Should We Invade Greenland?

[JimmySpeaks]

10 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Sure conflict whatever that means.  The water is Russia’s and it’s up to them whether they want to do the pipeline thing or not.  It would seem being dependent on Russia for water would limit China’s control over Asia.

No I’m not and neither was your source.

Greenland is self governing.  If they don’t want to join the US they can simply not join the US.  The US cannot purchase what is not for sale.

If China went to war with Russia and won that part of Russia they wouldn’t be dependent on Russia.  Russia could then turn their focus to Europe.  You’re kinda slow huh? 

[JimmySpeaks]

17 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Sure conflict whatever that means.  The water is Russia’s and it’s up to them whether they want to do the pipeline thing or not.  It would seem being dependent on Russia for water would limit China’s control over Asia.

No I’m not and neither was your source.

Greenland is self governing.  If they don’t want to join the US they can simply not join the US.  The US cannot purchase what is not for sale.

 

[fishbane]

6 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

If China went to war with Russia and won that part of Russia they wouldn’t be dependent on Russia.  Russia could then turn their focus to Europe.  You’re kinda slow huh? 

So now we are back to China occupying part of Russia.  Then you claimed to not say that, but now we are back to Russia losing a war to China and having some of its land occupied by the Chinese.  If this includes Lake Baikal this is an area that exceeds Greater Manchuria, an area in modern day Russia that used to be part of China.  It is hard to imagine Russia willingly giving that to China.  Water access maybe, but they aren’t handing over the entire lake and land surrounding it.  So fresh off taking a loss to China in the east going to war with Europe?  That is what I said initially.
 

Was Russia still fighting the war with Ukraine when the war with China started?  How did that resolve?  When did the US leave NATO in your hypothetical?

I will assume the US leaves NATO sometime in the next three years as Donald Trump is the only US president to ever suggest it.  He would need bipartisan congressional support to do this, which he doesn’t have, but for the sake of your unrealistic hypothetical let’s say he somehow manufactures it.  Though Trump had boasted he would end the war in Ukraine it doesn’t look all that likely to end, so maybe that is still going on?

The US has left NATO and Russia is fighting stalled wars with Ukraine and China then abandons the China conflict to fight the entire continent of Europe?  If such a conflict is risky for Europe it is similarly risky for Russia.   Russia will experience shortages of their own fighting multiple wars.   Russia is struggling to win a war of attrition with Europe’s poorest country they are highly unlikely to outlast the entire continent in one.  If years pass between the US NATO exit and this attack on Europe with Russia fighting wars in east and the west in the intervening time surely Europe will be even more prepared by the start of the conflict then they are now and Russia wouldn’t prevail now.

[fishbane]

7 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

If a war breaks out Greenland will immediately be seized by the US. We’ve covered this multiple times already 

You forgotten that a war broke out way back in the 1940s before America got woke.  The US sent troops to Greenland during the war and when the war ended the US did not refuse to give back to control of the land to its ally.  The 9nlynpresident to ever suggest that the US might take Greenland by force only has three years left in charge for this hypothetical war to break out.  If I were a Greenlander I would not be persuaded into accepting a bad deal because the US might take the island by force.  

[JimmySpeaks]

5 minutes ago, fishbane said:

You forgotten that a war broke out way back in the 1940s before America got woke.  The US sent troops to Greenland during the war and when the war ended the US did not refuse to give back to control of the land to its ally.  The 9nlynpresident to ever suggest that the US might take Greenland by force only has three years left in charge for this hypothetical war to break out.  If I were a Greenlander I would not be persuaded into accepting a bad deal because the US might take the island by force.  

It’s not 1940 anymore skippy. 

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, fishbane said:

So now we are back to China occupying part of Russia.  Then you claimed to not say that, but now we are back to Russia losing a war to China and having some of its land occupied by the Chinese.  If this includes Lake Baikal this is an area that exceeds Greater Manchuria, an area in modern day Russia that used to be part of China.  It is hard to imagine Russia willingly giving that to China.  Water access maybe, but they aren’t handing over the entire lake and land surrounding it.  So fresh off taking a loss to China in the east going to war with Europe?  That is what I said initially.
 

