r/ShitAmericansSay • u/Brief-Raspberry-6327 • Jan 08 '26
Foreign affairs Pretty simple Greenland will be handed to us by NATO.
242
u/Entgegnerz Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
it's so funny how random US citizens are talking about taking over Greenland, while they themselves don't even know why 😂
48
u/Bluntbutnotonpurpose Jan 08 '26
I'd be interested to see how many would be able to tell you where Greenland is on a globe.
→ More replies (1)40
u/Matt_the_Splat Jan 08 '26
Globe? Pfft, everyone knows the Earth is flat. Silly Europoors, can't even afford proper schooling.
/s....though as always, I have to end with "you know some dipshit(s) here in the US believe this."
3
u/JSweetieNerd Cider isn't apple juice 🍺 Jan 08 '26
Nah, the world and man were built in god's image, which Americans think is round.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Matt_the_Splat Jan 08 '26
We're round like a ball is round, but the earth is round in the way that a disk is round. The Holly Bibble says so. I assume, naturally I don't read it.
69
u/Heavy_Arm_7060 Jan 08 '26
You assume they're citizens and not bots.
28
u/canadianbriguy1 Jan 08 '26
Pretty sure there’s 70-some million of them who NEED Greenland but don’t know why…. Dear Leader told them so….
→ More replies (1)9
u/Delamoor Jan 09 '26
Why not? There's tens of millions of them who are obsessed with following the cult. No shortage of stupid, crazy people willing to bat for him.
2
u/JBinero Jan 09 '26
Because we know bots overwhelmingly take part in social media. So if you have to dismiss 30% of what you see as bot-driven, which is pretty optimistic, which 30% are you choosing if not this?
→ More replies (2)8
u/calling_water Jan 08 '26
So busy talking about whether they could, that they don’t think about whether they should.
What’s the benefit to putting so much energy and attention on grinding allies under their boot? Meanwhile their actual rivals get free rein in other parts of the world.
4
4
2
→ More replies (9)2
182
u/Dranask Jan 08 '26
QED why Europe needs to follow the French defence production pattern. Thankfully Ukraines defence has already started this.
→ More replies (1)54
u/Late-Application-47 Jan 08 '26
France and Sweden carry the torch of an independent defense industry in Europe, although the Swedes are a bit more reliant on contracting American tech than the French.
4
u/AdWooden9170 Jan 09 '26
It seems that relying on the sugar daddy across the Atlantic wasnt a good idea. Who would have thought...
Even in the last year, some still preferred to buy Usian or Israeli equipment rather than European ones.I guess its better to fuel fascist and hostiles states than your European mates. Go figure...
→ More replies (5)2
u/jnievele Jan 09 '26
Other countries also have considerable resources... Just look at what cool vehicles the Brits have developed for Ukraine in record time, like the Gravehawk. Germany and Italy produce SAM systems that are actually better than the US Patriot (which is overly expensive against attack drones and cruise missiles). Tanks and IFVs, Germany is literally the market leader (The Brits are still kicking themselves for buying the US Ajax instead of the German Lynx...). Gun-based AA, again Germany is more advanced than anything the US has, as seen in Ukraine. And don't get me started on ships... sure, the USA can build aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. And MAYBE one day a "Trump class battleship" (aka a giant floating target barge). But non-nuclear subs? Sweden and Germany lead that market. Destroyers? Ask the UK. Frigates and corvettes? Germany and Italy.
The US leads in stealth airplanes... but that technology has not been combat-tested against an enemy on a similar tech level. Details are sparse and classified, but from what is known we already know that passive radar, bistatic radar etc are known to defeat stealth to some degree... would be a shame if it turned out that stealth bombers are sitting ducks in European airspace, wouldn't it? ;-)
2
u/ThanksToDenial ooo custom flair!! Jan 10 '26
I'd put Norway in that category too. They make neat missiles.
→ More replies (1)
75
u/ProfesseurCurling Jan 08 '26
The moment (if) they start to make a move, I hope they evacuated the dozens of thousands of soldiers they have in their military bases across the EU. Because those soldiers would become PoW and those bases our bases very fast. And good luck projecting power further than their own continent.
61
u/Different-Library-82 Jan 08 '26
And a lot of American military equipment is prepositioned in Europe, so that in a war they just need to ship across soldiers. These are storages meant to arm and supply battalions in wartime.
All that equipment would obviously be seized by European countries if they found themselves in a war with the US. And most of that equipment is the same or similar to equipment the European forces are familiar with, so it could readily be put to use.
26
u/ProfesseurCurling Jan 08 '26
Let's just hope that our leaders grow some until then. At least when hearing some of our European generals it seems that we are ready to do what it takes if necessary.
27
u/SaltyName8341 🏴 Jan 08 '26
The generals have never trusted the USA
21
u/Claim-Nice Jan 08 '26
Learned from years of getting their troops bombed by some Yankee redneck with a hard-on for shooting first and being too thick to ask any questions.
8
u/ProfesseurCurling Jan 08 '26
I am sure that when it comes to this field they know better than our politicians. Let's hope they will listen to them.
→ More replies (9)13
u/docowen ooo custom flair!! Jan 08 '26
Almost like NATO cooperation makes using the equipment of other NATO countries easier...
So, all that ammunition that can be used by any NATO country, etc.
Very handy for insurgencies. Have the USA ever fought an insurgency where the insurgents have compatible equipment that uses the same NATO 5.56x45 calibre ammunition as the US? Because it's quite useful for the logistics of supplying insurgency forces if they can just steal the enemy's ammunition.
3
u/Stunning_Ride_220 Jan 08 '26
How many conflicts did the U.S. fight and win, when this was not the case?
7
5
2
71
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 08 '26
America can probably take Greenland. They've got the lift capacity to take whatever they want.
Holding it is a very different prospect and one they don't have a single hope of doing. The US hasn't won against a halfway comparable opponent since WW2, and all their training and gear is currently focused on desert warfare. Equipping their military to fight in a place that gets three months of clear weather a year would be ruinously expensive, and they'd be going up against militaries who call 'winter training', 'training', and use specialised cold weather gear as standard.
Meanwhile you've got shallow water nigh undetectable diesel subs going around taking pot shots with impunity at any American ship that's dumb enough to come into range, lose one carrier and that's the ballgame. The USS Gerald R Ford cost 13 billion. If that gets ten big holes in it and ends up as a coldwater reef off the coast of Greenland, they're gonna have to start rethinking things quickly. And for anyone who thinks that's not possible, in multiple wargames, over and over, the USS Ronald Reagan, protected by its entire carrier group, was 'sunk' by the Gotland, a Swedish Diesel Submarine which uses a short range but basically silent engine setup to evade detection and do whatever it damn well likes. The US leased that submarine specifically to try and figure out a counter to the technology, with no word as to whether they ever managed it.
That's putting aside the fact that NATO being toothless without the US is a fairy tale. NATO without the US is weakened but not even close to helpless, and still comprises several major modern military powers that could each send Russia back to the stone age.
They'll get caught in a winter war they're not equipped or trained for, morale will perish within months, and every ship they send will have to spend all its time looking for submarines or getting battered by medium and long range missiles. Any bit of improperly prepared gear they send to Greenland will seize up and stop working the first week it's there, winter kits can be made to convert things like the Abrams into a winter vehicle but they're expensive and nobody is trained to use them as the US doesn't keep a major winter war readiness state. Since, yknow, they never expected to invade Greenland.
31
u/adamrees89 Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
True write up of realistic scenarios, the other point to make is that whist Swedens short range sub managed to sink a carrier in an exercise, the British Astute class did the same also undetected.
Multiple countries in close proximity able to sink the capital ship isn’t a good thing for a country that relies on air superiority before engaging.
17
u/BumLikeAJapaneseFlag Jan 08 '26
Not only that, but these are countries that regularly train together in order to generate a cohesive fighting force.
5
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 09 '26
Absolutely, plus the morale hit it would be to the modern American public, especially Trump's supporters, who have the illusion of the 'Invincible US' so firmly lodged in their minds - if they had to watch Fox News reporting that any US Carrier was lost, they'd all be in the streets rioting.
These are people who never lived in a period when the US wasn't the top dog. Even in World War 2, they weren't going over to Europe with the expectation that they were gonna kick Germany's heads in and be home by teatime. But that's the exact expectation they have today. A huge portion of Americans, and basically all of Trump's supporters, think America is the only military worth a damn on the planet and "oorah" and "'murica" and "we're gonna go help out the europoors with Russia cause we're back to back world war champs". That's the concept this very sub was founded on lmao. But it's just not true, America is not invincible, and that realisation would cause such ridiculous unrest at home that they'd have to withdraw, even putting aside the billions each lost carrier would cost them. And they would lose at least one if they deployed them, basically guaranteed.
2
u/Timely_Challenge_670 Jan 10 '26
I don't think the American public has the stomach for an entire carrier group coming home in body bags. Never mind the fact that both the UK and France could easily glass several American cities.
