[throwaway89201]

I don't particularly care for your explanation, but if you do want to post these kind of comments at least explain yourself a bit so potentially a curious conversation can follow. Not doing so is arguably against this site's guidelines.

[rpiguy]

Can you please leave this comment on all the posts that state “we need to protest” or “look at the mad king” I don’t see any explanation or opportunity for curious conversation.

Why did you single mine out? Oh yeah, the default instinct to censor different ideas.

I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US, we’d be on the hook for defending it in case of a war as the EU hardly has any expeditionary force left, and we’ve propped up Europe for 70 years.

It could greatly delay the collapse of the American empire that I love and enjoy living in.

We haven’t been a humble republic since the close of WW2, maybe even WW1.

[throwaway89201]

> Why did you single mine out?

Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases.

I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me.

> it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US

I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere.

Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.

[ben_w]

> 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]

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]

> 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?

[rpiguy]

Yes the US has the same rich people in charge but the President is willing to defy them. He defied them on tariffs and secure arctic access and mineral rights probably align with their interests.

The US is unified with one military, one economy, one budget, one State Department, etc. Europe is not. Internal division here is not the same as internal division in Europe.

UK, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. will not substantively move away from the US even if they are hopping mad about Greenland.

Russia wouldn’t try because we are too strong. If the EU were strong we wouldn’t be trying to take Greenland.

That’s the whole point - if there is a race for control of the arctic with China and Russia the EU couldn’t do anything. You’d depend on the US to police the arctic for you and to enforce whatever treaties are signed with China and Russia. Better deal for us to do it ourselves.

[ben_w]

> The US is unified with one military, one economy, one budget, one State Department, etc. Europe is not. Internal division here is not the same as internal division in Europe.

I give 50-50 you'd have a military coup if they were given the order to invade an ally.

More than half of your own government knows that invading an ally is not OK.

If Russia isn't enough of a threat to take advantage of this, they're absolutely not enough of a threat to take Greenland either.

The rest of us doing nothing is a direct signal to Russia to Blitzkrieg Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and as much of Poland as it can, and to know that "as much as it can" is as far as the tanks roll without refuelling.

Doing nothing about you invading our land, means our own death.

> UK, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. will not substantively move away from the US even if they are hopping mad about Greenland.

Which guns do we need to show you before you back down?

Do we need to fire a missile at Mar-a-Lago before you take us seriously?

If this were civ, I'd be saying "Back off, we have nukes."

Because we do, in fact, have nukes. Pretty much the only substantial military thing the UK has at this point, but it has them.

> You’d depend on the US to police the arctic for you and to enforce whatever treaties are signed with China and Russia. Better deal for us to do it ourselves.

Not for you, not for us.

For us: As a nation, by the election of Trump, you have proven yourself as untrustworthy as Russia. Which is really really bad.

For you: you now have twice as many hostile nuclear powers with the means to hit you, combining to more than twice your GDP backing up those nukes.

Any attack you make on us, your treaty-bound allies, causes whatever treaties you sign with anyone anywhere in the world to be not worth the paper they're written on. China and Russia will immediately know this. Everyone will. Nobody will trust you.

You could've built bases in Greenland for free at any time without threatening us. You chose the threat. You're now going to face the counter-threats. We'll see how far those escalate. This is a game you never needed to play. You call it theatrics, we're not laughing, we're arming.

China is much more trusted right now than you are. Like, sure, we know they see Taiwan as their own, but we also know they're not going to screw us over. Even when it was the British Empire handing over Hong Kong, China understood that while they could take it at any time, it was bad to be seen as one who would do so dishonourably.

[Chance-Device]

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]

> 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.