3 ms·

> I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US You immediat

by ben_w 10mo ago

> I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US You immediately lose all of your NATO allies, and have the potential for an immediate war with not only all of them but also all the non-NATO members of the EU, which includes two independent nuclear powers, and who hold enough assets to cripple your economy without even firing a shot: both by fire-sale of bonds and other assets, and even just by ceasing trade with you. China and Russia both have immediate and huge opportunities in both a hot war and an economic blockade. Of the two, I wouldn't put it past Russia to even attempt to use a nuke as a false-flag attack in this scenario, in either direction (US <-> former allies) or both directions. It would be really really stupid of them, but Putin's already shown consistent stupidity, so that's not enough to discount it.

rpiguy 10mo ago
The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become. Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much. Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived. Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue. All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door. Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade. Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have. There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. At best, you still lose all your allies. At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four. > Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly. Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from. > All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku? There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump. > The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. 1. And you think the US is unified right now? 2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate? > Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? No. I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me. How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?
  - Chance-Device 10mo ago
    That’s delusional. The EU won’t even deploy economic countermeasures against the US, let alone military resistance. The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital.
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      > The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital. If that's the best the EU can manage, the EU ends the same day, and all of the EU knows that. Ergo, they won't let that happen. Likewise, all of NATO except apparently part of the US, knows that the US taking Greenland by force means the end of NATO.

by ben_w 10mo ago

rpiguy 10mo ago

The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become. Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much. Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived. Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue. All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door. Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade. Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have. There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.

ben_w 10mo ago
> NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. At best, you still lose all your allies. At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four. > Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly. Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from. > All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku? There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump. > The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. 1. And you think the US is unified right now? 2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate? > Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? No. I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me. How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?
- Chance-Device 10mo ago
  That’s delusional. The EU won’t even deploy economic countermeasures against the US, let alone military resistance. The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital. If that's the best the EU can manage, the EU ends the same day, and all of the EU knows that. Ergo, they won't let that happen. Likewise, all of NATO except apparently part of the US, knows that the US taking Greenland by force means the end of NATO.