I can't see France playing brinksmanship with NATO over the issue of Quebec in 1995 for fear of massive backlash from the entire Western world. When you're hunkered down watching a gunfight down the street and wondering if you're going to get into it, no one likes the guy who thinks its cute to toss lit firecrackers.
I can see them helping out Quebec with reconstruction in 2000. (And share the question on why Canada, and various other countries, started the 2300AD Great Game with unified governments when they certainly did not have them in the Twilight 2000 universe.)
Quote:
|
This could also explain why canon, the NATO Vehicle Guide, gave Canada such a wimpy contribution to the war effort in Europe. What do you guys think?
|
Canada's army isn't very large, and their reserves aren't maintained for quick mobilization. Supplying battle casualty replacements to the two brigades in contact in Europe (personnel and vehicles) and working to flesh out their cadre sized reserves to surely slows them down getting more troops to Europe. And I don't think Canada had war stores even in the 1980s to generate another mechanized brigade, at least not the tanks to do it.
(Lack of tanks makes utility in Central Europe questionable, but might make them very appealing in Korea . . . and Canadian troops equipment is similar enough they could piggy back a lot of stuff off US logistics if a two front war exceeds available sea/air lift.)
Anyway, my guess would be that even if they had some guys on the other side of the Pacific, they were mostly just getting their reserves really ready to go at a D+180 kind of time frame, right about the time Soviet heavy forces start landing in Alaska. While the GDW take on the war in AK is kind of incomprehensible (involving, apparently, a cross Strait landing in Nome and then a forced march across roadless wilderness to try and take Fairbanks????), the Canadians would have been throwing troops at that fire rather than sending guys to Europe, I think.