You do know that you first have to do reconnaissance before deploying troops right? Not exactly surprising that Denmark doesn't have plans ready to defend from an US invasion in Greenland.
Not that recon matters since all it determines is how hard to surrender. Forget plans, you can tell none of the Euroids ever war-gamed this out, even as a hypothetical thought exercise. Completely comfortable with stagnation.
This is why he wants Greenland. Yes, it's a fictionalized setting, and is about Scottland, but you'll notice that Greenland is right on that line. Additionally, the deep state occasionally likes to tip off anyone interested in GeoPolitics a little bit of reality check to help themselves sound important and impressive.
Although fictional buildup and sub spotting isn't real, our nuclear deterrence stance very much is. The risk to it is also quite real, especially if anyone from Russia wants to get close to the US coastline. China has effectively stolen Canada from out under our noses as a vassal state, meaning that the 70 years that NORAD and NATO have been using Canada for naval and air interception of Russian activity has been put massively in danger. The 51st state talk is also about that particular problem.
Securing our nuclear fleet and cutting off Russian arctic activity is extremely important. Since we're gonna be building ships, colonizing Greenland with a nuclear capable shipyard creates a strong deterrent against Russia, and proves we don't need co-operation with Europe to maintain it. (Remember how Kier Starmer is giving the Chagos Islands to a Mauritius? The Mauritians are backed by China, and Chagos has a US nuclear sub port on it.
That's only the military perspective. Greenland is known to additionally have 36 million tons of rare earth minerals. This will be necessary for computing, processing, satellites, and more. This is correlated to AI. It also helps that Greenland is cold, and thus cooling high intensity computers will be a bit easier that far north.
I understand a lot of people don't like this adventurism that Trump is doing, but he really is being aggressive to secure a US hegemony by securing resources, boarders, industries, and nuclear defense.
I disagree on your point of attention. Mexico is a monster of a problem. I will remind you that the US invaded Mexico twice, and we have never been able to bring a stable regime to power. It has been rampantly Leftist for longer than the US has. Even Santa Ana couldn't control Mexico, either during his time as dictator, or even after he was released. The only shot they ever had was a French monarch who was bequeathed to them to restore order, and for that he and his family were all killed. To this day, even Americans celebrate the murder and descent into chaos that is Cinco De Mayo. Mexico was never a French colony, it was just that the French wanted to give Mexico a stable government.
You want to fix Mexico? Understand that means boots-on-the ground, a 20 year war, colonization, a full scale civil war, and at least 500,000 dead with the Chinese probably deciding to send troops to protect some Leftists.
And the depth of the problem is severe. Mexican Communists and Mexican National Socialists are the same people arguing the same things. They were supported by the Obama administration. The governor of Arizona is tied directly to Mexican cartels.
Venezuela was an easy fix, and the fact that Mexicans and Cubans were killed in the raid protecting Maduro tells us a lot about the depth of the problem.
The best we can do is have troops in Mexico fighting cartels (we already do, and they've been there for years). The next problem is we have to figure out how to fight other cartels that are supported by the government without said government responding with major terror attacks in the US that will be blamed on ICE so that the dems can get back into power to support the cartels. Right now, Trump and Rubio are edging out Leftist Mexican terrorism across the hemisphere with political pressure. To actually deal with Mexico includes destabilizing the government and getting nationalist populists in charge that aren't National Socialists who want to invade the US. That's pretty hard to do when they keep dying. If you had a problem with US intervention and regime change, don't complain if that's what you want to happen in Mexico.
If you don't want military intervention, than realize that we need to start subsidizing gun manufacturers to start shipping weapons into Mexico to start that civil war.
They sent 34 troops! That'll stop Trump for sure!
Anyhow, as a commenter said:
"And just like that Trump got the EU to fortify Greenland at no US cost. Hahaha"
It's so true. Trump has his enemies "steppin & fetchin" as he calls the tune.