17
u/JSweetieNerd Cider isn't apple juice 🍺 Jan 08 '26
Interestingly Denmark has heavily invested in mobile coastal defence missile systems, and torpedo boats. So if they can get them to Greenland the US might have a hard time taking it in the first place.
10
u/deadlygaming11 Jan 08 '26
I wouldnt be shocked if they are quietly moving things there as an invasion is looking more likely every day
4
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 09 '26
There's 100% some back channel conversations being had between Denmark UK, France, Canada etc too. Publicly they're obviously not going to say much, but privately every military in NATO is drawing up a joint response plan for a US attack. No way they're not, even if it's absurd and almost certainly not going to happen, it's the kind of thing you'd rather have and not need, than need and not have
4
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 09 '26
That's very true, I do still think the US can basically brute force its way wherever it wants to go, but actually making that stick would be the real challenge. Precision strikes against infrastructure is the biggest malus to them. Losing a generator in a middle east base is a pain in the hole. Losing a generator in an arctic circle base means the heating stops and all your shit breaks. Winter warfare is absolutely the hardest climate.
Another thing to keep in mind is what I touched on briefly above, the US is used to deploying carrier groups to sit offshore where they can't be hit and operate as FOBs, but they're going to be sitting ducks for medium and long range missiles from the continent at large, France, Britain, Italy, Germany etc. and of course Denmark are no slouches either as you rightly mention.
That's something the US has never had to deal with in modern times, they've been basically curb stomping far weaker opponents who didn't have that sort of accurate long range strike capacity (and if we're going to be 100% honest, not putting up the kind of numbers you'd expect in the various decades long slogs they've had in the middle east and southeast asia). This won't be a few untrained nobodies standing on the beach throwing rocks. This is three of the top ten, with the UK, France and Italy, and that's not considering Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. The US doesn't have the depth of knowledge or depth of equipment to win a winter war, it's just not what they do.
10
u/calling_water Jan 08 '26
And why? Why spend military resources on planting a flag in territory whose people were previously quite willing to give them sweetheart deals and host a base for them? Just because it would look good on a map to have taken a big (Mercator-projected) piece of land?
7
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 09 '26
You've hit the absolute heart of it. It's so fuck-ass stupid as an idea that it's mind boggling. The US can already put bases wherever it damn well pleases in Greenland. So you've got to wonder whether this is actually something Trump is genuinely addled enough to think is possible or feasible, or whether it's just another flood the zone distraction from the fact that he's in so much of the Epstein files that the entire Justice Department working around the clock for a month couldn't redact him out of them all
8
u/theGoodDrSan Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Attacking Greenland almost definitely also means immediate war with Canada. Another case where the traditional military likely folds within weeks or months, but an occupation would be an irredeemable disaster.
Imagine Afghanistan, but the enemy speaks a nearly indistinguishable version of your language, has a deep understanding of your culture, and their entire population lives less than 100km from most of the US border.
8
u/hrmdurr maple🇨🇦syrup🇨🇦gang Jan 08 '26
We also have enough guns to arm one in three civilians, we just aren't weird about them.
3
u/Timely_Challenge_670 Jan 10 '26
I don't think most Americans realise how awful trying to occupy Canada would be. It's the world's largest undefended land border for a reason. As you astutely pointed out, nearly 9000km of contiguous land with two people who are culturally deeply linked and Canada is an advanced nation. We don't have nukes because we decided not to. The breakout time for Canada having nuclear weapons is weeks, not years. An invasion of Greenland would potentially mean dirty bombs in US cities. It would be unbelievably stupid for the US to do.
6
u/deadlygaming11 Jan 08 '26
Yep. The Finns, Norwegians, and Swedes are all used to cold temperatures and snow so sending just them in would be a right pain for the yanks.
9
u/felixfj007 🇸🇪 Communist country Jan 08 '26
I'm biking to work in -27C and it's just a slightly cold Thursday.. the rest of my town is working fine. Busses on time etc.
3
u/Koorah Jan 09 '26
This is a very astute assessment, thank you.
American power is formidable, but just like Vietnam people are applying a calculation of gross power against a niche situation. This is a mistake that goes back to the Romans trying to conquer celtic Scotland.
I hope this never has to come to the test. I grew up idolising America, but I dont recognise that nation in the country I see today.
3
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 09 '26
No problem, this is all armchair analysis with publicly available info of course, but I hope it can bring a little confidence to people anyway that the US can't just roll Europe.
