[easytiger]

This is absurd in the extreme. In actual war there is absolutely no possibility of success for Denmark, even with the help of allies. Failure to capitulate results in nothing but death and destruction with no hope of strategic gain to begin with. What you are likely experiencing is a modern belief that screaming and shouting will bring popular diplomatic pressure to bear on the opponent, thus arresting their actions.

There was similar tough talk in 1940 and Denmark lasted 6 hours. Without capitulation the country would have been razed. But surrender saw it able to keep some level of control and thus extricate the Jewish population in relative safety which would not otherwise have been possible.

[jacquesm]

No, what is absurd is the number of people that can't wait to go back to a world with endless wars of conquest. We already know what that looks like.

If you have never seen war up close then I am happy to forgive you, but trust me, in 'actual war' there is no possibility of success for anybody, there are only degrees of damage and degrees of grief and illusions to the contrary are focused on the few people that manage to get out of war with the profits in their pockets. Everybody else suffers.

[easytiger]

I'm sorry but you are not interacting with the rational suppositions of posters in various threads here. No one is arguing for a war except you. People are explaining to you the strategic reality and you are espousing rhetoric that I honestly can't decipher.

1. Denmark cannot win militarily

2. You are suggesting Denmark would not capitulate and indeed enter into a state of war

What do you think happens in this situation?

[mcv]

Denmark cannot win militarily, but can the US? What war has the US won recently? They're great at destroying things, but not at winning. There's nothing for them to win in Greenland. It's an indefensible chunk of ice. They can kill the people who live there, but what would that gain them?

Meanwhile they stand to lose a lot. There have been many NATO exercises that showed US aircraft carriers to be vulnerable to European submarines, so they can't park their fleet too close. They have to fly between NATO members Canada and Iceland. How would soldiers feel if they're forced to fight all their former allies? How would the US citizens feel?

[vrganj]

France has a nuclear deterrent it has stated has "a European dimension".

Don't go around poking hornets nests if you don't want to get stung.

[easytiger]

You think there's a game theory scenario in the book where France launches a nuclear weapon at mainland USA over a land dispute between them and Denmark?

[vrganj]

France has the only first strike nuclear doctrine in the world, with the specific policy of shooting nukes to "protect it's vital interests", a term Macron has recently clarified "has a European dimension".

Make of that what you will, but if I were you I wouldn't go around poking the hornets nest that has an explicit sign "these hornets will sting" attached to it.

[easytiger]

How is Greenland a vital interest to France? Especially in the context of initiating a nuclear war with a friendly nation?

[Jensson]

NATO dictates that an attack on any NATO nation should be seen as an attack on every nation, so yeah.

[jacquesm]

Would you like to find out?

See, this is what is so dumb about this: you are treating this as if it is some kind of board game. It is exactly why the US gets into these messes over and over again, the incredible overconfidence that because they somehow have battlefield superiority they can do whatever they want. You are exemplifying precisely where the rot in the USA is located.

[jacquesm]

> I'm sorry but you are not interacting with the rational suppositions of posters in various threads here.

The one thing that is common about 'rationalists' is that they share a lot of the viewpoints with other ra*ists and that's not the world many of us want to live in.

Sure, you can take it. But can you afford to take it?

The answer is most likely you can't. And so far every attempt to show John Mearheimers superiority has been the equivalent of 'just relax and enjoy it'.

Guess what? We won't. Alliances are made voluntarily, not through conquest.

[easytiger]

You have ignored any questions put to you in this thread. You are speaking in some kind of fervour I can't decrypt.

[bell-cot]

> In an actual war there is absolutely no possibility of success for Denmark, even with the help of allies.

Assume that Denmark's strategic success criteria is not "win up-front battles with US armed forces". And that they understand the difference between "lost battle(s), got occupied" and "nation permanently removed from existence".

Also, US service members are not slavishly loyal Clone Troopers. That I've heard, the greatest fear of most senior American officers is that the CIC will issue orders sufficiently offensive to the lower ranks that they will be disobeyed at scale.

[easytiger]

So your supposition is strategic national defense game theory should be based on hoping for a mutiny from the opposite side? Is rationality dead? What are you lot talking about.

[bell-cot]

> So your supposition is...

No. But Denmark lacks the armored divisions, bomber wings, carrier task forces, etc. to pursue a "we've got a bigger stick" strategy. And undermining your opponent's will to fight was routine back when the Old Testament was written.

> Is rationality dead?

By a couple accounts I've heard, desperate senior US officers used the pre-February situation with Iran to lure Trump's attention away from Denmark/Greenland.

(If you want rational behavior from the current POTUS - um, yes, my deepest condolences, but...)

[jacquesm]

Fortunately enough Americans remember their roots. For now.

[dspillett]

> What you are likely experiencing is a modern belief that screaming and shouting will bring […]

I wonder which particular set of states that are united might have given people the impression that might work in recent times!

> There was similar tough talk in 1940

If your comparison there is intentional, we agree which side of history the current US regime is on. Unless it gets to write that history, of course.

[AnimalMuppet]

Keep going. Denmark capitulated and suffered relatively little damage. Austria capitulated, and what happened to them? Czechoslovakia capitulated, and how did that work out for them? Sure, neither suffered losses in the initial invasion. Their people still got to die fighting for Hitler, though. They still got bombed and bombed and bombed and then invaded by the allies, though.

And, Norway did fight back, and lost. How much worse did that work out for Norway than for Denmark?

[KaiserPro]

I mean the same was said about Ukraine.

What are we supposed to do, just fucking give up?

[jacquesm]

Ukraine is rapidly becoming one of the hardest countries in Europe. They fought a former superpower to a stand still and are innovating on weapons systems and integration at a pace that makes LM's skunkworks look like sloths. And on a budget that is insane.

Just like Ukraine, Europe does not want war, doesn't want to see their kids die for the umpteenth time so that fat cats can line their pockets. But if push comes to shove we would be absolutely capable of doing it, either outright or by slower guerilla like means. Bombing shit is easy. Taking over territory and holding it is much, much harder, infinitely more so if the population holds a grudge. Note that the Dutch resistance killed more German soldiers than the army ever did. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, lots of countries in Europe. Examples aplenty.