Defensive wars don’t work quite the same way as offensive ones, and history has extensively shown that air control isn’t the only factor. It certainly can make a difference, but reducing the complexity of war into a simple comparison of two arbitrary measures is ignorant at best, deceptive at worst.
I’m a layperson that has read a few articles, but it doesn’t take an expert to understand that you wouldn’t need War Colleges if primary school math was all it takes to win.
To put it another way, how many aircraft did the Taliban have?
The underlying mechanic is always the same: You might be able to deny ground from the air to some extent, but you can’t hold it without boots on the ground. Morale bombing has been tried aplenty and has yet to show convincing effect. And both aircraft and grunts are vulnerable to all kinds of unpleasantness from the ground.
For a defender, the primary objective is making it so costly to sustain the attack that the attacker either can’t afford to or decides it’s not worth it. Asymmetric warfare has shown potential to be quite efficient at that task. The Taliban are one example, the Vietcong another and I really hope we don’t have to find out if Denmark belongs on that list.
I’m 100% confident that Greenland could repel a U.S. invasion based on nothing more than the fact that the U.S.A. has never fought a war in arctic conditions. It’d be like trying to invade Russia in wintertime.
I don’t think anything in war is ever 100% sure. But familiarity with terrain and conditions does go a long way.
I also wonder about the US troops’ morale and conviction in that fight. I’d be wary of making any definitive statements here either way. I know we like to paint the US as fundamentally morally corrupt, but I’m not sure how far following orders and justifying them to themselves will actually go. It’s far easier to tell yourself you’re doing the right thing when abducting a corrupt dictator than when seizing previously allied territory.
I hope we never have to find out.
Lol there are two types of people. Those who use the metric system, and those who lose to Vietnamese peasants in the jungle.
The French are both those kinds.
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Afghanistan
The US is gonna rack up another L, lol.
The standard response is always “I didn’t vote for that.” Whatever “that” is that they don’t like.
What did they vote for? The angry, racist nationalism. The blaming of everyone else for their self-inflicted problems. They ignored the all the evidence that it’s a class war, and everyone with a net worth less than a billion is on this side of the wall together.
…cool. why am I looking at a screenshot of a video, again?
Something tells me America will waste way more money than Denmark
It makes me fucking sick to my stomach that these dumb fucking nazis think the issue is that Denmark would fight back.
The whole “no new wars” was just a ploy to make democrats look weak within their core voting block.
Pretty sure you had more planes than Vietnam too, yet you still managed to lose that one.
If the United States had to be summed up in one word that would would be “overconfident”.
The level of arrogance that the US government has about its military simply based on its size is profound. Military size would be a highly relevant factor if your enemy was expected to engage on your terms. However for some reason this tends not to be the case and you end up spending the entire war defending your flank.
Look at Iraq, the US government sent thousands and thousands of troops in only for them to huddle in fortifications afraid to go out because of homemade explosives. Why didn’t the massively superior US military simply shoot the enemy combatants. Oh yeah that’s right because they couldn’t find them because the insurgents decided not to engage the US in direct combat. End result, essentially complete defeat.
Some things really never do change
He wouldn’t know, would he
You can’t fly bone spurs.
And maaany more.
Am I supposed to read this in a sing-song time like at the end of the birthday song? Because that’s how I’m hearing it.
That is exactly how I read it in my head, yes.
The real reason that the US hasn’t legally declared a war since the 40s is because we haven’t been able to win a war since then. If all of our wars were officially declared as our constitution says they should we’d be like 12 losses under at this point.
That is exactly what the Russians said about Ukraine…
Funny how many US bases are on foreign soil and exist almost entirely at the pleasure of their host countries. Would be a real shame if all that airforce base infrastructure suddenly disappeared and shortened the tactical operating range of the us airforce.
Krasnov may get a bonus.
Of course they won’t.
The pussy bitch ass dumb fucks who votes for that orange shit stain will slink back to the shadows they crawled from and pretend like they were never a part of it.
Its Bush II all over again. The collective sigh of relief after he was gone. Obama getting elected. All forgotten in the matter of one election cycle.
I miss the days of Keebler elves for President, when at least we weren’t threatening allies or tearing up our constitution and every commitment we made
I saw this take (on YT) just yesterday. The gist: the US has by far the greater military, but NATO without US has much more troops and equipment that are trained and working in harsh cold weather conditions. The US may take some ports and airfields, but small European and Canadian troops can defend the land and make it infeasible for the US to take any meaningful hold.
