- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m siding with NATO if the US invades Greenland.
Risky bet as NATO would probably not survive the US invading another member. If NATO dissolves I would argue that that is defeat.
NATO is effectively over. Nobody would count on Trump respecting article 5…
I mean the good part of NATO, obviously.
Maybe better idea would be to rally IN FRONT of Greenland?
An invasion for a hostile place like that would be extremely reliant on supplies. Running out of supplies means rapidly becoming completely unable to fight and probably even freezing to death.
Ships would be vulnerable to submarines and arctic ice. The US would have to rely mainly on its air power but the weather there can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for long periods of time. It is also extremely challenging to distribute those supplies on land over long distances.
And that’s even supposing that your soldiers even know the basics of how to survive in an Arctic environment like that or they’d just die on their own. And having done some cold weather exercises with Americans, I can tell you that the vast majority of them don’t stand a chance against the elements. Leave them there to their own devices for two days and the survivors will be surrendering to the locals in exchange for a warm place to be.
Really, a place like that has many, many ways to make an invasion go wrong.
I hate it, but unless the world begins stationing defenses in Greenland there’s no chance. The US doesn’t even need aircraft. They have ballistic missiles that can reach from the mainland to Greenland.
The US spent decades ensuring it can project power anywhere in the world at any time, and don’t think Greenland is a unique environment for the US military. Several northern Alaskan bases have been in operation since the cold war. They know the environment.
It’s scary. I’d imagine all cities would be lost within days and the most remote areas would be able to host an insurgency. See Afghanistan, but if the US is going to annex Greenland they will throw even more resources at it
It’s a bit easier when they already have a base in Greenland
Not an arm chair general but I found this former finnish officer’s take on the outcomes interesting / educational: https://youtu.be/8hdthsG8tks
deleted by creator
They will need nukes in greenland.
The actions of the US and Russia in the past several years has been a great argument for nations to build nuclear stockpiles. Which is bad globally, but is a totally reasonable reaction
I mean, we can go back to the Axis of Evil and see how it went.
That was a random thing that some George Bush Jr. advisor invented, lumping Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together.
Iraq: invaded, destroyed (no nukes)
Iran: bombed regularly, leaders assassinated (no nukes)
North Korea: love affair with Trump (nukes)
Time to send our submarines to the area.
Hey US, do you remember the last encounter with the Gotland class?
Either way, let me remind you.
WE DOMINATED YOU.
The Gotland simulated sinking your carriers time and time again, and you had no idea we were even in the area.
deleted by creator
