[Elmbeard]

So we have the scenario pretty well worked out. It smells all too much of the situation we had in Europe a century ago, when alliance was tied up with alliance, and all relying on some pretty mentally unstable world leaders who had taken over from master diplomats of an earlier generation. It took the assassination of an archduke in some minor country (Bosnia) to set the whole powder keg off. What then are we going to do about it, since this time we have the benefit of hindsight? I think you underestimate Canada as a major and benign force. It is a large country that stands to benefit (along with Russia) from global warming when the bread basket of America moves northwards. It will acquire a major seaway in the arctic. Its energy reserves have not really been explored yet. It has a small, sustainable human population. It has a stable and benevolent democracy under an equally stable and benevolent monarchy. It is out of the way of most of the trouble zones of the world. Its biggest handicap is this huge land border with the US, which might degenerate into a desperate nation of bankrupt drifters once they are financially over the cliff and China calls in the debts. How is Canada at securing its land borders, and attempting self-sufficiency when the US goes down? I do agree that its best prospects are Westwards across the Pacific, but your question ignores two countries, both of which are Commonwealth members with the same monarch and speak the same language, who might well turn out to be soulmates in turbulent times: Australia and New Zealand.