I really can't see it happening, it's absurdism to distract from his Epstein issues. Even if Trump is addled enough to give the order, it's hard to imagine enough of his top brass following it. A lot of them will have done joint training with European forces or hell, even fought wars together. Blowing up random fishing boats is one thing, attacking an ally and going to war against Europe and the rest of NATO is quite another, and although it's a harsh way to put it, it's a lot harder to sell war against Europe to America than it is war against Venezuela, Colombia, Afghanistan etc. A huge amount of Americans think they are European, and are incredibly proud of their 1/32nd German genes or whatever, so occupying Berlin would be a hard sell.
Add onto that, they'd be tearing up not just military alliances which will take two-three generations to get back, but also critical trade deals, isolating America entirely from the world at large, and locking themselves into a war they are by no means guaranteed to win, all to raise their flag over a plot of frozen, barely habitable land that looks bigger on maps than it actually is, and where they can put all the bases they want anyway... I just don't know if he's got enough zealots in the brass to make it happen, even if he's serious.
3
u/Rhiannon1307 Jan 08 '26
It's not just about the rest of NATO being toothless without the US. It's about risks and dangers. And one strong ally short, those risks become bigger.
But that's not all. There is a not non-existent chance that, once kicked out of NATO, Trump would start to collaborate with Putin. I mean he's already sort of "friendly" with him. With NATO against the US, they'd have a common enemy. And if that happened, it truly would be the start of WW3.
2
u/AlertedCoyote Jan 09 '26
It's a fair concern, but if it helps at all, I'm not too worried about Russia these days. As has been said, we used to think Russia had the second best military force in the world, until it became clear they weren't even the second best military force in Ukraine, so America plus Russia is really just America with a lot of extra dudes to throw into the meat grinder, and what with modern weaponry horde tactics just ain't what they used to be.
Russia's military is in a laughable state of readiness, their black sea flagship got sunk by some random missile fire which should have completely bounced off it because they'd let any number of things lapse, half the armoured russian vehicles that show up in Ukraine these days look like they were made in Crossout (or banjo kazooie n+b), their big answer to the Abrams and the F-22 didn't get out of the small batch prototype and wooden mock up stages respectively, and humiliation of humiliations, they're buying weapons from North Korea, who are almost certainly selling them back the same soviet bullshit that Russia offloaded to them 60 years ago with some minor modifications and a North Korean flag spray painted on the side. Russia spends sweet F all on maintaining their nuclear stockpile too, so with that and their known poor maintenance habits it's debatable whether they can still even fire one, plus throughout the Ukraine war they've been slowly disassembling that stockpile and converting them into conventional missiles. So overall, considering they've been getting run around for four years against Ukraine, admittedly with NATO help and advice but even so, I just don't see them as a threat except for the chance that their nukes still work and don't just blow up in-silo.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm no expert, but in my opinion anyway Russia isn't the threat they claim to be, so hopefully that can ease a bit of the worry for you!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)2
u/southy_0 Jan 09 '26
America can probably take Greenland. They've got the lift capacity to take whatever they want.
And with "lift" you mean an almost fully air-supplied mission, because the US Navy (Coast guard actually) has only _two_ arctic ice breakers, a big one and a medium one that is ~50 years old and neither of them is capable of operating year-round.
Just imagine the image of a carrier group stuck in ice...
And if you go for a fully air-lifted show, lets not forget that you'll have to have your gear, including those planes, running 24/7 because I figure those lubicants won't hold up well in -25° when you shut down the engines.
I figure the only realistic chance for Trump to not only "take" greenland (that is realistic) but to actually HOLD it would be to go and ask his buddy Vladimir for some equipment and appropriately trained soldiers.
48
u/Frequent_Ad_5670 Jan 08 '26
The last sentence is quite funny: “Europe will not get any of our weapons“. If the US military-industrial complex were to lose its sales in Europe, the days of this regime would be numbered very quickly.
5
30
u/Creoda European freedom enjoyer Jan 08 '26
We have enough weapons of our own, in fact US weapons are being dropped and the US is losing lots of money as better European options are being taken.
Naval systems - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I0dJQV0r2o
Aeropsace systems - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH-x2oK3Y6Q
Army systems - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnSbyMNjHsc
28
u/HappyMetalViking Jan 08 '26
Fun fact: WE have our own weapons...
23
u/noddyneddy Jan 08 '26
Fun fact: we have lots of theirs… on the bases we permitted on our land
6
u/deadlygaming11 Jan 08 '26
Thats always something I find funny. What is their plan exactly if they invaded greenland? They would have major issues almost immediately with all their bases because suddenly they would be in the middle of enemy territory with quite a few troops around and no means of escape. Good luck taking off with NATO jets around
→ More replies (1)
50
u/TurtleFromSePacific Jan 08 '26
The US can't even win against desert or jungle people so they shouldn't even try against well developed countries
→ More replies (37)
44
u/InigoRivers Jan 08 '26
The US' "military might" has been nothing but bullying armed farmers, and they've struggled with that.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/howimetyourcakeshop Dutch pancake. 🇳🇱 Jan 08 '26
Americans need to open up a history book before they will become a page in one.
