3 ms·

> or is it only the EU that gets to decouple from a major trading partner and the US isn't allowed? Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit se

by ben_w 9mo ago

> or is it only the EU that gets to decouple from a major trading partner and the US isn't allowed? Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. > But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". If the US wishes to leave that mutual defence pace (hence "two or three nuclear powers"), this is a big shift, much more than "we are sad about this", it would require a change in US law to leave, but still well short of "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Decoupling does not by itself force the US out of this treaty. If the US invades despite being party to this treaty, it is a traitor. I am not certain, but I suspect that the US military will take exception to be ordered to betray their allies, and may coup instead. If the US invades Greenland but only after leaving this treaty, which would currently be illegal under US law, Greenland still has two nuclear powers defending it.

ericmay 9mo ago
> Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Agreed, which is why the United States is decoupling from China and pivoting militarily away from Europe. If war is coming with China we won't be able to help much in Europe, and with European militaries outside of probably the UK and to some extent France and Poland needing massive overhaul, it's of the utmost importance that European military spending increase and training if Europe is to defend itself from Russia. My point is that it's the hypocrisy that I at least find grating. > The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  > Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy. I believe the EU would face a "fight or die" choice if the US tried it. Salami slicing, even for Greenland. Old British comedy, but same point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang But not only the US. Simply failing to go straight to war in such a case would also tell the Russians that the EU and the rest of NATO is not a real threat. Were the EU to announce it was doing nothing, 10 minutes later Russian nukes would be in the air to Berlin, Paris, and London. (Or at least, their launch would be attempted, I'm not sure Russian nuclear missiles or warheads work as advertised, but unless EU leaders are really sure they don't work they'd need to assume the worst). It's not like the Russians would fear a response from the US at that point, given the US would in this hypothetical clearly no longer be allies of NATO. No, we'd fight, because not fighting would guarantee death almost immediately. We may have a less exciting arsenal, we may not win such a fight, but we'd certainly bloody the US's nose.

by ben_w 9mo ago

ericmay 9mo ago

> Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Agreed, which is why the United States is decoupling from China and pivoting militarily away from Europe. If war is coming with China we won't be able to help much in Europe, and with European militaries outside of probably the UK and to some extent France and Poland needing massive overhaul, it's of the utmost importance that European military spending increase and training if Europe is to defend itself from Russia. My point is that it's the hypocrisy that I at least find grating. > The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy.

ben_w 9mo ago
> Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy. I believe the EU would face a "fight or die" choice if the US tried it. Salami slicing, even for Greenland. Old British comedy, but same point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang But not only the US. Simply failing to go straight to war in such a case would also tell the Russians that the EU and the rest of NATO is not a real threat. Were the EU to announce it was doing nothing, 10 minutes later Russian nukes would be in the air to Berlin, Paris, and London. (Or at least, their launch would be attempted, I'm not sure Russian nuclear missiles or warheads work as advertised, but unless EU leaders are really sure they don't work they'd need to assume the worst). It's not like the Russians would fear a response from the US at that point, given the US would in this hypothetical clearly no longer be allies of NATO. No, we'd fight, because not fighting would guarantee death almost immediately. We may have a less exciting arsenal, we may not win such a fight, but we'd certainly bloody the US's nose.