Online petition advocates selling Montana to Canada.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/petition- ... -1.4306271

It already borders three Canadian provinces and has a diverse terrain of Rocky Mountains and Great Plains that mirror those in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
So, should the U.S. sell Montana to Canada as one online petition is proposing?
After the U.S. national debt soared to more than $22 trillion earlier this month, a man named Ian Hammond launched a petition on Change.org last week to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion to reduce the national debt.
RELATED STORIES
Beyond the Northwest Angle: Here are more Canada-U.S. border oddities
Satirical event asks Americans to use box fans to blow wildfire smoke back to Canada
PHOTOS
Montana
The online petition is calling on the U.S. to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion.
“We have too much debt and Montana is useless,” the proposal reads. “Just tell them it has beavers or something.”
Although the petition appeared to be created in jest, it has already earned more than 12,000 signatures as of Thursday morning.
“[I’m] just surprised that so many people have ‘backed’ my ‘cause,’” Hammond wrote in the petition’s comments. “All in all this is pretty epic.”
Montanans’ reactions to the petition have been mixed.
“Nobody could stand looking at such an ugly map for such a tiny dent in the national debt,” one man told ABC Fox Montana.
“God, I really hope it’s a joke,” another man said.
However, some Montana residents have voiced their support for the idea.
“I’m Montanan and hoping to join Canada without the moving costs. Let’s do this. Please adopt us,” one commenter wrote on the petition.
“I’d love this to happen. Montanans would then have decent health care, better roads, and more ice arenas,” one woman wrote.
Kristen Inbody, a columnist for the Great Falls Tribune in Montana, told CTV Regina she has spoken to a number of residents who listed legal marijuana, healthcare, better tea, and Tim Hortons as potential draws in Canada.
As for how Canadians feel about the possible acquisition…
One Saskatchewan resident said $1 trillion sounds like a lot of money, but acknowledged it would be a lot of land.
“It’d sure be a beautiful state to own I guess,” another man said.
Montana lawmakers have even weighed in on the debate during a state house committee meeting earlier this week. The 20-member committee voted 15-5 against being sold to Canada.
“It was not a unanimous vote though,” Inbody said. “That’s the crazy part.”
The house committee did, however, shoot down a satirical proposal to formalize their opposition to the petition in the form of a bill.

The Canadian in me is flattered, and amused that a quarter of the committee in Montana's state house actually voted for it, but honestly, we can do without several hundred thousand red state voters up here (especially since Trudeau's budding scandals already make it increasingly likely that Canada will shortly Be Made Great Again).

Edit: Still, I suppose as a socialist globalist who supports a North American Union as a step to global government, I suppose I must support this proposal.

[Sidewinder]

Does Canada's treasury have the equivalent of ONE TRILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS, to pay for such a purchase? Is its economy strong and stable enough to let it buy Montana on credit, and then pay approximately $10,000,000,000 per year for the next 100 years- BEFORE INTEREST? Will the Canadian public tolerate its government spending that kind of cash on a piece of land that, I suspect, most Americans will have trouble finding on a map?

[Jub]

Does Canada's treasury have the equivalent of ONE TRILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS, to pay for such a purchase? Is its economy strong and stable enough to let it buy Montana on credit, and then pay approximately $10,000,000,000 per year for the next 100 years- BEFORE INTEREST? Will the Canadian public tolerate its government spending that kind of cash on a piece of land that, I suspect, most Americans will have trouble finding on a map?

No to all of the above.

First of all, assuming they all stay and we know that wouldn't be true, Montana has a population of ~1 million so that $1 trillion is paying $1 million per head. Secondly, assuming that their economic output stays the same, Montana only has a GDP per capita of around $40,000 so without interest, this deal would take 25 years to pay off assuming that Canada received value from every dollar of that GDP. If we assuming an interest rate of even 1% annually non-compounding the deal basically never pays for itself without inflation doing all the heavy lifting.

At that valuation, which is likely the kind of overpayment it would take to buy a state, it makes no sense for Canada to acquire a place like Montana.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Also, wouldn't it be illegal for them to secede from the United States in the first place?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Also, wouldn't it be illegal for them to secede from the United States in the first place?

It is thanks to the Civil War. As a Montanan... I'm going to ask what the fuck are these idiots smoking.

Montana is... odd when it comes to politics. On the national level, it is a deep red state (until the GOP went to crazy town, it has slowly become more and more purple), but on the state level it's best described as purple before the GOP went straight to crazy town. This is especially so since we've had senators from both parties for decades with no fuss.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, wouldn't it be illegal for them to secede from the United States in the first place?

IIRC, the established law since the Civil War is that any change to state boundaries requires Congressional assent.