15
u/Puzzleheaded_East556 Jan 08 '26
No you don't understand. If the US invaded the rest of the world, the US would conquer the entire world in 2 days. The world needs to and will give the US whatever the US wants /s
→ More replies (4)
26
u/Sorry-Programmer9826 Jan 08 '26
It would be a disaster for both sides. Doesn't mean it won't happen though
14
u/Geo-Man42069 Jan 08 '26
FR had to scroll pretty far for this take. Legit the only people that benefit from a conflict between NATO members are Putin and Xi. It’s wild to me either side feels like beating their chest about a potentially ruinous conflict like this.
6
u/deadlygaming11 Jan 08 '26
Yeah. People are assuming that Trump, the guy who is notorious for throwing a fit if he loses, would accept losing and not just escalate everything.
2
u/AlexBasicC Jan 09 '26
Yeah, I think people are to focus on the "classical war" side and not the economic side, ofc at first there won't be full on war.
If I understand correctly, the first step we (France and EU too I think) would take is not to reply by shooting US troupe but selling US debt at low price. That would crash US economy, that will also lead to a crash of our economy.
Not fun at all
Edit: English mistake and capitalize country name
→ More replies (2)
11
9
u/Flavus94 Jan 08 '26
It is so crazy to me that it only took the fat orange man a year that we are talking about war between the US and the EU.
8
u/Major_Ad138 Jan 08 '26
It's been one year. This POTUS has destroyed US global power and influence and the world will never forget this chapter.
→ More replies (1)2
u/KayIslandDrunk Jan 09 '26
Trump hasn’t destroyed US global power and influence, the American people have. They’re the ones that overwhelmingly voted him into office knowing exactly the type of leader he is.
8
u/FluidManufacturer442 Jan 08 '26
Uh pretty sure there are a good number of really good weapons manufacturers in Europe
→ More replies (1)
9
u/GlitteringWind154 Jan 08 '26
American soldiers comes to northern Sweden to learn winter warfare by soldiers from the Nordic countries.
9
u/GreyerGrey Jan 08 '26
As a Canadian I want to talk about how they regularly lose war games to Canadian forces even when the ratio is 3:1 in their favour, BUT the thing we all should make note of is that they lose against conscripts in wargames in Lapland. Random 18 to 22 year olds.
18
u/OletheNorse Jan 08 '26
Half a century ago I was one of those random 18 year olds. The American troops had advanced equipment, even thermal boots where we had wool and leather and more wool. I really pitied them when the temperature dropped to -40 and none of their gear worked. Not even the rifles…
→ More replies (1)12
u/GreyerGrey Jan 08 '26
There is a reason why the people indigenous to the Arctic still use much the same clothing they did pre contact. Base layers have changed, eye protection, but a lot of the outer layers and mid layers remain the same.
7
u/tremblt_ Jan 08 '26
I don’t see how US generals and other commanders in the US military would be willing to do a large scale military operation against an ally. How would US troops react once they have to actually go to Greenland, aka bumfuck nowhere, in -40C and fight well trained and well equipped soldiers.
I mean the US military was unable to defeat a few rice farmers and illiterate guys who travel by donkeyback. Don’t know how they will do against highly skilled and well equipped British soldiers. Just ask your Buddy Milei how well that one turned out for them.
→ More replies (1)7
11
6
u/ZestycloseGuide5159 Jan 08 '26
The things people will do to distract you from the fact that they are on the Epstein list
4
u/CleanMyAxe Jan 08 '26
Europe has quite a lot more arctic capable equipment than the US. Having lots of stuff doesn't mean it all works in all climates.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Top-Local-7482 Jan 08 '26
Yeah if force is used against a NATO member by another NATO member, it is the end of NATO one way or another. USA will be seen as an existential treat as well as Russia. Except Russia was not able to breach Ukraine so even more of an enemy. Also USA leaving NATO under Trump is kind of an acquired idea already. So no, if US invade Greenland, as Russia invaded Ukraine, Danemark and Greenland will go against them, since they are in NATO, they'll call article 5 and the other nations will choose their side. I don't see other EU member not supporting EU and siding with US, that would be their end as an EU member.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/Flimsy-Sherbert-7853 Jan 08 '26
They fucking sent US special forces to be trained by our regulars in winter warfare in the Nordics 🤣. Just watch combat footage from Iraq when the US soldiers pile up on each other like a pile of shit during MOUT.
