Matt Savinar over at www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is a specialist in predicting an eventual military invasion of Canada by the United States, and in collecting data to substantiate the plausibility of this prediction.  The tone and content of the "60 Minutes" piece would seem to be an item that Matt could add to his collection on this score.  Does anyone out there care to comment on how realistic Matt's prediction is?
When I signed up for my Phd, I tried to get into the Dept for Study of US Invasion Tactics for Canadian Provinces, but the program was full, so I dont know.

But if you look at the bigger picture, Canada has trees, and natural gas, and water and tar sands. The US has people and art, and bombs. I guess one could plausibly make that conclusion.

Sasquatch,

I have been wondering if Canada breaks up that we might not acquire some extra states. If Quebec goes out, the possibility of the provinces going their own way, possibly in blocs like the Atlatnic Maritimes is possible. We might get Alberta as the 51st or 52nd state.

That is more likely (and not very likely I think) than our invading Canada. The American people would not go for it. We will go through a great deal of economic adjustment instead of doing something incredibly mean spirited and greedy.
 

We ARE mean spirited and greedy. So are Canadians and so are Chinese and ...Some societies are LESS mean and LESS greedy than others but evolution has made us resource acquisition machines. I do not dispute reciprocal altruism and genuine sacrifice for ones tribe, but lets face it - increased energy per capita has made everyone pretty much June and Ward Cleavers. Decreased energy per capita... how does George Monbiot quote it "we'll be fighting like cats in a sack'.

It may not even be viewed as a bad thing when/if the time comes - US protects canada militarily in exchange for resource flow. I think there was a conservative think tank put out a piece in 2005 implying that NAFTA was the groundwork for an economic/military/resource conglomerate (I'll try and find the link)

I dont think there will ever be a 'battle', but in truth Ive never really researched it. I did try to look at [LATOC www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net] but couldnt find any details.

p.s. Canadians (probably due to more degree cooling days) actually consume more oil per capita than americans...

oops - meant 'degree heating days'. Though the way things are going one never knows...;)
sasquatch,

Canadians do use more energy per capita than Americans. That is the last table I saw just before Christmas.

But we agree that it will not be a military action.

NAFTA does work, mostly, for our benefit. It does help integration of the economies and we can get a great deal from Canada. But with rising transportation costs in the future, that makes good sense for them too.

Yes we do use more energy.  My guess is that we have similar building standards and colder weather.  I have to ride my winter bicycle to work 4 to 5 months each year and this is in the warm south and I use my summer bike whenever possible.
On this university campus nearly every building has NO insulation!  The new buildings have about 2".  The home standards changed in 1991 and were upped from 4 to 6" in the walls.  My father was doing that for custom homes in the late 1960's.  We have an industry that only adopts whatever standards we can get the government to pass.

Energy is so cheap that nobody cares yet.
Come on - taxes on my house are over 2x what it costs for natural gas, hydro and phone.  The car is similar - purchase, maintaince and insurance dwarfing fuel costs.
In the case of my 1991 Chevy Sprint (around 60 mpg US) it cost more for brake and exhaust repair than gas!

"Green" friends live in nice neighbourhoods with good "community" but pay for it with old houses that have no insulation to speak of.
We sure see a lot more trucks / SUV'ish things on the roads in Michigan than here although I see enough mini-vans and that ilk to make me puke.  Cars choking the streets and surburbia out the wazoo is the way we've gone too.  Howver, unlike friends in the USA, up here you don't pick neighbourhoods because they are safe or because the schools  are not going to have the roof collapse in winter.

Going into a different threat.

I want to believe in the book Fire and Ice and that we are diverging from the USA.  Frankly the USA scares the @#$#@$ out of me.  The government is disconnected from the people and US moderates / progressives I know are getting pretty scared of the way their country is going - but it doesn't seem to stop.  There should have been riots over Robberts nomination to the court and I see that Alito will likely walk right in without a sacrifical Dem in the way.

My only consolidation is that you're destroying your own country now with the mountain top removal for coal; having the polluters in charge of the EPA etc etc - except that we're also getting the mercury in the air ...

There are very progressive factions within the USA - but I've pretty well given up on them.  With thousands of white collar jobs now going overseas where PHDs are a dime-a-dozen you're not going to have a middle class much longer.  It's a great place if you're rich or have a marketable skill.

The USA dream that I grew up in during the 60's is dead, gone and burried.  The fangs are bare now, the blood is dripping - nobody harbours illusions about what the country is about except perhaps our Regressive Conservative party up here.

If there were riots over a very intelligent jurist who happens to be conservative, than it would have only happened in a blue state.

I work in construction and we are introducing styrofoam block construction that was developed in Canada with an R rating of 40 - well above the required 18 and very good.

I do find it funny that in colleges the ratio of liberals to conservatives for professors is about 9 to 1, while in the military for officers it is flipped and is 7 to 1 or 6 to 1.

America is not dead yet.

