# Canada-U.S. Defence Ties Amidst Strategic Tension and War-Gaming Former NORAD commander analyzes the resilience of North American security partnerships during political friction. - **Source:** [National Post - RSS Feed](https://nationalpost.com/) - **Published:** 2026-10-17 - **Topic:** [Business](https://brifing.si/c/business) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/cd5bc8a0-e76d-4379-ae16-2d18ab6c0053 ## Strategic War-Gaming Revelations Recent reports indicate Canadian military leaders conducted war games simulating a U.S. invasion of Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney characterized this as an extreme tail risk, reflecting heightened bilateral tensions. While military planners typically prepare for diverse scenarios, this specific exercise underscores the strain currently impacting the long-standing Canada-U.S. defence alliance. ## Operational Continuity vs Political Doubt Retired General Glen VanHerck, former NORAD commander, confirms that day-to-day military cooperation remained unaffected by political friction. However, he notes that inconsistent political support and delayed modernization strategies created significant doubt regarding Canada's long-term commitment. Military personnel maintained professional integrity, even as political rhetoric introduced uncertainty into the binational defence framework. ## The Arctic Strategic Advantage Canada’s primary contribution to North American security is its unique Arctic geography and strategic posture. While the United States can replace hardware like radars or aircraft, it cannot replicate a committed binational partner. This relationship serves as an asymmetric advantage that has historically prevented great power conflicts by ensuring unified continental sovereignty. ## Erosion of Strategic Stability Political friction between Ottawa and Washington threatens to erode strategic stability by signaling potential misalignment to global adversaries. When leaders prioritize emotional responses over factual cooperation, it invites external questioning of the alliance's resolve. This perceived vulnerability is considered the most dangerous outcome, potentially undermining the mutual commitment to defend shared sovereignty. ## Emotional Decision-Making Risks Both nations bear responsibility for current tensions, often reacting based on emotion rather than objective national security facts. General VanHerck suggests that maturity in diplomatic discourse is necessary to avoid damaging the defence apparatus. He emphasizes that closed-door, non-emotional discussions are essential to maintaining the integrity of the integrated North American security structure. ## Hypersonic Threat Vulnerabilities Hypersonic weapons pose a critical challenge to NORAD’s warning and assessment capabilities. Canada remains highly exposed to this threat, as it currently lacks the necessary satellite constellations and radar infrastructure to bridge the detection gap. While the U.S. is developing Low Earth Orbit solutions, both nations face urgent needs for technological modernization. ## Funding and Modernization Progress Prime Minister Mark Carney has reportedly advanced NORAD commitments by securing previously stalled funding. General VanHerck argues that arbitrary targets, such as the two percent GDP spending goal, are less effective than threat-based planning. He advocates for focusing on specific capability requirements rather than relying on abstract percentages to measure national security contributions. ## Binational Command and Control NORAD operates under strict binational agreements that grant Canada significant influence over security decisions. In cases where national policies diverge, such as the Chinese surveillance balloon incident, the U.S. may utilize independent authorities. These legal frameworks ensure that both nations maintain clear protocols for managing crises within their shared airspace and continental jurisdiction. ## Sovereignty vs Interoperability Balance Canada’s pursuit of reduced reliance on U.S. suppliers must be balanced with the necessity of integrated, interoperable capabilities. Maintaining shared bases, fuel, and command systems is vital for operational strength. General VanHerck warns that prioritizing sovereignty through inferior equipment could ultimately compromise the effectiveness of the binational defence industrial base and overall security. ## Planning for Extreme Scenarios General VanHerck expressed surprise at the focus on a U.S. invasion scenario, noting no indicators of such intent. Military planners typically focus on external threats like Russia or China, which require Canadian ports and surveillance for maritime operations. Planning for a U.S. threat is viewed as irrelevant compared to these actual, high-stakes geographic risks. ## Integrity of Military Leadership The foundation of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship remains the character and integrity of military leadership. Despite political volatility, senior officers on both sides maintain absolute trust and respect. This professional bond ensures that the core NORAD mission continues effectively, shielded from the emotional fluctuations that occasionally characterize the broader political relationship between nations. ## Future of the Partnership The Canada-U.S. defence relationship is essential for both national security and economic prosperity. Moving forward, both nations must prioritize factual, long-term strategic planning over short-term political gains. Maintaining integrated, operable capabilities is the only way to ensure North American safety against evolving global threats, reinforcing the necessity of a stable, binational alliance. ## Sources covering this story - https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-war-gamed-a-u-s-invasion-a-former-norad-commander-explains-why — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._