[Zaune]

IIRC, the established law since the Civil War is that any change to state boundaries requires Congressional assent.

Is there anything in Montana that's important enough for Congress to make an issue of it?

[Captain Seafort]

Is there anything in Montana that's important enough for Congress to make an issue of it?

You mean, besides about a quarter of the US ICBM force?

[Zaune]

Fair enough then.

[Solauren]

A trillion, for MONTANA?
That's a little much, even with the ICBMS.

However, we'll take it off your hands for nothing, provided you remove the ICBMS first.

[Tribble]

A trillion, for MONTANA?
That's a little much, even with the ICBMS.

However, we'll take it off your hands for nothing, provided you remove the ICBMS first.

Why would we want the ICBMs removed? Assuming we got possession of them, I agree there would be no point keeping them there if the US has control.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

IIRC, the established law since the Civil War is that any change to state boundaries requires Congressional assent.

Is there anything in Montana that's important enough for Congress to make an issue of it?

At least one national park. Glacier National Park covers a lot of territory, is extremely gorgeous to hike through, and the hotel isn't too shabby either. Then again, this was twenty years ago.

[Jub]

Why would we want the ICBMs removed? Assuming we got possession of them, I agree there would be no point keeping them there if the US has control.

Canada has a history of not taking nuclear devices even when offered them and seems committed to being a non-nuclear state.

[Rogue 9]

Also, wouldn't it be illegal for them to secede from the United States in the first place?

IIRC, the established law since the Civil War is that any change to state boundaries requires Congressional assent.

The Constitution does not contemplate breaking up the Union. The closest it gets to addressing this is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So you're quite correct that changing the boundaries of states requires Congressional consent, but as a constitutional issue a state selling itself off is ridiculous, even before the Civil War.

[Solauren]

Why would we want the ICBMs removed? Assuming we got possession of them, I agree there would be no point keeping them there if the US has control.

Canada has a history of not taking nuclear devices even when offered them and seems committed to being a non-nuclear state.

We have nuclear reactors. Our design has a very low chance of meltdown, and I don't believe it can make weapons grade material.

We're committed to be a PEACEFUL nuclear state.

(Personally, I think it's to hide our secret stash of superweapons)

[Jub]

We have nuclear reactors. Our design has a very low chance of meltdown, and I don't believe it can make weapons grade material.

We're committed to be a PEACEFUL nuclear state.

(Personally, I think it's to hide our secret stash of superweapons)

I'm aware that we run nuclear reactors, the context that I was referring to weapons should have been the 'nuclear device' bit. I've never once heard a reactor called a nuclear device.

[Tribble]

Why would we want the ICBMs removed? Assuming we got possession of them, I agree there would be no point keeping them there if the US has control.

Canada has a history of not taking nuclear devices even when offered them and seems committed to being a non-nuclear state.

We have nuclear reactors. Our design has a very low chance of meltdown, and I don't believe it can make weapons grade material.

We're committed to be a PEACEFUL nuclear state.

(Personally, I think it's to hide our secret stash of superweapons)

Or in other words we're committed to being a US vassal state, falling under the US nuclear umbrella while spending the absolute minimum on our military that we think we can get away with (up into and including ignoring treaty obligations where possible).

I wouldn't say peaceful though given that we usually do things like join in US / NATO invasions peace keeping missions and send over at least a token force (Vietnam and Iraq being the exception rather than the norm). Or arrest other countries' citizens at US request to be used as US bargaining chips.

[Tribble]

Forgot to add that IMO even if this was possible and Montana felt compelled to join Canada for some reason, they should think twice. Right now they are able to influence American (and by extension North American and worldwide) policies far more than Canada can by virtue of having elected members in the House and the Senate, and by having electors for US president. Canada is basically stuck following US policies on most issues while having no real say in the matter.

Seriously, at the end of the day the US Congress and the US President have more impact on Canadian affairs than our own governments do, but unlike Montana right now we can't vote. Would it be in Montana's interest to become the province of a vassal state?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Why would we want the ICBMs removed? Assuming we got possession of them, I agree there would be no point keeping them there if the US has control.

Canada has a history of not taking nuclear devices even when offered them and seems committed to being a non-nuclear state.

We have nuclear reactors. Our design has a very low chance of meltdown, and I don't believe it can make weapons grade material.

We're committed to be a PEACEFUL nuclear state.

(Personally, I think it's to hide our secret stash of superweapons)

What about that missile base in Newfoundland?

[The Romulan Republic]

Forgot to add that IMO even if this was possible and Montana felt compelled to join Canada for some reason, they should think twice. Right now they are able to influence American (and by extension North American and worldwide) policies far more than Canada can by virtue of having elected members in the House and the Senate, and by having electors for US president. Canada is basically stuck following US policies on most issues while having no real say in the matter.

