Reply to Greendland

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Greendland - why not? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.[/quote] Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.[/quote]

NATO[/quote]There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.[/quote]

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.[/quote]WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke. [/quote]

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there.  So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month.  Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN.   Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset. [/quote] Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.[/quote]

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever. [/quote] Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved. [/quote]

No. Russia has lost more than 400 aircraft in this war, and an additional 350 or so helicopters. Ukraine too has its losses, which is why the F-16s and so on tend to only operate in western Ukraine to shoot down drones and missiles. Neither side is getting anywhere close to the line of contact. Anything in the air gets shot down. And Ukraine is very good at it. They do have Patriots and other systems to make Russian air power pretty useless except for long distance glide bombs.

This war would be very different if one side had air dominance. But neither does. So we have this war of attrition. We should all be very grateful we have F-22s, F-35s, and stealth bombers so that American soldiers never have to fight this kind of war. [/quote] Russia has cruise missiles that they are holding in reserve, they are unstoppable. But they are not using them for some reason.[/quote]

You have to have a target that's a good fit for them.

Plus they have to work, which is often a problem for the Russians. Many of their announced weapon systems are vaporware. They have a very long history of doing that.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics