51–60 of 80 posts
Countries without a strong nuclear deterrence don't have a seat at the table in this new geopolitical era. Looking at you, Ukraine, Taiwan and (can't believe I'm saying this) Denmark.
How would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes
This is the top post this morning? The issue won't come to military action. But if it did, Denmark could exercise all they want, and it would still last about ten minutes. Not sure how this is relevant to anything.
I don't think there's much doubt about a US success if it came to that. The relevance—and yes, this is highly relevant—is to determine what would be left of the current world order after those "ten minutes".
If anyone is wondering why MAGA is obsessed with Greenland: https://www.deadcarl.com/p/the-perverse-interest-in-greenlan... And if you think it's ridiculous to focus on a random twitter troll to explain this admin, then you don't understand this admin, because impressing these guys (and this guy in particular) is largely all they do.
Dumbest fucking timeline ever.
I wonder how likely Trumps assumption, that Russia or China will take it if he doesn't, is..
OK, great, they've got troops in Greenland. Now they have to keep them supplied. How are they going to do that? Well, either through the air or by sea.
Does either have a navy that can do that? No. Does either have an air force that can do that against US opposition? No.
So it's really unlikely. Even if China or Russia were stupid enough to do that, they could never hold it.
Now, perhaps the more interesting question: How likely does Trump think it is? Does he think it's real, despite the absurd impossibility of it? Or is he just saying fact-free stuff that he hopes some people will believe?
I wonder how likely Trumps assumption, that Russia or China will take it if he doesn't, is..
They do not really care until the United States takes Greenland. Or NATO outright attacks Russia. Then they do care. Because controlling Greenland means whoever has it gets excessive control over the Arctic Sea. And both parties, but especially Russia, do not want a party like the United States to have this amount of control given the Arctic is in their backyard.
The US had military bases in Greenland when Soviet nukes had to be delivered with bombers flying over Greenland.
When ICBMs became a thing, those bases weren't as important anymore.
I feel like this is all going to end up with Denmark agreeing to long-term resource share with USA where USA gets something like 85% in exchange for Denmark getting to keep the title. Nobody is going to war over this and Denmark/EU wants to save face.
> Nobody is going to war over this and Denmark/EU wants to save face. I'm not so sure. Between all of Trump antics, and Russia's invasions, I think they're starting to realize that if you let the bully take the small things you don't especially care about, they're just going to demand bigger things.
list of countries offering some form of allied support, so far: CA DE ES FI FR* IS IT NL NO PO SE UK* (*P5 seat)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. The U.S. has multiple bases in Greenland. Denmark, and NATO are also present. 2. Russia can't even expand their presence to Ukraine (not a NATO memeber). 3. China has no access. So, 0%.
Currently USA only has one base left: Pituffik Space Base (previously called Thule Air Base). They used to have about 17 bases and several thousand military personnel, but now it's down to about 200. If USA wanted it, they could establish all the bases they wanted and send more people, but they chose to cut down on military presence over the past years. Source: Have worked on that last base several years ago. Also ch…
[flagged]
What has this got to do with anything. The History is now and the now is that Greenlanders own Greenland, they are independent from Denmark. Denmark apologised to the indigenous people of the country. Frankly if you voted for Donald Trump, you're a traitor to America.
This is the top post this morning? The issue won't come to military action. But if it did, Denmark could exercise all they want, and it would still last about ten minutes. Not sure how this is relevant to anything.
> it would still last about ten minutes. Not sure how this is relevant to anything. I don't think there's much doubt about a US success if it came to that. The relevance—and yes, this is highly relevant—is to determine what would be left of the current world order after those "ten minutes".