Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

washingtonstatestandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 355 posts

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#321

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

mindslight wrote: post #288
hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best take of the current US situation is still "NRA fails to live up to its only reason for existing and doesn't stand up to the tyrannical government"

It was clear they were full of shit when they didn't stand up for Kenneth Walker, which was the exact fucking night time home defense scenario they're always fantasizing about.

Yeah.

I mean its been obvious to many they're full of shit for decades, but that was the 'If anyone still thinks they aren't full of shit after this" line...

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#322

Post by rgrieselhuber »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #314
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Alaska is still in the USA, so my critique of the title stands. If it had said 48 contiguous states it would have been accurate.

The context made it perfectly clear without additional words.

This is HN, the whole point of this site is to comment on every little detail on anything we see.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#323

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

riku_iki wrote: post #281
hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles". Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles on their own made little impact to the speed of russian advances however, which after multiple defeats and setbacks led to the formation of that defence force. Gaza is a whole can of worms in m…

> Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles". I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped adv…

>I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground.

Read your own wiki link I guess? There was multiple losses before the formation of the reserve defence force. There was also a high element of public participation in training and military force before hand. At no point did a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians with only rifles significantly hold back the russian advance on their own, however partially trained armed and organized reserve forces did.

>say 100k loyalists establish his rule in country with 350M population?

More like 70 million+ loyalists in the country including the majority of the military which upends the point you are trying to make completely.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#324

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

simne wrote: post #289
hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles". Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles on their own made little impact to the speed of russian advances however, which after multiple defeats and setbacks led to the formation of that defence force. Gaza is a whole can of worms in m…

> Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles This is myth. Ukrainian war began in 2014 and all adequate Ukrainians learned books about war or have some training, and this was very respectful form of pastime. Plus, many Ukrainians just served in military from 2014 consciously, this was great patriotic boom. To be honest, I think, if Ukrainian science and education was reformed before war 2022, we would b…

My point is untrained, inexperienced and under-equipped civilians have little chance against a military.

Once you start giving them training, organizing and arming them with a logistics arm backing them the discussion completely changes.

Ukraine is an example of reserve/partially trained and backed forces being able to make a significant difference, but its also an example of how unorganized civilian resistance on its own has little to no impact on a modern military.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#325

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

anon84873628 wrote: post #238
andy_ppp wrote: post #7

I’m surprised all the countries the US is trying to bully aren’t considering moving to the Euro as the reserve currency (even China might go along with this). It would be so damaging for the US they might actually understand they have been benefiting from a win-win situation since the end of the Second World War.

Why does a reserve currency even need to exist? Bretton Woods was a result of the extraordinary circumstances of WW2. The move to the petrodollar was a good deal at the time letting the US play world police. Now it's clear that the US isn't a reliable security partner even if other countries wanted it. The oil producing nations would surely be happy to start selling in other currencies.

You're always going to have one currency that is used for most of international trade, because it's much cheaper for country A exporters and country B exporters to settle in one currency. 1-N systems are generally stabler than N-N systems.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#326

Post by acdha »

riku_iki wrote: post #287
bellgrove wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there data for this question which would back restricting populations from having tools of self defense against tyrannic government(could happen in Canada too one day) and make it high priority for society compared to other problems? The US has these tools and a dictator upending the country and yet these tools are not being utilized.

half of the country supports him, so he is not really dictator.

It’s a third, but also that’s not a criteria for “dictator” – the term refers to unchecked power, and while over time that tends to build resentment it’s not a given. This is especially true when they favor certain religious or ethnic groups where the beneficiaries like the dictator and everyone else does not.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#327

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

buyucu wrote: post #230
0xffff2 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? How? The US balanced the budget under Clinton. I was pretty young, but I don't remember the standard of living collapsing in the early 90s (quite the opposite in fact).

for a few years only, and with tiny surpluses compared to deficits that came before and after. and the deficits exploded again. I can hold my breath for a few seconds, but not for a 10 minutes. it is like that. and that is only the federal deficit. local governments are also running massive deficits.

I mean, the CBO has a range of policies for fixing the federal deficit, most of which are pretty reasonable. I'm a fan of taxing the better off more (but I'm not a US citizen or taxpayer so that's easy for me to say).

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#328

Post by boringg »

Descon wrote: post #128
boringg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen Im all for smart reactions to dumb policies. This sounds like a dumb reaction to a dumb policy. Right now any article that does anything pro Canada anti US is going to get cheered in Canada because they are David against a mean Goliath (former best friend) situation. Intelligent conversation and debate has no baring in this absolutely ridiculous situation. This is truly one of the biggest unforced errors I hav…

What intelligent options are you offering for Canada then? The US is going to tariffs us. They have stated that their aim is economic warfare focusing on collapsing our economy so that they may annex us. It seems in the face of existential threats to our sovereignty, every option should be considered where we have advantage, and there are few.

It seems like a posturing thing that the party wants to do in order to get votes and it hurts individuals while not actually providing real value. Tariff goods etc fine but don't start arbitrarily charging some people road access - thats dumb policy idea which probably got it's idea from a not so smart politician.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#329

Post by jjkaczor »

yatopifo wrote: post #4

That makes perfect sense. It puzzles me why supporters of the current US regime think Canada won’t resist the US. Be it a trade war or a military invasion, Canada will make the cost so great that it may eliminate the US from the world arena. Canada has been cornered and has nothing to lose at this point.

When there is now a 6-month backlog of people trying to take the CFSC/CRFSC courses to get their PAL, and the CAF recruitment site is constantly overloaded, yes - Canadians will definitely be resisting any military style invasion. Add that to the grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement, and no - Canadian's are not going to roll over and accept US pressure for either tariffs or annexation.

Re: Canada considering charging for road access from USA to Alaska

#330

Post by riku_iki »

hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #323
riku_iki wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles". I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped adv…

>I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground. Read your own wiki link I guess? There was multiple losses before t…

> a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians with only rifles significantly hold back the russian advance on their own

I didn't say anything like that, though many were untrained and with only rifles. I said that in urban environment it is still soldier on foot is deciding factor, and in Ukraine freshly enlisted territorial defense units dug into the ground and stopped invasion.

> More like 70 million+ loyalists

70M is a civil war setting, but we are discussing setting of dictator + loyalists military vs population.

Post reply on HN