This was supposed to happen twice in the 1980s, first with "fourth gen" languages, and I forget what the other fad was called. Things like "business objects" were supposed to do this in the 2000s. I'll believe it when I see it.
How would a standard invasion work? The news about DoD preparing invasion plans for Greenland have an invasion done by Special Operations, not the infantry, armor and air. Special operations probably wouldn't work for the population of Canada.
After a short time, and some casualties, I think the US military would have real problems internally, not counting that popular support would disappear.
In the theoretical case of US actually invading Greenland (whatever that would mean, considering the largest city Nuuk is the size of a middle-sized town), the question isnt about potential casualties on Greenland.
The question is what would happen to the US staff land-locked on NATO bases within the EU. They will automatically become under siege, vastly outnumbered by European counterparts.
Since any attack on Greenland is an attack on the EU country the Kingdom of Denmark, and any attack on any EU countries automatically trigger EU Article 42.7, which mandates the full support from all members, to which all EU countries have committed, it would imply full-scale war.
What are the US ground capabilities in extreme weather? Because from where I stand, I'm under the impression a Greenland invasion is off limit 8 months out of 12, and realistically the window is quite short, no?
Also if any french military asset is present when the US attack, we will see how determined the french military is following it's own doctrine (which dictates a 'warning shot' 24 hours before sending the tactical nukes).
For Canada and the Nordic countries, the weather on Greenland is business as usual, for all branches of the military.
My guess is as yours - the US military's focus on middle east and east Asia is of great disadvantage for them. Do they even get below -20 C for any longer periods at any base located on US mainland? Alaska, and some regions close to Canada, perhaps, leaving them with only some 10.000 personnel having anything near arctic experience, majority of which are based at the bases, not trained for front-action in artic climate.
The US wouldn’t attack in an invasion. It would simply start building bases - it doesn’t need the south of Greenland. Just southern enough for a port that can stay open.
If we build a Rammstein-
sized base the US would already outnumber the native population.
Would the Danes or French open fire on us while the US is setting up shop? Highly unlikely.
Trump is pushing a total takeover but I suspect he would rather leave a small pocket of southern Greenland to the Danes to continue supporting the indigenous people, and then taking the bulk of the rest for mineral rights, arctic sea lanes, and defense.
This is the madness of the whole thing - the US could already build more bases in Greenland if they wanted to.
This isn't about building bases or military strategy or even resources. If it were about those things then the US could take over Greenland slowly with little effort. My understanding is the population there would have welcomed investment. The US could have done some minor leg work and in 10-20 years Greenland would have been closer / keen to join, or whatever.
> The US wouldn’t attack in an invasion. It would simply start building bases
Greenland is an island full of a vast nothingness, there is enough space for those kinds of bases. Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly said as much, and allowed the US to build any number of bases of any size. Building bases is totally possible, and always was possible, because Greenland and Denmark have always allowed it and would have continued to allow that.
I mean, they even turned a blind eye towards the US loosing a nuclear reactor and contaminating quite a bit of ice while trying to build tunnels for their ICBMs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century
More Trump hermeneutics. Trump does or says something obviously irrational, cognitive dissonance arises, work is done to create something, anything that puts rational reasons behind Trump.
An article in The New York Times reported that a “a group of scholars and activists” had come together to build a new university “dedicated to free speech.”
Is UATX another "freedom of speech" rug pull, like Elon taking over Twitter, or Trump "bringing back freedom of speech"? I guess in general, I'm asking if we should be very wary of those using the language of free speech, but don't have a history of dealing honestly with the concept or the realities.
Trump did racist dog whistling, and the US mass media has been captured by oligarchs, so it wasn't reported honestly or completely. A surprising large portion of the US electorate is racist, and the US voting practices amplify exactly those voter's influence.
It was a bad election cycle for incumbents worldwide. Many Americans are hurting from the cost of living and wanted a change. I know many who are definitely not racist (in interracial marriages/relationships even) who voted for Trump just on the hope for an improved economy.
I will have to agree you on this one even as a trump hater because i do feel like somehow people imagined that trump's gonna make all things affordable somehow (the same people now turning to mamdani see maga for mamdani movement no jokes)
i do feel like this is a pipeline
Disagree with some aspects of democrats? boom you are a republican
Disagree with some aspects of Republicans? boom you are a democrat
It's just picking the less worst candidate and media influence as such values a lot in the perception of "loss"
Obviously trump has been the more worst candidate in comparison and there were already tell tale signs of it
It's a shame that bernie sanders hasn't been an American president or the bias you see at democrats because of it regarding bernie or not pushing bernie at times.
That being said, what trump is doing so abhorent that Its literally killing the nation so I feel like some blame should be placed in its voters.
I genuinely just hope that you guys re-evaluate your two party system. You need a grass roots movement of independent to take on the system from within with the promise of changing the voting system to some better more independent or similar.
But looks like America's not gonna have mid term elections (Trump joked about it just as how he joked about greeland)
How does one fuck up a country that I used to admire a few years back into something that even I am comparing it to Iran & in many cases worse.
I do feel like Histories being written in front of our own eyes tho, Historians are also gonna analyze the average opinion on what's happening and we are gonna witness something in decades to come, "but why didn't they take action when all of this was happening, surely everyone could agree it was wrong" (this was my first thought reading about slavery/ pre-french revolution)
Now I understand how it feels like.
So right now's the perfect time to call bullshit on trump and impeach him or support the idea in the time being even you may've voted republican.
I do feel like America's gone to the point of no return but the only thing America can do right now is risk mitigation because chances are, war does feel more real now.
I am not american but first and foremost, whether or not if you are a democrat or republican, you all are american so why are some of you still defending a country which is breaching or trying to breach the sovereignity of another country and a guy who looks like hes all hell bent on breaking the ideas America was established on.
Cut the losses of the survivorship bias and do what's right. The world's watching.
That goes to the exact point about the media. Trump trashed the economy during Covid with trillions in new dollars so that that all important Line would continue to go up rather than reflect the reality of a global pandemic. The Biden administration did a decent job getting the price inflation from that under control, but rather than giving credit where credit is due, the oligarchic media continued to agitate against the incumbent who wasn't all-in on corporate rule. Cue a whole bunch of low-information voters for the New York con artist on vague "hope" for improvement, when everyone using at least half their brain knew that the policies Trump was promising would be highly destructive to our economy.
Biden has his flaws but I feel like he wasn't trying to appear strong, he did what he thought was right for his country ie. give power to those who could help the nation but somehow he got projected weak because of it even if numbers were doing good
Trump's doing the literal opposite. This is why Trump wants to trashtalk Biden so much
Somehow getting "projected weak" is the oligarch owned media, isn't it? It's the media reporting truthfully, but framed in a pro-Trump way, or just not reporting on Trump very emphatically. You could read bias into the oligarch owned media because of thar.
> - Responses in ChatGPT will not be influenced by ads.
Newspapers and magazines used to say that, too. Wasn't true for them, just like Google search results gradually became ad-influenced, and then gradually became ads.
I think that's a reasonable theory. Trump had rough experiences (i.e. was not obeyed) by Secretaries of Defense during his first term. He needs his personally loyal armed force because of that. Firing a lot of military leadership is also probably part of that.
reply