You do know that you first have to do reconnaissance before deploying troops right? Not exactly surprising that Denmark doesn't have plans ready to defend from an US invasion in Greenland.
Not that recon matters since all it determines is how hard to surrender. Forget plans, you can tell none of the Euroids ever war-gamed this out, even as a hypothetical thought exercise. Completely comfortable with stagnation.
Just in case anyone is curious.
This is why he wants Greenland. Yes, it's a fictionalized setting, and is about Scottland, but you'll notice that Greenland is right on that line. Additionally, the deep state occasionally likes to tip off anyone interested in GeoPolitics a little bit of reality check to help themselves sound important and impressive.
Although fictional buildup and sub spotting isn't real, our nuclear deterrence stance very much is. The risk to it is also quite real, especially if anyone from Russia wants to get close to the US coastline. China has effectively stolen Canada from out under our noses as a vassal state, meaning that the 70 years that NORAD and NATO have been using Canada for naval and air interception of Russian activity has been put massively in danger. The 51st state talk is also about that particular problem.
Securing our nuclear fleet and cutting off Russian arctic activity is extremely important. Since we're gonna be building ships, colonizing Greenland with a nuclear capable shipyard creates a strong deterrent against Russia, and proves we don't need co-operation with Europe to maintain it. (Remember how Kier Starmer is giving the Chagos Islands to a Mauritius? The Mauritians are backed by China, and Chagos has a US nuclear sub port on it.
That's only the military perspective. Greenland is known to additionally have 36 million tons of rare earth minerals. This will be necessary for computing, processing, satellites, and more. This is correlated to AI. It also helps that Greenland is cold, and thus cooling high intensity computers will be a bit easier that far north.
I understand a lot of people don't like this adventurism that Trump is doing, but he really is being aggressive to secure a US hegemony by securing resources, boarders, industries, and nuclear defense.
Mexicans aren’t having 10-20 kids all on welfare with an IQ of 65
No, but they're having 5-10 kids all on welfare with an IQ of 90.
We have a lot of enemies, some worse than others.
I disagree on your point of attention. Mexico is a monster of a problem. I will remind you that the US invaded Mexico twice, and we have never been able to bring a stable regime to power. It has been rampantly Leftist for longer than the US has. Even Santa Ana couldn't control Mexico, either during his time as dictator, or even after he was released. The only shot they ever had was a French monarch who was bequeathed to them to restore order, and for that he and his family were all killed. To this day, even Americans celebrate the murder and descent into chaos that is Cinco De Mayo. Mexico was never a French colony, it was just that the French wanted to give Mexico a stable government.
You want to fix Mexico? Understand that means boots-on-the ground, a 20 year war, colonization, a full scale civil war, and at least 500,000 dead with the Chinese probably deciding to send troops to protect some Leftists.
And the depth of the problem is severe. Mexican Communists and Mexican National Socialists are the same people arguing the same things. They were supported by the Obama administration. The governor of Arizona is tied directly to Mexican cartels.
Venezuela was an easy fix, and the fact that Mexicans and Cubans were killed in the raid protecting Maduro tells us a lot about the depth of the problem.
The best we can do is have troops in Mexico fighting cartels (we already do, and they've been there for years). The next problem is we have to figure out how to fight other cartels that are supported by the government without said government responding with major terror attacks in the US that will be blamed on ICE so that the dems can get back into power to support the cartels. Right now, Trump and Rubio are edging out Leftist Mexican terrorism across the hemisphere with political pressure. To actually deal with Mexico includes destabilizing the government and getting nationalist populists in charge that aren't National Socialists who want to invade the US. That's pretty hard to do when they keep dying. If you had a problem with US intervention and regime change, don't complain if that's what you want to happen in Mexico.
If you don't want military intervention, than realize that we need to start subsidizing gun manufacturers to start shipping weapons into Mexico to start that civil war.
Not on the table, and wouldn't solve the problem anyway. You'd turn a narco state into a failed state.