Altair
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1,581
- Points
- 1,140
2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
as well as identifying sympathizers and potential collaborators to be sure. Vichy Canada will be a thing if this thread is any indication
- Reaction score
- 357
- Points
- 930
I'll be there with you, but from Middle Sackville.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,342
- Points
- 1,260
So from the conversation, the simplest way to stop all of this is to park a six pack of F18's on the ramp along with every other NATO member or maybe tie a AOR to the wharf and just leave them to work out of there instead of home base.
Gun Ownership by Country 2025
Detailed data on gun ownership by country showcasing statistics such as the total number of firearms owned by civilians, the rate per one hundred people, and other details.worldpopulationreview.com
Gun control or no, we still are amongst the most armed people on earth.
That said, this is about Greenland. I wish a certain individual would stop making this all about Canada.
- Reaction score
- 6,018
- Points
- 1,120
That's just beyond range of my supporting fires element. Rigged to a Tripod/T&E, my 1919 can reach out a theoretical 'maximum' range of 3750m, so you'll need to move up the Cross-road a bit to be supported. I don't think my 3 Pounder garrison Cannon can go that far either...nor my 1 pounder field carriage.Meet you at Barrett Lumber
I guess I could do the classic Toyota Technical and roll the carriage onto the back of the truck, and I do have an AA mount for the 1919 Tripod...so....I can come your way a bit.
What's our Callsign going to be? Wolverines?
Or maybe just "Angry Beavers"?
Attachments
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,342
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 6,018
- Points
- 1,120
Yeah, that could work.
Password - D'oh!
Countersign - Double-Double
Password - D'oh!
Countersign - Double-Double
- Reaction score
- 12,119
- Points
- 1,160
What would it take to actually deter a US takeover of Greeland, or for that matter our Arctic Archipelago?
Then ask what would it take to deter a Sino-Russian takeover based on commercial interests?
If the US were convinced that we and the Danes/Euros were actually committed to, and capable of, securing those territories in the face of unlawful aggression would we be having this conversation?
The US has been barking at us for decades to do something to which the response they receive is a smirk and being told that they would have to defend us because it is in their interest. At the same time the only threat we perceived is America. We don't worry about Russia. We don'y worry about China. Even though we have known since the Comintern days, circa 1919 that there were people fighting wars by non-military means and disregarding laws when it suited them.
What if Donald Trump is just the manifestation of a constrained and frustrated America that has decided to bust its chains and act as it sees fit?
....
How do we hold that which we claim? How do we make the prospect of takeover as costly and unattractive as possible?
Or does anybody really care?
Then ask what would it take to deter a Sino-Russian takeover based on commercial interests?
If the US were convinced that we and the Danes/Euros were actually committed to, and capable of, securing those territories in the face of unlawful aggression would we be having this conversation?
The US has been barking at us for decades to do something to which the response they receive is a smirk and being told that they would have to defend us because it is in their interest. At the same time the only threat we perceived is America. We don't worry about Russia. We don'y worry about China. Even though we have known since the Comintern days, circa 1919 that there were people fighting wars by non-military means and disregarding laws when it suited them.
What if Donald Trump is just the manifestation of a constrained and frustrated America that has decided to bust its chains and act as it sees fit?
....
How do we hold that which we claim? How do we make the prospect of takeover as costly and unattractive as possible?
Or does anybody really care?
- Reaction score
- 6,108
- Points
- 1,160
I suggested this when the US first started making comments about "needing" Greenland. Offer to let Greenland merge with Nunavut as a Territory of Canada. It would unite the bulk of Inuit peoples in Greenland and the Eastern Arctic under a single territory. For the US it would have Greenland immediately fall under the joint defence of NORAD and as far as the natural resources go it would give the US tariff free access to them under CUSMA.
- Reaction score
- 11,052
- Points
- 1,040
From some peoples' perspectives, Canada and the US are already annexed lands. And those peoples definitely have incontrovertible cases that they were oppressed for long counts of years. And there are still injustices that remain. The present degree of oppression is very small, and no-one has to remain under the peculiar rules of aboriginal status and governance if he doesn't want to. I doubt it would take 300 years for the US to normalize citizenship and governance for its new possessions. I don't claim the US is wholly benevolent. I don't claim that Canada is absolutely not worth fighting for, but rather that it depends on the cost and on what comes after. I claim that it is not unconditionally worth fighting for. I claim that for an ordinary person, life in the US isn't different enough from life in Canada to kill or be killed over.
Forced annexation is wrong. So what? I'm interested in the "so what". You want to end debate there and fight. Fine. Canada should resist - mobilize the forces, defend the borders and seas and airs, call on NATO, end cross border trade, seize everything Americans own, stick every bit of sand in the US gears that we can find. And don't get bent if ordinary Canadians don't run to take up the battle arms they don't have.
The same applies to the hypothetical Greenland invasion. Call on NATO. Set aside whether NATO has legal niceties that make it awkward or provide pretexts and excuses to avoid answering. Either it will answer a call for a defensive war, or it won't. Ordinary Greenlanders can decide for themselves whether to fight or sit and wait to see which government prevails. But, again, with respect to Trump's designs on Greenland, I'm interested in what happens if the US offers a freely bargained change of sovereignty and Greenlanders affirm it with a majority.
- Reaction score
- 11,052
- Points
- 1,040
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Harder to do if the country has registries or other records of firearm ownership that were never destroyed, and the occupier is coming around in the meantime knocking on doors and not taking "oh, I got rid of those" for an answer.
- Reaction score
- 11,052
- Points
- 1,040
A part of Canada governed by Canadians while the rest is just part of the US, sending members to Congress and running its own lower levels of government? Which part would they grant that status to?
- Reaction score
- 6,083
- Points
- 1,260
And what if the Greenlanders kindly say, 'No Thanks, we are quite happy being part of Denmark and Europe', then what? The people have spoken. Question asked and answered. Is the US that beacon of light on a hillside when they don't accept that answer and they land boots on the ground?
Your last sentence only gives one side of the equation - "I'm interested in what happens if the US offers a freely bargained change of sovereignty and the Greenlanders affirm it with a majority." - What if my above scenario is what occurs? Are you interested in that?
- Reaction score
- 6,083
- Points
- 1,260
Why do you assume that Canada will be treated different than Puerto Rico in terms of 'sending members to Congress'. That's not occurred over the last 125+yrs. PR does NOT have this ability. Why do you assume that Canada would be different. Its not like you to 'assume' something. Its not a given at all that this would occur, please don't assume so and make it seem that all would be well in 'the rest is just part of the US'.
- Reaction score
- 7,401
- Points
- 1,360
BBC take on how things could unfold
www.bbc.com
How could Donald Trump 'take' Greenland?
The White House says it is considering a range of options to take the island, including deploying the military.
www.bbc.com
- Reaction score
- 11,052
- Points
- 1,040
And apparently they have so spoken, when surveyed. Short of a massive personal bribes, I don't see that changing.
Nope. Bear in mind, I'm a guy that constantly castigates the US for what past administrations did in Iraq and Libya and other places. It doesn't mean it's not an admirable place to live.
Sure. First, if I've made any statements that claim to absolute certainty that the US will never invade Greenland, they'll be rendered foolish. To be clear, and before that happens, I think the probability is a number hard to distinguish from zero.
I'm very interested in that scenario, though, because I believe that the US is not really on any path to authoritarianism, and that its institutions and people will exert checks and balances. I will either be proven correct (for now) or wrong. With very high confidence (99%+) I expect the highest command levels of the armed forces to refuse to carry out an invasion of a treaty ally without Congressional authorization. To an equal degree I expect Congress to refuse to provide the authorization. To a lesser degree (but not much) I expect House Democrats to launch a bid for articles of impeachment based on the "high crime" of attempting to make aggressive war on an ally of a treaty ratified by Congress. Only slightly behind that probability I expect enough House Republicans to join them to pass the articles and send them to the Senate for an impeachment trial. I think that there is a better than 50/50 chance that enough Republicans will join Democrats in the Senate to convict. The most likely factor to derail impeachment is, of course, domestic politics, but probably not in the way most people would like to think. Republicans won't be the barrier; Democrats will. They'll weigh the value of leaving Trump in office to frame every political dispute against his black soul and the value of not elevating Vance to the presidency.
Downstream, Trump will lose almost all of whatever tiny fraction of Democrats and fraction of independents he holds, and probably a high majority of the middle ground Republicans who are not never-Trumpers but have been willing to assess him issue-by-issue.
- Reaction score
- 11,052
- Points
- 1,040
40 million people as an entity with lesser status will be hard to sell to Congress and the American people.
Assumptions are estimates, always. A reasonable assumption is just one that is much more likely than not to be true. If I knew with certainty that there is, say, a 20% chance none of Canada would be admitted as states, I'd still assume state admission.
- Reaction score
- 6,083
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting summary.
Rand Paul has already come out saying that he would not support in any form an 'attack' or 'invasion' of Greenland. Even though I think he's a bit of a nut himself, lately he has spoken up on behalf of Canada and has been rational in his comments of late. I hope that he is able to continue down this path.
Congress is coming off like Theon Greyjoy as of late, the more neutered legislative body in the western world.