My cousin works as a geologist for a mining company and I’ve seen the conditions that they have to work in. Often in highly unstable areas with active militia trying to kill them. They have metre thick concrete walls around the perimeter and armed guards. Inside it’s like a small city, and every single person there needs to be there there is no one who’s playing tourist.
Trying to do that in the Arctic is an insane proposition. Concrete doesn’t set well in the cold, the roads are clogged for much of the year, and most industrial mining equipment is extremely sensitive and doesn’t work if it’s out of temperature range, or if it’s too windy, or if you sneeze on it.
Obviously America attacking Greenland would be devastating to global stability but it would almost be worth it to watch the absolute disaster that would be the attempts at resource extraction. It’s just like with Venezuela, no one is actually interested in attempting resource extraction other than Trump. The amount of upfront investment and technical hurdles to overcome are enormous and any profits (assuming there are literally any) are a decade or more away. Unless Greenland is harbouring a otherwise undisclosed vain of diamonds wrapped in 24 carat gold then I can’t imagine it’s going to happen.
I think Trump thinks that when the ice sheets melt it’ll be worth it. That America will suffer in the short term, but have access to a giant archipelago in the long term that’ll secure his legacy as an American hero. Unfortunately for him, his very actions might make it impossible for the US to capitalize on Greenland in any meaningful way.
I genuinely think it’s in the interests of all other powerful countries to stoke regional tensions over the next few decades and break up the union, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how things go. As much as I hate this country and think the empire needs to be knocked down a few pegs, civil war would not be a good thing. Such a heavily armed country descending into instability would be violent on a never before seen scale, and that violence will not stay in its borders.
I can’t speak to the other issues, but you solve the concrete problem by making concrete shapes off site and shipping them in.
I’ve never been to Greenland but I have been to Iceland quite a few times and trust me the northern ice sheets are not a place for vehicles. Greenland is pretty much all ice sheet and is actually quite a bit further north than Iceland.
Nato has 2 other nuclear powers. One of them has a nuclear first strike warning shot policy.
And the other is the 51st state, running American nukes and subs that will only keep working if the U.S. keeps the support contract going.
NGL here, if the U.S. turns hostile, we’re in deep shit.
That’s the thing, if the US takes Greenland, they’ve gone hostile. You may as well kamikaze any US equipment you can’t maintain because all that equipment is doing is picking your place in line at the chopping block. For two reasons, if the US takes Greenland, we’ve given up on international law, and no other country can stop us. And second if we take Greenland, we’ve gone full totalitarian, and no one here is going to stop us.
It’s a point of no return that means the only response had better be the most powerful thing you can manage, because you’re only going to get one shot before you’ll never have one again.
Strategically, you are right of course. But it’s Keir Starmer we’re talking about.
US has countless military bases in EU. EU is practically colony of USA, if they want to bei ndependent first thing they should do is wipe all US military bases from EU and kick USA out from NATO.
If you think people voted for Trump to stop new wars you’re the one that got fooled. Trump’s base just wants immigrants to suffer. They want to go back to the time when they were the privileged race. Trying to fight MAGA on foreign policy and economy is a waste of time. They don’t understand either. The left needs to finally understand this and stop falling for this distraction.
I don’t like these comments because it isn’t only ignorant, it actually derails one of the in roads we have to engage his base. There’s always die hards who will go down with the ship. But politics is all about fence sitters. Hell the whole fucking reason people protest is to raise awareness. Who do you think that awareness is for?
Derailing people who are pointing out that yes there are Trump supporters that hate these decisions only makes it harder to remove it at the end of the day for what benefit? To dunk on them?
Every right leaning group i go to I am seeing more and more staunch republicans and MAGA already laying roads to peel the fuck out. The algorithms are being weighed to the left again finally.
Also not wanting illegal immigration is not a crazy concept. The problem is it’s propaganda they’re buying telling them regular legal immigration is illegal.
By definition, everyone is opposed to illegal immigration, though they might differ in opinion about what immigration should be illegal.
Opposition to “illegal immigration” is practically always just a fig leaf for opposition to immigration. You can verify this easily by asking an opponent of “illegal immigration” whether they think legal immigration should become easier to reduce the incentives for illegal immigration. My counter for those who have answered in the affirmative is currently at zero.
How many have answered in the negative?
I’m not certain. I created a database to keep track of the number, but had to abandon the project due to the prohibitive cost of maintaining it.