As the college professors (and journalists) make more money, they tend to go red. As the military officers get screwed on pension and medical benefits (and get sent to Iraq) they tend to go blue. Things are reequilibriating.
Imagine the Canadians sitting quietly by. Of course they'll never have heard of this event- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/international/europe/22cnd-georgia.html or as written about here- http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-733421@51-733423,0.html  translated here- http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/2006/01/gas-war.html
Everyone from the Cheney-ites on down consider it all to be a Mad Max future. What an intense failure of the imagination.
Thanks for the responses - and by all means, keep them coming.  One of the reasons why this site is so useful to me is because the responses I get to questions I pose tend to act as a healthy check on my own sometimes extravagant opinions about things.

Let me extend the line of my original question a bit:  There have been a lot of steps taken in recent years towards establishing systemic and operational integration between the US and Canada with regard to military matters.  However, though I don't recall details offhand, I remember that some months back there were many voices in Canada (including across most of the Establishment political spectrum) who issued strong protests about certain aggressive steps the US was pressing for with regard to this integration.

I guess my question is this:  What role, if any, are ruling elements in the US envisioning for this military integration as a possible means for facilitating an eventual takeover of Canada?

Phil,
I called Cheney but he was taking a nap. Rumsfeld is out of town but will get back to me then I'll post here what I learn...

((seriously, no one can answer your question and the few that would have true insight into it, wouldnt be posting here...(or anywhere))

Oh come on now - there must be some disaffected former intelligence analysts, diplomats, or high-ranking military officers out there who can advance some plausible speculation - well-rooted in personal experience - in response to my question!
Wasn't there controversy a while back about a US proposal to base Star Wars installations in Canada?
In my studies of bioregions and the break up of monolithic nation states, the theory is that places like Alberta and Saskatchewan will
be more than happy to join Montana.

The talk gets louder when Quebec starts making independence noises.

BTW-on that 60 Minutes segment, I heard hot water mentioned twice, but never heard how they planned to heat the water (say with NG).

Also,  I know that Canada just ended a fight to limit the amount of gas used to create the synfuels.

And this on who will be "paying a premium" for the chance to refine this stuff:

EnCana drops plan to process oilsands at Valero refinery
Last Updated Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:57:08 EST
CBC News

EnCana Corp. and Valero Energy Corporation announced Thursday they have dropped a plan to process heavy crude oil from Western Canada oilsands at Valero's refinery in Lima, Ohio.

You have researched the potential break up of states? How about the USA? Depending on how things develop I feel that is a probability worth considering over the next 5 or 10 years. What do your studies suggest?
Yes Agric, my "studies" basically started with the straight line boundaries-ex Colorado- of US West.

Abritrary lines that must be temporary.

BioRegions of Energy and Arable land/potable water will  form first.

Or lack of energy delivered from above-say the New Orleans Gulf Coast.  

I mentioned Canada because Canada actually has a spelled out way for the Provinces to secede.

You might enjoy reading The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau. It's twenty years old and out of print, but still available from Amazon as of the last time I looked. It looks at where the geographic and cultural fault lines (which are independent of political boundaries) may lie.
Exactly, Stoneleigh

A favorite book of mine and combined with Jane Jacobs'
Cities and the Wealth of Nations (that our cities are in transactions of decline)

and James Kunstler's-
"In The Geography of Nowhere I argued that the post-war enterprise of building suburbia as a replacement for towns and cities in the United States was a self destructive act. I argued that the living arrangement Americans now think of as normal suburban sprawl - is bankrupting us economically, socially, ecologically, and spiritually. I identified the physical setting itself - the cartoon landscape of car-clogged highways, strip malls, tract houses, franchise fry pits, parking lots, junked cities, and ravaged countryside - as not merely the symptom of a troubled culture but in many ways the primary cause of our troubles."

These three books form a foundation of sorts for my studies.

I'm now looking to the "Nine Nations" and their Capitol's and Second Cities for verification of trend.

Of course, the great irony is that Garreau also wrote Edge City which is a fairly positive account of everything Jacobs and Kunstler despise.
Why did I think you were going to bring up Edge Cities.

Tyson's Corner becomes a new node, farther out, linking the outstretched veins with rings or beltways.

This can only work with cheap energy.  And the center must remain vital.  If only for geographic shortest route from Point A to Point B.

I'd be very interested in what you conclude about the possible break up of the USA, where the boundaries are most likely to be, what the most likely triggers for the break up are, and how the constitutional disentanglement (if still relevant) would occur.
The parties are polarized but the people are not. America is not blue or red, or even purple, it's pink.
where the boundaries are most likely to be-

Here's a nice place to start

 the most likely triggers for the break up are-

Energy, either lack of or hoarding.

Food, same as above.

Natural Disaster, one too many to handle.

Or a combo of the above.

I believe that collapse is already upon us.  And has been for at least
5 years.  With Kuwait's announcement, we're depleting at over 10% per year.

And of course there's Gaia and the fact that 7 Giga Tonnes CO2 must be removed from human annual output by 2020 or sooner as
Antarctica (rising seas) and the Amazon (biomass dieoff, end of CO2 sink) continue to deteriorate.

Peace, James