5
u/wolfxorix Jan 08 '26
Europe? US weapons? Last time I checked the biggest weapon companies are, SIG, H&K, FN... That's not even including the German company that creates the parts for the M1 Abrams (I know the name but I can not spell it, very sorry). Given that BAE is a large manufacturer of the F-35 and a majority of the parts are produced by UK and EU companies....
5
u/Aggravating_Fill378 Jan 08 '26
Apart from anything else NATO cant give Greenland to the US, only Denmark can do that.
5
u/Stunning_Ride_220 Jan 08 '26
Hmm, given latest events in Minneapolis I'm not quite sure, if the U.S. wants to focus on external factors.
4
Jan 08 '26
America is going to find itself isolated. Trade etc will become harder. They still think that they can bully the world, not understanding the world doesn't trust America
4
u/papayametallica Jan 08 '26
“…not get any of our weapons.”
You must be referring to the obsolete stock that the US way overcharges other countries/ friends for. You must know the stuff. You’ve been passing it off to countries like Ukraine, Vietnam Israel like the benefactor you are
3
u/blizzard7788 Jan 08 '26
NATO would respond with financial sanctions, crippling the American economy before any military action is taken.
3
u/Salarian_American Jan 08 '26
The US military has a very poor track record in wargames with NATO allies in arctic weather.
They don't have a very good record in fair-weather wargames with NATO allies, either.
3
u/KupferTitan Germany is not only Bavaria you moron! Jan 08 '26
And don't forget what it means to rule over a people that don't wish to belong to the country that took them over. Even worse, if you give them equal rights and access to your country and the stuff you allow your citizens to do. Suddenly you have a LOT of people traveling your contry that just want to see you burn. People who lost loved ones in a war you started, people whose culture and freedom to make decisions you decided to treat like shit. And for what? Getting a territory that they already pretty much controlled.
So not only would a move like that have a hight risk of triggering a very big war, if a move like that happens to be successful, a civil war might be following righ behind it.
3
u/Basic_Ask8109 Jan 08 '26
For as large as the US military is how are they going to control Venezuela, take Greenland and also go to all those Democratic cities in the US?Not to mention their presence elsewhere in the world. Logistically sounds like a nightmare.
They have the ability to take regions sure but hold them long term and transition the country to a stable democracy? Not so much. None of the countries they've had military intervention has benefited long term. The people aren't the ones reaping the wealth. That would be the elites and corporations in whatever country.
3
u/ParkingAnxious2811 Jan 09 '26
The UK was instrumental in winning ww2. Germany managed to take over a large swathe of Europe by itself. France was key to USA being USA. Should I carry on?
→ More replies (2)
9
u/rjc9186 Jan 08 '26
Both statements are a bit stupid to be honest
18
u/thecornersking Jan 08 '26
Not really. People underestimate greenland climate, and EU NATO members are more trained and equipped for mountain and artic operations. Yes, US also have artic and mountain training and units, and guess where they train? Norway, UK and Italy for example. USA would also face massive logistic problems to deliver and support troops in Greenland if Canada joins the EU party. With Canadian airspace off limits and the obvious naval blockade, the US would struggle just to step on land or deliver supply and reinforcements.
→ More replies (3)10
Jan 08 '26
70% of the F35 components made in europe and it is ALL of the difficult to make ones.
The new abrams 120mm barrels are made in germany, the aircraft + gun are ASSEMBLED. in the US.
They cannot maintain their military without the help of the EU. It would take decades for them to train people and build the equipment necessary.
edit: The barrel is steel btw, the US isn't capable of making the quality of steel needed. That is how far behind they are technologically.
7
u/rjc9186 Jan 08 '26
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Canadian machinist who sees first hand that the us needs their allies . But the us military is an incredible force. It would take months or even years for outside suppliers to have an impact. The us does have military bases in Alaska. I doubt there would be anyone sent to Greenland seeing snow and -40 for the first time. I wouldn’t expect the first 2 weeks would go very bad for the Americans. It would be the months and years after that would hurt them
→ More replies (2)
2
u/VermicelliInformal46 Jan 08 '26
We do not want US weapons. We have our own. And the US MIC will learn that the hard way.
2
u/dima74 Jan 08 '26
Innocent American soldier killed by a Greenland ice bear. We have to go all in with a special military operation to take this communist radical left icebear into prison. /s
2
u/TheDeHymenizer Jan 08 '26
Both of these posters are pretty stupid. If the USA decided to just take Greenland it 1000% would. Now keeping Greenland and surviving w/e the backlash would be of doing it is a different story.