Was Russia still fighting the war with Ukraine when the war with China started?  How did that resolve?  When did the US leave NATO in your hypothetical?

I will assume the US leaves NATO sometime in the next three years as Donald Trump is the only US president to ever suggest it.  He would need bipartisan congressional support to do this, which he doesn’t have, but for the sake of your unrealistic hypothetical let’s say he somehow manufactures it.  Though Trump had boasted he would end the war in Ukraine it doesn’t look all that likely to end, so maybe that is still going on?

The US has left NATO and Russia is fighting stalled wars with Ukraine and China then abandons the China conflict to fight the entire continent of Europe?  If such a conflict is risky for Europe it is similarly risky for Russia.   Russia will experience shortages of their own fighting multiple wars.   Russia is struggling to win a war of attrition with Europe’s poorest country they are highly unlikely to outlast the entire continent in one.  If years pass between the US NATO exit and this attack on Europe with Russia fighting wars in east and the west in the intervening time surely Europe will be even more prepared by the start of the conflict then they are now and Russia wouldn’t prevail now.

Again not everything happens in a three yr timeframe. Keep going with your circle jerk responses. 

[red viking]

8 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

If a war breaks out Greenland will immediately be seized by the US. We’ve covered this multiple times already 

I don't know if I could come up with a dumber reason to invade Greenland than this. Your're an even bigger idiot than I thought you were. 

[JimmySpeaks]

43 minutes ago, fishbane said:

You forgotten that a war broke out way back in the 1940s before America got woke.  The US sent troops to Greenland during the war and when the war ended the US did not refuse to give back to control of the land to its ally.  The 9nlynpresident to ever suggest that the US might take Greenland by force only has three years left in charge for this hypothetical war to break out.  If I were a Greenlander I would not be persuaded into accepting a bad deal because the US might take the island by force.  

history lesson for you. 
A. Not the first time it’s been discussed  it won’t be the last even if nothing happens under the orange man  

B. Seizing Greenland has already been written into Americas war plans and Trump had nothing to do with it

C. The US was asked/told to leave in the 1940’s but didn’t 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, red viking said:

I don't know if I could come up with a dumber reason to invade Greenland than this. Your're an even bigger idiot than I thought you were. 

You should probably get back to posting cartoons there Tifa Boy Wonder. 

[fishbane]

6 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Again not everything happens in a three yr timeframe. Keep going with your circle jerk responses. 

You are the ones spinning circles.  First you say something that seemingly implies China will be occupying part of Russia “Very likely a conflict will arise because of that lake and a large piece of what was once Russia that is now under chinas control.”

You then claimed to never say that part of Russia would be occupied.  “I never said anyone was occupying anyone else.”  

I then asked you what up you meant by the initial statement about “a large piece of what was once Russia that is now under chinas control” and you provided a screenshot of a google AI search that Russia gave 1.5 islands and a river inlet back to China between 15-30 years ago.  This was an area roughly 400 km^2 a very small part of Russia.  I point out that the part of Russia given to China is in fact very small.

You then provided a screenshot of the Wikipedia page for Outer Manchuria.  This is a large area, but it is part of modern day Russia that used to be part of China the opposite of what you initially said.  I point this out.

You then state “If China went to war with Russia and won that part of Russia they wouldn’t be dependent on Russia.  Russia could then turn their focus to Europe.”  That is essentially the scenario I came up with after your initial statement.

The US is unlikely to leave NATO in the next three years because there is not bipartisan congressional support for this.  It is even less likely to happen after Trump leaves office as he is the only US president that has shown an interest in leaving NATO.  If this Russia-Europe war happens many years in the future after the US left NATO then it is likely that Europe will have increased readiness relative to today especially if Russia has been fighting wars continuously on multiple borders.

So Europe will be more likely to prevail in this conflict if it occurs years removed from a US NATO exit and with Russia wasting resources in stalled wars on multiple fronts in the interim.  Your assessment of the conflict is essentially if the US exit NATO today and Russia attacks right after. Thats not the hypothetical.  NATO would win today and be even more likely to win in the future, but any conflict with Russia is risky due to their nuclear capabilities.

