4 ms·

The numbers work against your idea in a huge way. - There are only 57k people Greenland. A portion (6%) of which are already friendly to the idea of joining t

by kcplate 9mo ago

The numbers work against your idea in a huge way. - There are only 57k people Greenland. A portion (6%) of which are already friendly to the idea of joining the US, the undecideds are 9%. - How many converts to the deal would you get if you actually dangled a $100k per person lump sum (Literally this is a tenth of what the federal government claims it has saved closing USAID)? I assume a few. Maybe quite a few. Add to that an Alaska style ongoing PFD that paid out annually. That’s a tasty carrot. No takers to the deal? Wild, ok though…so we fight instead of fattening the bank accounts. How many will be willing to pull a trigger and risk certain death if they do? Let’s be generous and call it a third of the population (basically half of the hardliners). But…realize that only 65% of the population are between 13 and 65. So you are talking about maybe 12k people who might be willing and could effectively take up arms. Bear in mind due to disperse population centers…the largest single concentration of resistance would be about 5k people. Let’s go ahead and add in the entire Danish active duty military (17k people). 29k people with 40% of them being civilians with minimal training…against the might of the US military. That seems like terrible odds. But what about NATO? NATO is pragmatic. It’s highly likely that every other NATO member would decide to just stay out of the conflict because they would rather have a NATO with the US and without Denmark than the other way around.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
meheleventyone 9mo ago
Thank god there are no recent, decades long, examples of the might of the US military having issues with small populations of underequipped people willing to defend their homes from them as an aggressor.
- kcplate 9mo ago
  Not too many of those examples with only 57k people where 99% of them live within 10 miles of the coast.
JohnFen 9mo ago
> they would rather have a NATO with the US and without Denmark than the other way around. I'm not so sure about that. The US has successfully alienated pretty much everybody that used to think well of us. We now represent a threat to them. We have lost a huge amount of goodwill and respect. Why would they prefer us over Denmark? Because we have big guns that we're willing to use against them? That's all the more reason to distance themselves from us.
- kcplate 9mo ago
  Because we contribute $980B a year in NATO funding and Denmark contributes $10B Would you want essentially your continent’s defense budget reduced by two thirds?
  - JohnFen 9mo ago
    If the alternative is to be under the thumb of a hostile nation, yes. It would suck, but what other thing could realistically be done?
    - kcplate 9mo ago
      Alternative? You take the money and realize that you are not really going to be under a hostile nation at all, you achieved a better benefactor, thats all. That you will be likely be a lot like Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. A fully sovereign state that allows the US access to your land for defense purposes and get some other economic perks as well. Bring in some companies to harvest your mineral resources and enjoy the wealth that a mineral rich country with only 57k citizens can imbue on its people.
      - JohnFen 9mo ago
        > you are not really going to be under a hostile nation at all The US is being overtly hostile, though. We're even threatening nations who should be allies with military invasion. Who would look at that behavior and think "yeah, but they'll behave differently once they pay us?" > allows the US access to your land for defense purposes We already had that with Greenland without threatening them with violence or taking their country. > Bring in some companies to harvest your mineral resources and enjoy the wealth This is a thing that they could already do if they wished it. As of yet, they don't wish it. When a bully is threatening you, the very worst thing you can do is to give in to the bully. Even if the bully would totally win in a fight. I suspect most nations understand this.
OkayPhysicist 9mo ago
If we were interested in buying it out from under Denmark, we could have done that before souring relations with some of our strongest allies. If we are only interested in using it for strategic military purposes, we already have effectively unchecked ability to set up bases and such. I can buy that Greenland valuable to the US for geopolitical reasons. I can't understand what about the status quo of "we get to put our military here, and our close ally Denmark can run the civilian stuff" was so terrible that we needed to undermine our allies' and enemies' confidence in us to seize it.

by kcplate 9mo ago

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

meheleventyone 9mo ago

Thank god there are no recent, decades long, examples of the might of the US military having issues with small populations of underequipped people willing to defend their homes from them as an aggressor.

kcplate 9mo ago
Not too many of those examples with only 57k people where 99% of them live within 10 miles of the coast.

JohnFen 9mo ago

> they would rather have a NATO with the US and without Denmark than the other way around. I'm not so sure about that. The US has successfully alienated pretty much everybody that used to think well of us. We now represent a threat to them. We have lost a huge amount of goodwill and respect. Why would they prefer us over Denmark? Because we have big guns that we're willing to use against them? That's all the more reason to distance themselves from us.

kcplate 9mo ago
Because we contribute $980B a year in NATO funding and Denmark contributes $10B Would you want essentially your continent’s defense budget reduced by two thirds?
- JohnFen 9mo ago
  If the alternative is to be under the thumb of a hostile nation, yes. It would suck, but what other thing could realistically be done?
  - kcplate 9mo ago
    Alternative? You take the money and realize that you are not really going to be under a hostile nation at all, you achieved a better benefactor, thats all. That you will be likely be a lot like Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. A fully sovereign state that allows the US access to your land for defense purposes and get some other economic perks as well. Bring in some companies to harvest your mineral resources and enjoy the wealth that a mineral rich country with only 57k citizens can imbue on its people.
    - JohnFen 9mo ago
      > you are not really going to be under a hostile nation at all The US is being overtly hostile, though. We're even threatening nations who should be allies with military invasion. Who would look at that behavior and think "yeah, but they'll behave differently once they pay us?" > allows the US access to your land for defense purposes We already had that with Greenland without threatening them with violence or taking their country. > Bring in some companies to harvest your mineral resources and enjoy the wealth This is a thing that they could already do if they wished it. As of yet, they don't wish it. When a bully is threatening you, the very worst thing you can do is to give in to the bully. Even if the bully would totally win in a fight. I suspect most nations understand this.

OkayPhysicist 9mo ago

If we were interested in buying it out from under Denmark, we could have done that before souring relations with some of our strongest allies. If we are only interested in using it for strategic military purposes, we already have effectively unchecked ability to set up bases and such. I can buy that Greenland valuable to the US for geopolitical reasons. I can't understand what about the status quo of "we get to put our military here, and our close ally Denmark can run the civilian stuff" was so terrible that we needed to undermine our allies' and enemies' confidence in us to seize it.