Seriously, at the end of the day the US Congress and the US President have more impact on Canadian affairs than our own governments do, but unlike Montana right now we can't vote. Would it be in Montana's interest to become the province of a vassal state?

To call Canada a US vassal is an overstatement. Canada broke with US foreign policy on Iraq and Vietnam, and Trudeau took a fairly hard line and got a fairly good compromise deal in trade negotiations with the Trump regime. We're more militarily reliant on the US for our defense than I would like, especially with the current PotUS being a fascist and likely Russian asset, but calling us vassals is an overstatement.

Edit: That said, I also do not feel that nuclear weapons are necessary for our national defense. I have no interest in nukes. At the end of the day, either you're not prepared to use them, and risk someone calling your very expensive (and risky) bluff, or you are prepared to use them, in which case the last act of your nation will be to commit genocide while being burned to ash in return. I'd honestly rather be occupied than use nukes, because a) my nation's last act won't be burning the world, and b) an occupied nation can one day rise up and regain its freedom- an exterminated nation can't.

Note that the only nation that can realistically invade Canada is the US- and Canada has so many ways to fuck over the US if the attacked us that its not even funny. Our economies and populations are so closely intertwined that a war between the US and Canada would in some respects be more like a civil war than a conventional war between nations. Oh, Canada would lose in the field, because the US has ten times as many people, but Canada could make it cost America more than it would be worth.

[K. A. Pital]

To call Canada a US vassal is an overstatement. Canada broke with US foreign policy on Iraq and Vietnam, and Trudeau took a fairly hard line and got a fairly good compromise deal in trade negotiations with the Trump regime. We're more militarily reliant on the US for our defense than I would like, especially with the current PotUS being a fascist and likely Russian asset, but calling us vassals is an overstatement.

“Canada broke with US policy” = Canada did nothing to stop the US. A vassal state does not necessarily see eye-to-eye with the hegemony on every single matter. Canada has its own TNCs and own imperialistic interests.

If anything, it is an understatement, because Canada is also, via NAFTA and CETA, a real expansion vessel for US capital abroad. It is a conduit, enabler and vassal state.

[The Romulan Republic]

To call Canada a US vassal is an overstatement. Canada broke with US foreign policy on Iraq and Vietnam, and Trudeau took a fairly hard line and got a fairly good compromise deal in trade negotiations with the Trump regime. We're more militarily reliant on the US for our defense than I would like, especially with the current PotUS being a fascist and likely Russian asset, but calling us vassals is an overstatement.

“Canada broke with US policy” = Canada did nothing to stop the US. A vassal state does not necessarily see eye-to-eye with the hegemony on every single matter. Canada has its own TNCs and own imperialistic interests.

If anything, it is an understatement, because Canada is also, via NAFTA and CETA, a real expansion vessel for US capital abroad. It is a conduit, enabler and vassal state.

So you define "US vassal" as "Any state not actively hostile to the United States?"

Edit: I'll add that by such a lose definition of "vassal" (a feudal term that isn't really applicable in the modern world, by and large), the US can now be considered a vassal of Russia.

[K. A. Pital]

No, not actively hostile, but being able to fully control its own policy with respect to both the hegemon and other nations. Under the current conditions, such states are very few.

Besides, Canada eventually participated in the Iraq war despite officially saying it will not, so your point is?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, not actively hostile, but being able to fully control its own policy with respect to both the hegemon and other nations. Under the current conditions, such states are very few.

By that definition, any nation with treaty obligations is a vassal.

Besides, Canada eventually participated in the Iraq war despite officially saying it will not, so your point is?

We participated in the intervention against Islamic State, I know that (and consider it fully justified, since IS was an expansionist genocidal entity that the Iraqi military was incapable of stopping on its own at the time).

[K. A. Pital]

By that definition, any nation with treaty obligations is a vassal.

Besides, Canada eventually participated in the Iraq war despite officially saying it will not, so your point is?

We participated in the intervention against Islamic State, I know that (and consider it fully justified, since IS was an expansionist genocidal entity that the Iraqi military was incapable of stopping on its own at the time).

No, I meant flying combat missions in Iraq after 2003 (without informing your Parliament either), which is way before IS came into being. You should read up on that. What can you call a nation that speaks one thing a does another?

And what “treaty obligations” caused you to send forces for “training” or “seasoning” into Iraq? Did Iraq attack Canada? Surely a treaty may only invoke fighting together in self-defense; otherwise the “treaty” is just an imperialistic pact to crush and plunder others toghether.

You are trying to argue theoretical situations. I refer you to a real one.