[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?

[vrganj]

Europe is of vital interest to France, as is not letting American imperialists touch it.

A nation that invades us is not friendly.

[jamincan]

Should I give you a pass for only pulling a ten from my wallet when you mug me? Or do I defend myself knowing that next time you'll be taking more?

[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.