The further in the future this hypothetical war between Russia and Europe happens the less likely US is to permanently take Greenland during the conflict. The only US president to ever suggest taking Greenland by force only has three more years in office.  Any successor is unlikely to do it because the US has no legitimate claim to the island, it is the property of our ally Denmark, Denmark is a member of NATO, we are allowed troops there by treaty, and there is not widespread support for this in the US, Greenland, or Denmark.

You said “Denmark would be wise to get on board while the people there can benefit from the sale.”  Denmark and Greenland have to take Trump’s threats seriously, but also weigh them against the relative remoteness of all your hypotheticals playing out over the his term in office.  I would not be panicked into a bad deal if I were Greenland.

[JimmySpeaks]

9 minutes ago, fishbane said:

You are the ones spinning circles.  First you say something that seemingly implies China will be occupying part of Russia “Very likely a conflict will arise because of that lake and a large piece of what was once Russia that is now under chinas control.”

You then claimed to never say that part of Russia would be occupied.  “I never said anyone was occupying anyone else.”  

I then asked you what up you meant by the initial statement about “a large piece of what was once Russia that is now under chinas control” and you provided a screenshot of a google AI search that Russia gave 1.5 islands and a river inlet back to China between 15-30 years ago.  This was an area roughly 400 km^2 a very small part of Russia.  I point out that the part of Russia given to China is in fact very small.

You then provided a screenshot of the Wikipedia page for Outer Manchuria.  This is a large area, but it is part of modern day Russia that used to be part of China the opposite of what you initially said.  I point this out.

You then state “If China went to war with Russia and won that part of Russia they wouldn’t be dependent on Russia.  Russia could then turn their focus to Europe.”  That is essentially the scenario I came up with after your initial statement.

The US is unlikely to leave NATO in the next three years because there is not bipartisan congressional support for this.  It is even less likely to happen after Trump leaves office as he is the only US president that has shown an interest in leaving NATO.  If this Russia-Europe war happens many years in the future after the US left NATO then it is likely that Europe will have increased readiness relative to today especially if Russia has been fighting wars continuously on multiple borders.

So Europe will be more likely to prevail in this conflict if it occurs years removed from a US NATO exit and with Russia wasting resources in stalled wars on multiple fronts in the interim.  Your assessment of the conflict is essentially if the US exit NATO today and Russia attacks right after. Thats not the hypothetical.  NATO would win today and be even more likely to win in the future, but any conflict with Russia is risky due to their nuclear capabilities.

The further in the future this hypothetical war between Russia and Europe happens the less likely US is to permanently take Greenland during the conflict. The only US president to ever suggest taking Greenland by force only has three more years in office.  Any successor is unlikely to do it because the US has no legitimate claim to the island, it is the property of our ally Denmark, Denmark is a member of NATO, we are allowed troops there by treaty, and there is not widespread support for this in the US, Greenland, or Denmark.

You said “Denmark would be wise to get on board while the people there can benefit from the sale.”  Denmark and Greenland have to take Trump’s threats seriously, but also weigh them against the relative remoteness of all your hypotheticals playing out over the his term in office.  I would not be panicked into a bad deal if I were Greenland.

Occupying is very different than controlling.  Reading comprehension can be an improved if you try. 

[JimmySpeaks]

12 minutes ago, fishbane said:

You are the ones spinning circles.  First you say something that seemingly implies China will be occupying part of Russia “Very likely a conflict will arise because of that lake and a large piece of what was once Russia that is now under chinas control.”

You then claimed to never say that part of Russia would be occupied.  “I never said anyone was occupying anyone else.”  

I then asked you what up you meant by the initial statement about “a large piece of what was once Russia that is now under chinas control” and you provided a screenshot of a google AI search that Russia gave 1.5 islands and a river inlet back to China between 15-30 years ago.  This was an area roughly 400 km^2 a very small part of Russia.  I point out that the part of Russia given to China is in fact very small.

You then provided a screenshot of the Wikipedia page for Outer Manchuria.  This is a large area, but it is part of modern day Russia that used to be part of China the opposite of what you initially said.  I point this out.

You then state “If China went to war with Russia and won that part of Russia they wouldn’t be dependent on Russia.  Russia could then turn their focus to Europe.”  That is essentially the scenario I came up with after your initial statement.

