3 ms·

> I am not even sure the US would be able to completely dominate a conflict While everything you said may be correct (I’m not an expert), I doubt NATO countrie

> I am not even sure the US would be able to completely dominate a conflict While everything you said may be correct (I’m not an expert), I doubt NATO countries want to get in an energetic war with the US. It’s simply so costly in lives and resources and effort. Hypothetically if the US “takes” Greenland I fully expect all the NATO countries to declare war on them (as article 5 requires), but not attack with military. They’ll sell all their bonds and completely shut them out as if they don’t exist. Zero trade. No tech. No services (google, apple, etc). Not a single thing in or out to/from the us. Yes it would really suck for every country, but I suspect it would suck less than either slowly letting the US walk all over them and slowly take any country they want, or an energetic war. The US is putting its head in the sand and going backwards on renewables and vehicles and science and tech and so many more things. They’ll become an island if this happens. I don’t put it past trump to try. It’s exactly the kind of “emergency” he needs to give himself emergency powers and stay in office indefinitely.

jijijijij 1mo ago
There would be tripwire forces located in Greenland. The US would likely be required to directly engage European troops. I would expect Europe to let the carrier know it got no chance before it even starts shit, in the above scenario. Like when the US under Biden surfaced a nuclear triad sub in the Baltic Sea to dampen Russia's nuclear threats against Europe, early in the Ukraine war. Not sure Europe could afford to abstain from a military response after being actually attacked. It would look extremely weak, disrespectful to their attacked/fallen troops and puts their military deterrent in question globally. You can wreak the economy only once cutting ties with the US and it got more impact domestically with a costly war starting. To deescalate, US society's pain expectations must max out immediately, before the people, media and economy can adapt to a new normal/narrative. Look at Ukraine, a slow, reluctant response makes everything worse. If Europe/US had maxed out their support immediately, Russia would have like pulled out. Years of extreme pain must be the message, another costly war dragging on forever, something Americans understand and feel tired of. And I presume Canada would also not be too pleased, potentially having to up the stakes for a war in their neighborhood. A war which may just as well have fallen onto their own soil. It would be wise for them to stand with Europe, if they want to keep their own independence. The US military leadership actually having to plan an all-out war with Europe, possibly Canada, may prompt some introspection and a chance for internal conflict. Rumor has it, behind the scenes, the US NATO generals already apologized to their European counterparts for Trump's remarks on Greenland. There is probably a non-zero chance, any attack order would cause a coup rather than a war with Europe. Domestic revolt will only happen, if such conflict is credibly the stupidest thing imaginable on every axis and when relevant actors are actually confronted with that reality.
- testing22321 1mo ago
  > It would be wise for them [Canada] to stand with Europe, if they want to keep their own independence. NATO article 5 says they have to. And I have no doubt they would. There is only one country that is reneging on their commitments. It ain’t Canada.
  - jijijijij 1mo ago
    No one knows what NATO even means, if the US of all countries attacks a member state. Eg. there is no legal procedure for the US to leave NATO. There isn't really a NATO without the US. Although many countries would be advised to stand by the general idea of collective defense to ensure protection against other big players, following through is anything but certain. Therefore article 5 obligations are not particularly straightforward in this case. That's why merely the US rhetoric is damaging to the deterrence function of NATO (and global peace, nuclear disarmament for that matter). It's different for the EU, because the EU membership itself has collective defense obligations in case of attack. The EU got lucky France had an independent nuclear program, as we can't really count on the UK anymore, because they are not part of the EU anymore and also depend on the US technologically. That said, countries like Germany are expected to be able to gain nuclear capabilities quickly, if they have to.

jijijijij 1mo ago

There would be tripwire forces located in Greenland. The US would likely be required to directly engage European troops. I would expect Europe to let the carrier know it got no chance before it even starts shit, in the above scenario. Like when the US under Biden surfaced a nuclear triad sub in the Baltic Sea to dampen Russia's nuclear threats against Europe, early in the Ukraine war. Not sure Europe could afford to abstain from a military response after being actually attacked. It would look extremely weak, disrespectful to their attacked/fallen troops and puts their military deterrent in question globally. You can wreak the economy only once cutting ties with the US and it got more impact domestically with a costly war starting. To deescalate, US society's pain expectations must max out immediately, before the people, media and economy can adapt to a new normal/narrative. Look at Ukraine, a slow, reluctant response makes everything worse. If Europe/US had maxed out their support immediately, Russia would have like pulled out. Years of extreme pain must be the message, another costly war dragging on forever, something Americans understand and feel tired of. And I presume Canada would also not be too pleased, potentially having to up the stakes for a war in their neighborhood. A war which may just as well have fallen onto their own soil. It would be wise for them to stand with Europe, if they want to keep their own independence. The US military leadership actually having to plan an all-out war with Europe, possibly Canada, may prompt some introspection and a chance for internal conflict. Rumor has it, behind the scenes, the US NATO generals already apologized to their European counterparts for Trump's remarks on Greenland. There is probably a non-zero chance, any attack order would cause a coup rather than a war with Europe. Domestic revolt will only happen, if such conflict is credibly the stupidest thing imaginable on every axis and when relevant actors are actually confronted with that reality.

testing22321 1mo ago
> It would be wise for them [Canada] to stand with Europe, if they want to keep their own independence. NATO article 5 says they have to. And I have no doubt they would. There is only one country that is reneging on their commitments. It ain’t Canada.
- jijijijij 1mo ago
  No one knows what NATO even means, if the US of all countries attacks a member state. Eg. there is no legal procedure for the US to leave NATO. There isn't really a NATO without the US. Although many countries would be advised to stand by the general idea of collective defense to ensure protection against other big players, following through is anything but certain. Therefore article 5 obligations are not particularly straightforward in this case. That's why merely the US rhetoric is damaging to the deterrence function of NATO (and global peace, nuclear disarmament for that matter). It's different for the EU, because the EU membership itself has collective defense obligations in case of attack. The EU got lucky France had an independent nuclear program, as we can't really count on the UK anymore, because they are not part of the EU anymore and also depend on the US technologically. That said, countries like Germany are expected to be able to gain nuclear capabilities quickly, if they have to.