CanadaPlus

I mean, there were some very close calls. Trump already has one on the board as well.

Just like Germany, once it's already in power the movement won't necessarily die with the leader.

I mean, the TV version mostly is. The real guys were cattle farmers with good boats. They did raids and stuff, but so did the Bulgarians. And yeah, the blood means nothing.

That's true, although I'm skeptical they couldn't overcome it. There's no shortage of educational overlap, or of big European institutions.

Thinking about this a bit, if the US rolls some kind of icebreaker convoy up there to occupy Nuuk, they could respond by seizing all the US bases in Europe and taking anyone they catch as a prisoner. That seems like an exchange in the EU's favour; Greenland's just not a very major place. There's arguments for everything from non-military retaliation only to nuking New York, though.

Yeah, that's probably where to go on Lemmy. I'm spoiled for choice off of Lemmy. They're all going to be full of a mix of every take though, aside from the boring ones like "diversify and hold".

Over-the-counter land wouldn't really fit there, though.

If it goes long enough for new production to matter, the EU is actually better equipped for a war of attrition, being bigger and having some kind of unity. Would it actually be a drawn-out war of attrition, or something else? Hard to say, because like you've pointed out the whole thing is so dumb.

Again, carriers aren't the only variable in play, even if they are very good at creating a zone of air superiority. Greenland isn't the only theater here, it's not a single point you can sit on top of, and it's not even mostly inhabited. I'll try not to repeat myself about the other factors I've mentioned.

Yes, but what would they go and do with them? I'm not super sure they could use much of that stuff up in Greenland when things are iced over, and then there's the question of how survivable they would be vs. technologically sophisticated Europe. What does holding Greenland even mean to them? What kind of losses are they willing to take elsewhere? What about MAD?

I mentioned the submarine thing because you made it sound like they'd be stuck on their own continent, and that's an obvious counterexample. There's like a million things at play.

smarter, richer, more connected

There is no free lunch. There's tons and tons of people who will claim to be smart, rich and connected but that actually are just grifters, and if they can prove otherwise they're absolutely going to bill for their time. And then there's also grifters who will bill for their time, some of whom are one or more of those things.

I should also point out that smarter is largely independent of the other two. And that trading on non-public information can be illegal, especially in developed countries.

Basically, if you're speculating on land somewhere you need to do your own homework or you'll definitely get gotten.

France alone could roll up a nuclear submarine wherever, though. It would be a weird war but I don't actually know how unequal it would be.

It's Greenland. Just principle isn't going to move anybody. Maybe not even Denmark. There's other treaties, though.

And since it's basically the US and everyone else in equal share, NATO is just dead and irrelevant if they're the ones breaking it.

The EU, on the other hand, would probably be in like a dirty shirt, having a defence agreement aspect. Maybe Canada too, just because we'd know we're next.

I don't have an answer, but do you mean international as in everywhere, specifically non-US or even specifically developing?

Edit: Oh, on the whole internet? Yes, more than one.

Huh, so they do exist then.