The US is unlikely to leave NATO in the next three years because there is not bipartisan congressional support for this.  It is even less likely to happen after Trump leaves office as he is the only US president that has shown an interest in leaving NATO.  If this Russia-Europe war happens many years in the future after the US left NATO then it is likely that Europe will have increased readiness relative to today especially if Russia has been fighting wars continuously on multiple borders.

So Europe will be more likely to prevail in this conflict if it occurs years removed from a US NATO exit and with Russia wasting resources in stalled wars on multiple fronts in the interim.  Your assessment of the conflict is essentially if the US exit NATO today and Russia attacks right after. Thats not the hypothetical.  NATO would win today and be even more likely to win in the future, but any conflict with Russia is risky due to their nuclear capabilities.

The further in the future this hypothetical war between Russia and Europe happens the less likely US is to permanently take Greenland during the conflict. The only US president to ever suggest taking Greenland by force only has three more years in office.  Any successor is unlikely to do it because the US has no legitimate claim to the island, it is the property of our ally Denmark, Denmark is a member of NATO, we are allowed troops there by treaty, and there is not widespread support for this in the US, Greenland, or Denmark.

You said “Denmark would be wise to get on board while the people there can benefit from the sale.”  Denmark and Greenland have to take Trump’s threats seriously, but also weigh them against the relative remoteness of all your hypotheticals playing out over the his term in office.  I would not be panicked into a bad deal if I were Greenland.

You’ve made countless statements that were proven wrong. Carry on. 

[fishbane]

30 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

history lesson for you. 
A. Not the first time it’s been discussed  it won’t be the last even if nothing happens under the orange man  

B. Seizing Greenland has already been written into Americas war plans and Trump had nothing to do with it

C. The US was asked/told to leave in the 1940’s but didn’t 

“Before World War II, the island was part of RAINBOW 4, a contingency plan to deal with a siege of North America in which the United States was simultaneously attacked from every direction by every great power. In RAINBOW 4, American forces would preemptively seize all Dutch, Danish, and French possessions in the western hemisphere – including Greenland – and garrison them to form a defensive perimeter around the United States.” 

Misinformation .  In the war scenario where the US seizes Greenland the US has no major allies.  It is also being attacked simultaneously from all directions.  This is not a war plan for a Russian-European conflict the US has no involvement in.  This is the first time it has been discussed in peacetime with the US as the aggressor.

Edited January 21 by fishbane

[Gene Mills Fan]

12 minutes ago, fishbane said:

“Before World War II, the island was part of RAINBOW 4, a contingency plan to deal with a siege of North America in which the United States was simultaneously attacked from every direction by every great power. In RAINBOW 4, American forces would preemptively seize all Dutch, Danish, and French possessions in the western hemisphere – including Greenland – and garrison them to form a defensive perimeter around the United States.” 

Misinformation .  In the war scenario where the US seizes Greenland the US has no major allies.  It is also being attacked simultaneously from all directions.  This is not a war plan for a Russian-European conflict the US has no involvement in.  This is the first time it has been discussed in peacetime with the US as the aggressor.

Can we figure this all out with a few games of Risk?

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, fishbane said:

“Before World War II, the island was part of RAINBOW 4, a contingency plan to deal with a siege of North America in which the United States was simultaneously attacked from every direction by every great power. In RAINBOW 4, American forces would preemptively seize all Dutch, Danish, and French possessions in the western hemisphere – including Greenland – and garrison them to form a defensive perimeter around the United States.” 

Misinformation .  In the war scenario where the US seizes Greenland the US has no major allies.  It is also being attacked simultaneously from all directions.  This is not a war plan for a Russian-European conflict the US has no involvement in.  This is the first time it has been discussed in peacetime with the US as the aggressor.

A.  I’m glad your learning things 

B. There’s been war planS that it’s been written into 

C. I’m glad you agree that this has nothing to do with a Russia-Europe confrontation as nobody said it did.  

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Can we figure this all out with a few games of Risk?

I sunk your battleship would be better 

[juniorvarsity]

19 hours ago, fishbane said:

Whilst the $100k/resident would go directly to them the annual subsidy either from the US or Denmark would/does not.  That would go to the government and whilst the Danish gov allows Greenland to govern itself more or less autonomously that is less guaranteed joining the US especially without statehood.  

