5 ms·
Danish Armed Forces expand their presence and continue exercises in Greenland
- apples_oranges 10mo agoI wonder how likely Trumps assumption, that Russia or China will take it if he doesn't, is..
- sorokod 10mo agoTake it? You mean go to war with NATO over Greenland?
- skirge 10mo agoimpossible, like war for Cyprus
- actionfromafar 10mo agoI wonder if that was a joke or not. :) If serious: agree, Russia or China won't take Greenland.
- sorokod 10mo agoA bit different, nether Russia nor China are NATO members like Turkey and Greece
- i80and 10mo agoAbout 0%. China really has no serious interest in Greenland, and Russia isn't going to trigger direct confrontation with NATO. At least, unless NATO splinters, which is looking somewhat likely now with this foolish US administration. Russia and China are just made-up excuses for Trump to do what he wants to do: steal territory, at gunpoint if needed.
- fsh 10mo agoZero. Denmark belongs to the EU and NATO, and Greenland has always had a significant NATO military presence to deter any possible threat.
- hypeatei 10mo agoWe already have military bases there and I'm sure Greenland wouldn't have cared if we asked for a few more. This is all to stroke someone's ego and get their name in a history book.
- V__ 10mo ago1. 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%.
- ochrist 10mo agoCurrently 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 check wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
- actionfromafar 10mo agoThe real problem is so many in the Trump base thinks "America Bigger? Trump good."
- iamcalledrob 10mo agoToday, the US can defend Greenland as part of NATO, and would have the support of the other NATO nations.
- mindcrash 10mo agoThey 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.
- actionfromafar 10mo agoThat sounds reasonable but it's not IMHO. What kind of control is that? 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.
- mindcrash 10mo agoI'm not talking about military strength, I am talking about shipping lanes. Something you can already see in Venezuela as we speak: The Trump Administration has essentially blocked countries like Russia and Iran to ship oil from Venezuela. If they capture Greenland and can build a big Naval presence there they are in a great position to confiscate every cargo ship destined to Russian harbors in the north, and close off China's trading route in the Arctic aswell.
- actionfromafar 10mo agoRight. A phone call to Denmark => big Naval presence. What's the problem? Denmark would have welcomed a big Naval presence in Greenland. It benefits them too. It should have been: America: can we have a big Naval base in Greenland? Denmark: sure. 100 year agreement? It could have been: America: give us big Naval base in Greenland or we will annex you! Denmark: Eh... sure, are you alright? We got: America: we will annex you.
- scotty79 10mo agoIn modern world if you want to estimate validity of the message it's a better heuristic to consider the source than the message itself.
- AnimalMuppet 10mo agoLets just say that Russia or China does some surprise attack and lands a bunch of troops in Greenland. 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?
- RagAlgo 10mo ago[flagged]
- techblueberry 10mo agohttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo
- alpineman 10mo agoGreenland made their choice: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo Let's hope it's respected
- LastTrain 10mo agoHow about we not look for ways to rationalize our current evil behavior.
- 10mo ago
- flyinglizard 10mo agoCountries 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.
- k__ 10mo agoYeah, maybe this will make the case for converting France's arsenal to an EU arsenal.
- blargthorwars 10mo agoThis would be bad for the EU. France has a first-strike doctrine. It's unique in the world, and it scares the shit out of everybody. An EU arsenal would be a typical retaliatory-strike doctrine.
- k__ 10mo agoThe conversion could include a doctrine change.
- gregoriol 10mo agoHow would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes
- Steve16384 10mo agoA nuclear deterrent is still a deterrent, no matter how small. No country (hopefully) wants to risk any kind of nuclear war. Ukraine would never have been invaded if it still had its nukes.
- etyhhgfff 10mo agoWe cannot know. My best guess is that at some point in the future there will be a military conflict between two parties that have nukes. Pakistan vs India for instance. And although they have nukes they would fight conventionally unless one party is about to lose.
- Geonode 10mo agoThis 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.
- tomrod 10mo agoBecause the hacker community is worried about it, and because it is such a nonce thing to do yet it is still being threatened.
- k__ 10mo agoIt's about what happens globally after an occupation
- netsharc 10mo ago> The issue won't come to military action. How can you be so certain with that diaper-filler in chief? Deploying troops looks like an attempt to dissuade invasion by highlighting that the optics of US troops capturing (hopefully not shooting at) NATO troops would be real bad...
- danmaz74 10mo agoTaking Greenland by force against a NATO (supposed?) ally would be the end of "the West" as a largely aligned block since WWII. The effects would be felt by everybody, including technologists.
- piva00 10mo ago> Not sure how this is relevant to anything. You are not sure how it's relevant the main pillar of NATO is openly talking about military action against one of the founding members of NATO? It's relevant since everything in your life right now if you live in any Western country is reliant on this partnership since the end of WW2. If it changes you'll live in a different world, not sure how this is not relevant to you.
- scotchmi_st 10mo agoSure the US could para a few soldiers in and raise the flag, but then what? US equipment and training isn’t designed for a country where the average temperature is above freezing for only 3 months of the year. When it’s minus 30 Celsius, lubricants gum up, batteries die and you need ice-breaker ships to resupply forces (which the US doesn’t have many of). Denmark and the other Nordic countries do have equipment and training designed for those conditions, and they know the (vast) landscape well, since they train there. Imagine Afghanistan but against a modern, professional army and with the weather trying to kill you. Which isn’t to say that it would be impossible, but certainly it would cost more in terms of casualties and money than most Americans realise.
- martythemaniak 10mo agoIf anyone is wondering why MAGA is obsessed with Greenland: https://www.deadcarl.com/p/the-perverse-interest-in-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.
- ryandvm 10mo agoHonestly I think he's right. This is all for one man's vanity and the Republicans are fine with letting him do whatever he wants as long it means they get their policy wins and, more importantly, he doesn't post something nasty about them on Truth Social. Dumbest fucking timeline ever.
- skirge 10mo agoEurope, reactive not proactive.
- Steve16384 10mo agoOut of curiosity, what do you think they should have done?
- amelius 10mo agoI suppose the answer would be "build a better army, 20 years ago".
- scotty79 10mo agoAmericans were very efficiently suppressing such ideas. They were never interested in Europe having effective army. They only wanted to sell equipment and partially support their bases with European money. When the school bully is your "friend" you don't exactly have the freedom to do what's best for you.
- taneliv 10mo agoAs a European (but not Danish), I feel like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark is quite proactive.
- skirge 10mo agohow many months in Arctic training?
- taneliv 10mo agoNice try, Mr. Spy! If I were to guess, probably all of the months (four to twelve) in units that are in the Arctic, and (very close to) zero months in other units. I also don't know how well military experience from other Danish regions translates to the Arctic. Probably quite well, I'd imagine.
- petcat 10mo agoI 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.
- LastTrain 10mo agoAgree, under threat of coercion.
- willvarfar 10mo agoGreenland and Denmark have always been encouraging minerals deals etc, they just haven't materialized.
- mcphage 10mo ago> 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.
- aebtebeten 10mo agothoughts on a potential legal framework re: Operation Arctic Endurance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630190 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)
- JohnFen 10mo ago> Nobody is going to war over this I disagree. I think that the US could very easily trigger a war here (I suspect that's the intention), and not a war that would be contained to Greenland. It's not just about Greenland or Denmark, after all.
- duxup 10mo agoI wouldn’t put anything past the current administration. Growing up I couldn’t imagine people being interrogated by masked armed men for daring to … go for a walk in the US. But that’s a thing now. Trump threatened to use the insurrection act just today for other “problems”.
- alpineman 10mo agoWhat a waste of resources to have to defend against one of your closest allies. This is a country that went to war on behalf of the US in Afghanistan (and lost 44 souls doing so). Disrespectful and shameful.
- lnsru 10mo agoThis is super interesting to watch. NATO will collapse as it is and hopefully Europe will crawl from under the skirt of Americans. I mean being there for 80 years after end of WW2 was a long time to develop some feeling of independence. Greenland is still a price to pay. Carelessness and ignorance aren’t cheap. Or Europe will be only very worried and sad again. I hope not. President Trump is a great wake up call for Europeans. Much better than million russian soldiers.
- amelius 10mo ago> President Trump is a great wake up call for Europeans. This is not a wake up call. This is more like being stabbed while sleeping over at your best friend's house.
- scotty79 10mo agoObviously sycophants of the dictator taken over all civil institutions as evidenced by the quality of this term when compared to previous one. But are there any signs that they have taken over the military? Iran and Venezuela was something they had in mind for decades. But are there any generals itching to test themselves invading Greenland against European military? They don't have to obey the civilians. Rule of law is a thin veneer that this president stripped clean. Now personal interests of the people in power is what matters. Are there any generals with personal interest to invade Greenland and fight Europe? They obviously can develop some but it should take few years at least, right?
- ChrisArchitect 10mo agoPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108