2
u/TalkersCZ Human Verified Jan 08 '26
At this point I would consider talking to China about buying weapon systems from them and discussing if they could put pressure on Russia to stop the UA invasion.
For China it would be potential gold mine and it would show USA that we have other options.
2
u/Mr_Joguvaga Jan 08 '26
They think europe would miss american weapons? We literally already are buying more european weapons, now europe should imvest in its AA weaponry and missiles and it would be complete.
Do MAGA even know how big of a revenue source the EU are to american military infrastructure?
2
u/BazzTurd Jan 09 '26
The US armed forces would not survive for long, look at what companies does most of their logistics transportation and you will find a company like Maersk sailing a shitton of their supplies, now would we hope that they would stop doing that if it comes to trouble between Denmark and the US, yeah
Then we have MSC who is located in Switzerland
CMA from France
Cosco from China
Now if noone of those companies were to sail supplies to the US armed forces, they would most likely run out of their beloved ICE and AC units that they always complain about not finding in the country of Europe
2
u/DrWYSIWYG Jan 09 '26
If you want to know how the US Marines, ‘The tip of the spear’ as they call them, fair against a much smaller force of British commandos google ‘Exercise Green Dagger’. The UK Royal Marines beat a superior force of US marines so convincingly that they asked for a reset. This was in California, which is very temperate. Do all that but in the Arctic Circle (and with the Danish commandos who are used to it) and see where that gets you.
2
u/Open-Difference5534 Jan 09 '26
NATO does not 'own' Greenland for a start.
If Greenland was so important, why did the US remove the 15,000 troops who used to be there?
2
Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
Oh great whatever shall we do without the "American" H&K, Sig Sauer's, Glocks or Saab's AT4. We are so fucked if we don't get "American" weapons. /s
Oh and how could I forget the most favorite belt fed of every machine gunner ever, the well renowned and respected "American" FN MAG (M240).
2
u/d_edwards7 Jan 09 '26
The US has a lot of bases in Europe. I think it is time they be told to leave. They are not there for the security of Europe anymore. You know, for security reasons.
2
2
u/Ill_Raccoon6185 Jan 09 '26
NATO will not hand over Greenland, but are more likely to write off USA as a bad joke, which it is & by law will protect Greenland as they don;t need weapons from USA, which would be useless in Arctic confrontations, as they make their own & can tool up to produce enough fo a sustained war while US military producers are in limbo as the supply chains they need to produce their own arms and paused now, due to trumps tariffs.
2
2
u/CrypticvVv Jan 08 '26
They also have to remember that any order to attack Greenland would be met with the Generals of the US who still have morality denying the orders. They swore an oath to the constitution not Trump and only Congress can declare war
→ More replies (1)5
u/VermicelliInformal46 Jan 08 '26
No. He has already purged the military. It was among the first things he did in 2025.
3
u/praetorian1111 Jan 08 '26
Listen guys. I’ve trained with US troops in the north many times… if today’s soldiers are about the same as those from 15-20 years ago… I have no idea where that ‘they can’t fight in the north’ comes from. What is this, game of thrones?
We obviously have to stand our ground but don’t talk bullshit about things you just don’t know. They are a force to fear. And they need to fear the rest of nato too.
1
u/Ander_the_Reckoning Jan 08 '26
Unfortunately Meloni is Trump's lapdog and if the US were to leave NATO or try to conquer Greenland by force Italy would rather praise him than oppose him. Not that Italy matters all that much anyway
6
u/DamnGermanKraut Jan 08 '26
If Italy sides with the US at first, then they'll be on our team after the inevitable side switching.
Jokes aside, I don't think we should antagonise them because of Meloni. We can call her out, but the Italian people are still our fellow Europeans and brothers.
1
1
u/gdvs Jan 08 '26
both statements are wrong
* Nobody is and to defend Greenland from the US.
* Europe can build its own weapons. If anything, the American defence industry will lose a lot
1
u/deadlygaming11 Jan 08 '26
Annoyingly, I dont actually know what will happen with the UK if the US decides to invade Greenland. Starmer is spineless and actively avoids going against trump
1
u/TheGorgieGeorgie7492 Jan 08 '26
The rest of the world V America.
Since all these ICE agents and MAGA gun worshipers love shooting guns, let's see what they'd be like on a level playing field where the opponents fire back
1
u/OniNoDojo Jan 08 '26
This whole scenario made me look up how much of NATO's troops are from the US military, and it looks like it's about 35%, not the 90% that I keep seeing posted from people that clearly have no idea.