One representative in the house and two senators.  They could be a commonwealth and a state like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Virginia.

The current administration has not exactly been hands off of liberal non-voting territories.  They threatened to cut off funding for DC unless BLM plaza was removed.  They sent the national guard into DC when the did not ask for it.  DC not being a state gave the government greater latitude to do such things.  President Trump has at times shown favor to red states and took measures to punish blue states.  With Greenland being more liberal than the US this is hardly a selling point in the deal.  Hostile to liberal states/territories with no vote in the government leaving any potential increase in annual subsidy with the US under threat should Trump determine they are too liberal or too vocally against his policies.

Assuming you are a conservative living in a red state would you be cool with your state joining Canada for $100k USD per person with no vote in their Parliament and with a Prime Minster that is hostile to conservatives?

I have said there is a deal to be made where Greenland joins that US that could be win-win as in beneficial to the Greenlanders and beneficial to the US.  I don't think such a deal is likely to happen.  It will be way too costly either financially or politically.  Would you want the deal to happen at $6B USD with Greenland becoming a state with 1 house rep and 2 senators?  

Canada adopting North Carolina is not apples to apples. Hard to really compare - a strategic territory where a superior military can benefit.

$6B to make them a state sounds like a good idea. It would be democrat senators and a democrat representative. Seems like a good tradeoff. But I don't think making them a state is beneficial. Providing a larger block grant to Greenland to become a US territory and putting them on the dollar sounds like a better route. And investing a lot of money into future arctic shipping routes with military bases and protection around the coast. 

Like I really see no reason to not want this as an American. What Greenland wants is besides the point for me. Seems like a big win for USA. 

I have also heard that having Greenland makes Europe less important. Which is fine for me. The whole EU seems like they hate us anyways. Maybe they will actually spend the money they need on their military instead of welfare programs that they think makes them superior. They'll probably go bankrupt trying to defend themselves with all the welfare the European demand from their governments. 

Say Greenland does become a territory or state, one thing I am sure that would piss Greenlanders off is if the island got flooded with Americans, doubling the population when the money flows in and all the people and businesses that come with it. It would be a immigration crisis for them. They might want some assurances around this. 

[fishbane]

4 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

A.  I’m glad your learning things 

B. There’s been war planS that it’s been written into 

C. I’m glad you agree that this has nothing to do with a Russia-Europe confrontation as nobody said it did.  

So the scenario you said “In the event of a war it will be seized to ensure US safety… Geeenland probably gets nothing if a war happens.”  You were referring to a war where all major powers attack the US and the US has left NATO and has no major Allies?
 

As I said Denmark and Greenland should weigh that risk against the relative remoteness of it occurring in assessing any offer to buy the island.  Greenland could well have sold off all the valuable resources on the island netting far more than $100k/resident by the time this happens.

[fishbane]

5 minutes ago, juniorvarsity said:

Canada adopting North Carolina is not apples to apples. Hard to really compare - a strategic territory where a superior military can benefit.

The question was supposed to get you to look at it from a Greenlander’s perspective…

6 minutes ago, juniorvarsity said:

Like I really see no reason to not want this as an American. What Greenland wants is besides the point for me. Seems like a big win for USA. 

What Greenland wants is critical to making a deal.  It would be a big win for me if I could purchase my neighbor’s house for 1/100 of its market value.  His wants make that not worth pursuing.

8 minutes ago, juniorvarsity said:

$6B to make them a state sounds like a good idea. It would be democrat senators and a democrat representative. Seems like a good tradeoff. But I don't think making them a state is beneficial. Providing a larger block grant to Greenland to become a US territory and putting them on the dollar sounds like a better route. And investing a lot of money into future arctic shipping routes with military bases and protection around the coast. 

Making them a state might help get congressional/state approval as Democrats/blue states would be more likely to approve a liberal state being added and Republicans/red states might be reluctant to cross the president. 

A larger grant would not be very persuasive.  This President has shown a propensity to use federal $$ to micromanage territories.  If they have one too many anti-Trump protests that grant could dry up.  Just see DC and Black Lives Matter Matter Plaza.  Lots of string tied to federal money going to liberals under this administration.

