The inevitable war with Greenland

If I was the PM of Canada I would troll the tanman in social media/press and tv that Canada is going to have protection under the Golden dome..and we make the Americans pay for it

 

What a stupid answer.

 

Not to forget that the harbors in Greenland are frozen solid right now, and the US navy only have one very old icebreaker available and also have had to lend a Danish navy icebreaking warship in the past, which just proves their lack of Arctic military capacity at sea.

The national Danish broadcaster DR, have received a leaked document, that the 200 Danish troops who arrived in Greenland 4 days ago, and the 100 deployed the day after, to be raised to 1,000 to participate in the Danish lead NATO Operation Arctic Endurance for the rest of the year and ongoing, had recieved orders to defend Greenland in case of a US invasion. So the standing order to shoot first and ask later.

Not to forget the warships and Arctic special forces from France and other NATO allies who have arrived, would make an invasion way too risky for Trump, with lots of casualties and potentially starting a WW3

 

We should expect nothing less than the orange idiot starting another world war. Yet another entirely predictable consequence of his election. If only Kamala didn't laugh funny!

 

The rumor is that Trump's tariff threat against the countries participating in the Danish lead NATO Operation Arctic Endurance was dropped because both Danish and Swedish pension funds announced that they are dumping their US debt bonds and other US investments, which caused the US treasury yield to spike in a single day, which makes mortgages and buying homes more expensive among other things.

Not to forget that the EU announced they were going to tear up their US trade and tariff deal they had made with Trump, and perhaps use the EU trade "bazooka" that originally was designed for a possible trade war with China, but now could be used on the USA instead.

 

I'm not sure if there's a word to describe this, but Trump does see certain problems, but then goes about trying to solve them in the absolutely worst way.

Yes, illegal immigration is a problem in the US, and something does need to be done about it. But militarizing ICE and sending them out on the streets like an occupying army is asinine.

Yes, Arctic security is an important national defense problem. But, rather than threatening war with our closest allies, the solution would be for the US to build ice-breakers for the Coast Guard, and to work more closely with countries like Denmark and Canada to collectively increase our presence in the Arctic. But Trump sees every situation in terms of someone winning and someone losing. The idea that both the US and its allies can "win" when it comes to national security in the Arctic doesn't really register with him.

 

Zero-dumb thinking

 

But Kamala's laugh was so annoying.

 

Trump rather want to spend billions on these huge shiny old fashioned war ships, that would absolutely sink all by themselves like a "Titanic" if deployed in the Arctic.

 

I disagree that the "illegal immigration" in the US is a problem and that it is illegal. What is broken is how the US manages the immigrants that cross our borders. The US's immigration courts are years behind due to understaffing and underfunding. If it were funded properly, the US would be able to process migrants as they entered the country and make the determination at that point if they should be allowed into the country or not. Instead, there's a 3.5 million backlog and the US closed out about a million last year. Even if not a single undocumented crossed the US border, it would still take 3.5 years to clear the backlog.

 

For immigration, sure.

But the number of Americans worried about Arctic security, outside of the military and intelligence community, is vanishingly small. The whole Greenland thing was an insane waste of time and effort for everyone involved.

 

The whole "Arctic security" narrative is grossly exaggerated. Yes, Russia and China may try to poke their nose into the Arctic, but an actual invasion, the kind that would justify the hysteria about the need to "defend" Greenland is highly implausible - and I am putting this mildly.

Let’s take China first. If Chinese ships wants to reach Greenland in order to land troops there, they would need to take one of these routes:

By sea:

1. Sail south past Asia, then past Africa, then cross the whole Atlantic from South to North;
2. Or, sail south past Asia, go through Suez, traverse the Mediterranean, go through the Gibraltar and again cross nearly half the Atlantic;
3. Or, sail east, cross the whole Pacific, go through Panama Canal, go through the Caribbean and again a large part of the Atlantic.

If the Chinese Navy manages to pull this off, the whole command of the US Navy would need to be shot for treason.

By air: take off from China, fly across the whole of Russia and then across the Arctic, evade NATO detection and land in Nuuk. That’s 8000 km in a straight line, not counting any evasive maneuvers. Carrying out an airborne operation in hostile airspaces 8000 km is quite… complicated.

Now, Russia. In theory, they have an easier job, because, unlike China, they are an arctic power and not on the other side of the globe. However, the Russian navy is not in the best of shape and still has to go through NATO controlled waters to reach Greenland. The same situation is if they try to go by air: there are around 5000 km from west of the Volga to Nuuk.

But let’s assume that either China or Russia has somehow managed to land a brigade of troops in Greenland and establish a base. How exactly are they going to preserve access to that base in order to supply and eventually strengthen their forces, if NATO wants to blockade them?

In order to be useful, a base in Greenland would need to be able to host ships or aircraft, service those assets, possess radar installations and missile units for air defense and offensive purposes, etc. How are Russia and China going to maintain a line of supply with their Greenland base when the seas and airspace in North Atlantic are controlled by NATO?

NATO does not even need to defend Greenland itself. All they have to do is block the approaches to Greenland in the event of war, which they can do without even setting foot in Greenland, and that would be it.

 

Do you really believe there’s better than a 50-50 chance we will have a world war in the next 3 years? Because unless you do, putting this kind of fake, cynical, negative energy out into the world increases the chance of fascism winning, albeit by a tiny, tiny percent.

 

Dunno about chat gtp, but is there anything in the text incorrect?

 

As others have noted, we don’t have an illegal immigration problem, and not just in the language policing “undocumented not illegal!” way.

AIUI we have an unprocessed immigration problem.

Maybe that’s the kind of language policing we need…maybe we should stop calling them undocumented, and start calling them unprocessed. Although that makes them sound like an item on RFKJR’s recommended foods list. Help me out here people! Give us a better word!

But yall get my point I think…what we have is best described as a bureaucratic problem, not a law enforcement problem.

 

Why do you think there are only around 60,000 people there?
Because the living is easy?
The USA brought their own numbers of military there down, .....because it's easy there?
Anyway, do you think these 60,000 eat food grown in Greenland?
So a blockade would also mean supplying 60,000 people on top of the boots on the ice of food etc.
Making them go hungry or lacking of fuel etc.isnot a very good idea for a population with one of the highest gun owner rates in the world.

 

The US needs comprehensive immigration reform. And thought he Democrats have some blame, most of it falls on the Republicans.

Some sort of bargain to strengthen enforcement of immigration laws and better secure the border, combined with a path to legal residency for people who are here already, and a better system to attract workers the economy needs would be great. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

I'm actually not opposed to the path to citizenship being a long and "difficult" one. My preference is that the US be a lot more liberal with work visas that need to be renewed every few years and then after a certain number of years (5ish?), they become eligible for a green card at which point they can apply for citizenship if they want, but also require them to be on a green card for a certain number of years (another 5ish?).

 

The current rule is that you have to be on a green card for 5 years before you can apply for citizenship.

 

Dude, we had a bill exactly like that in Summer 2024. Trump got it killed. It’s not mostly Republicans, it’s 100% Republicans.