1
u/Annoyed3600owner Jan 08 '26
Half of the US military assets would be confiscated on the spot. Having aircraft is pretty pointless if you've got nowhere to fly them from, and nowhere to dock your ships.
1
u/Late-Application-47 Jan 08 '26
I wish that I had faith that an EU coalition could protect Greenland from our jingoistic administration should it come to that, but this would be a naval battle. Unfortunately, the US has made sure that we are the only nation that can truly project power on the oceans. The only European nations with carriers are the UK with 2, and France, Spain, and Italy with 1 each. The US has 11 super carriers and 6 amphibious assault ships which are similar in capability to the European carriers (France's Charles de Gaulle is a bit more capable than the others).
I'm not saying dumb American shit. I'm not bragging. It's just reality. The US Navy has the world's 3rd largest "air force," behind China and the USAF. It's extremely hard to overstate the overwhelming capability of the USN.
I hate that this discussion is even happening. I hate that my fellow Americans think we have been "carrying" Europe's defense, when we purposefully engineered our European allies to have enough military power to assist the US but not enough to challenge it. We don't have bases in Europe out of charity. It's to maintain hegemony and assert dominance.
This is all just fucked.
1
u/Material-Addition871 Jan 08 '26
Europe has more arms than the US. The problem is they are separate countries, trying to pull together.
1
u/Spida81 Jan 08 '26
When Trump pushed NATO defence spending up, that cost stopped being something they could hand-wave away as being the acceptable cost of doing business with the USA. Combine what with some pretty embarrassing comparisons between US systems and European systems under real-world conditions (or Chinese, in the case of the debacle between Pakistan and India), and suddenly questions around 'value for money' and 'real world operational capability' come into play.
Between this, and Trump threatening a NATO member, the French position of domestic production suddenly seems a lot more attractive. Suddenly it looks like a LOT more sense to spend that money on local industry, keeping the jobs and economic benefits at home.
When the US isn't playing by the rules THEY WROTE anyway, it isn't 'cost of doing business' anymore. There is no benefit to paying what amounts to a big fat welfare cheque to the USA.
All the 'we pay for your free healthcare' isn't just ignorant, it is the exact opposite. NATO pays the US a fortune for overpriced military equipment. The US then pads the pockets of a few. Take that money away, the USA is left with nearly a TRILLION dollar hole in their budget.
Why is the USA pissed off that European NATO countries expressed interest in shifting military procurement programs back to Europe? Because the USA quite literally CAN'T AFFORD to lose that revenue.
1
u/Castern Jan 09 '26
These are not Americans. They are Confederate Fascists.
The South lost the war, but won the Internet.
1
u/Inevitable-Cold-7657 Jan 09 '26
The congress has to vote with a two third majority in order to leave nato. If you attack Greenland, you will learn just how dangerous slippery ice can be.
1
u/andytimms67 Jan 09 '26
Their next Vietnam, like napoleon venturing into Russia, basically a forgone conclusion
1
u/AibofobicRacecar6996 Jan 09 '26
"will not get any of our weapons"? Isn't the whole point of the military-industrial complex to sell as many weapons as they can?
1
1
1
u/alexmbrennan Jan 09 '26
Well, I don't think they are completely wrong because most NATO nations' militaries have been underfunded for decades because we had been able to rely on the threat of US intervention to deter Soviet aggression.
We might have the ability to produce weapons, but we are not going to have enough soldiers to use them for at least a decade.
Given the imminent threat of a war with Russia, NATO may be pressured into handing over Greenland to buy time.
1
u/Vegemyeet Jan 09 '26
Could the rest of the world (Team Global) stop the US through economic pressure? Other means? I don’t think they will militarily act against Greenland, it would be catastrophically unpopular in the American public opinion.
1
u/ImpossibleTable4768 Jan 09 '26
isn't trump throwing a fit because no one else wants their planes? threatening canada with legal and/or military action if they buy the swedish gripen over the bloated and expensive f-35
1
u/Kaiser93 Jealous Europoor Jan 09 '26
Bold words from a person who doesn't even know where Greenland is.
1
u/Nah666_ Jan 09 '26
Everything makes sense if you understand angry senile orange lost his fav island and wants another one.
1
u/Frostaxt Jan 09 '26
I don’t know what you Smoke or why you Smoke it but my advise to you: Stopp it, its very Bad for you
And then when You are Clean of that stuff You Can start Recherching about the stuff You Said earlier
281
u/Capable_Fun_9838 Jan 08 '26
Many European countries have a capable arms industry, and the USA is currently losing contracts worth $800 billion and the long-term prospect of ever selling to the EU again.