineral resources. What on Earth are you talking about?

The more "bite" you have, the less likely the US is to invade.

That's why Finland managed to not be reabsorbed by the USSR, despite having two orders of magnitude fewer people. They showed that they could bite during WWII, and instituted a "total defense" strategy. All men get significant military training, so the country can instantly mobilize a massive army. Stocks for said reserves are pre-positioned. All government planning, esp. construction, takes into account military aspects. For example, want to build a new swimming pool, hockey rink, or whatnot? Maybe do it underground so it can function as a bunker.

A small country can make itself into a sufficient pain in the arse that it's not worth it for a larger country to invade. But steps #1 and #2 are: to actually care enough about your sovereignty, and to recognize the threat you face. And Canada - spending a tiny 1,37% of its GDP on its military, with its military doctrine based around leaving large gaps in its military capabilities on the assumption that allies like the US will be supporting it - clearly does not.

This line would be lucky to last for half an hour if the US attacked. An expensive, vulnerable HSR project is not "logistics". It's just a gift to the US if it invades.

To defend against Trump? Last time America tried to invade Canada, it went badly. If Trump tries again, it will go badly again, for different reasons.

The US spends 916B per year on its military. Canada, 27B. But it's even worse than that sounds, because *Canada does not have a military designed to function independently*. On many key capabilities it is either grossly deficient or lacks them entirely, as it's premised on defense with allies. Namely, the US.

Let's ignore for now the US's >3,7k nukes. The Canadian air force has 258 aircraft, mostly older vintages.

Not combat aircraft- total.

Most of Canada's combat power is 85 CF-18 Hornets. Mostly the original, dated A version.

The USAF has ~5500 aircraft. Fighters alone, ~1300. This isn't counting army or navy aviation! Of the most advanced, the US has 188 active F-22s and 553 F-35s. Putting a F-18 A up against either is a joke. It's not even a fight.

Canada would lose air superiority basically instantly.

When one side has air superiority in modern warfare, they can basically flatten whatever they want at will and rain down as much air support as they want when they come under fire. Conventional warfare has its days steeply numbered once air superiority is established.

Which leaves unconventional warfare. Guerilla warfare. Great. But it doesn't appear in a vacuum. Effective guerella campaigns, esp. in the modern era, aren't "some guy in a cabin with a hunting rifle". They require training, organization, and most of all, preparation.

Which Canada has not done.

You're simply living in a fantasy if you think Canada can militarily even slow the US down or put much more than a minor thorn in its side if the US decides to invade.

I'm not saying this because I *want* it to be the case. I VERY much don't. I say it because it *IS* the case. And in particular, I say it so you don't cling to ungrounded fantasies, and get down to the cold hard reality of *actually investing*, immeditely, in starting to build up a credible deterrence, independent of the US.

This means a Finnish-style "total defense" at home, & an "Article 5" with the EU.

Spoken like a person who has not at all followed the progress in fusion since you "1st read about it in 1975", a time where our computer models were still highly primitive, the compute power for them highly lacking, and four decades before the advent of commercially available ReBCO tables.

It's not "the old line", it's "Zeno's Paradox", and if you follow it to the letter, then no task of any kind can ever be accomplished. It's not actually an argument against anything.

But Canada's #1 priority right now should be increasing defense spending.

It takes time to ramp up training, longer to acquire hardware, and even longer to build out production infrastructure. It needs to start immediately.

I have two friends who are devs there and they're not evil... but they know they are working on evil things

Spot the contradiction.

1) Not like *that*. It doesn't do things that are obviously wrong. When such failures happen, they're a result of not seeing enough of the big picture, not "looking at the small picture and doing something nonsensical with the small picture".

2) It doesn't in any way, shape or form keep secret about what its strategy is, which you can reject at will.

3) This is not the general case from use; it's the most common failure case. The vast majority of cases aren't failure cases.

But the changes you make in regedit will probably be rolled back the next time Windows runs updates. I managed to get Win11 to show me a contextual menu in Explorer with all of the items that software I'd installed had registered... until it rebooted and reverted to the summarised version which hides all the useful stuff and only shows things I never use.