The US dollar might not be so beneficial if other countries pursue trade partnerships elsewhere as a result of increased tariffs and the us taking their territory.  I think Greenlanders would prefer independence with increased US investment as a partner.

16 minutes ago, juniorvarsity said:

Say Greenland does become a territory or state, one thing I am sure that would piss Greenlanders off is if the island got flooded with Americans, doubling the population when the money flows in and all the people and businesses that come with it. It would be an immigration crisis for them. They might want some assurances around this. 

This is one area where Greenland is much different than the US.  Greenlanders cannot own real estate.  All land is owned by the government.  They might own the structure, but the land under it is leased from the government.  How that might change I am sure would be a point in negotiations.  

[Offthemat]

Greenland is a protectorate of Denmark.  Denmark is a protectorate of the U.S.  NATO is a protectorate of the U.S.  Last summer it was reported that NATO combined, couldn’t muster three military divisions.  Russia has nearly forty divisions committed to Ukraine, with eleven more expected to be added this year.  Europe sends around twice as much money to Russia each year as they do to Ukraine.  How can you defeat someone you are better funding than yourself?  Trump warned them about this in his first term. 
 

China and Russia desire more control of the Arctic, and Greenland is seen by them, and us, as strategically favorable ground.  Trump’s stated willingness to use military force to acquire Greenland would not be against Greenland, or Denmark.  It would be against China and Russia, should they move in with military assets there.  Trump wants to prevent that.  Consider what it would be like if Russia still had Alaska, and all the scorn that was cast at the time for those who sought it.  Trump is proving again to be an absolute visionary, and the nay sayers and pearl clutchers can just go sit down.  

[red viking]

12 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Greenland is a protectorate of Denmark.  Denmark is a protectorate of the U.S.  NATO is a protectorate of the U.S.  Last summer it was reported that NATO combined, couldn’t muster three military divisions.  Russia has nearly forty divisions committed to Ukraine, with eleven more expected to be added this year.  Europe sends around twice as much money to Russia each year as they do to Ukraine.  How can you defeat someone you are better funding than yourself?  Trump warned them about this in his first term. 
 

China and Russia desire more control of the Arctic, and Greenland is seen by them, and us, as strategically favorable ground.  Trump’s stated willingness to use military force to acquire Greenland would not be against Greenland, or Denmark.  It would be against China and Russia, should they move in with military assets there.  Trump wants to prevent that.  Consider what it would be like if Russia still had Alaska, and all the scorn that was cast at the time for those who sought it.  Trump is proving again to be an absolute visionary, and the nay sayers and pearl clutchers can just go sit down.  

Zero evidence that Russia or China are planning on invading Greenland. Keep drinking the Trumptard Kool Aid though. 

[Offthemat]

14 minutes ago, red viking said:

Zero evidence that Russia or China are planning on invading Greenland. Keep drinking the Trumptard Kool Aid though. 

You have zero evidence of anything other than mendacity. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, fishbane said:

So the scenario you said “In the event of a war it will be seized to ensure US safety… Geeenland probably gets nothing if a war happens.”  You were referring to a war where all major powers attack the US and the US has left NATO and has no major Allies?
 

As I said Denmark and Greenland should weigh that risk against the relative remoteness of it occurring in assessing any offer to buy the island.  Greenland could well have sold off all the valuable resources on the island netting far more than $100k/resident by the time this happens.

A.  Nope. 
 

B.  Couda. Shoulda. Woulda.  
 

C.  Shoulda. Clouds. Woulda.  
 

D.  Woulda. Shoulda. Couda.  

Edited January 21 by JimmySpeaks

[fishbane]

22 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

A.  Nope. 
 

B.  Couda. Shoulda. Woulda.  
 

C.  Shoulda. Clouds. Woulda.  
 

D.  Woulda. Shoulda. Couda.  

You are being deceptive.  Trump is the only US president that has suggested taking Greenland by force and the war plans you are talking about when you wrote "Seizing Greenland has already been written into Americas war plans and Trump had nothing to do with it." are war plans from before WW2 where the US is fighting every world power without a major ally. That is the context of war plans that involve seizing Greenland.  This is a hypothetical war that has never happened and no one is currently predicting.  During the biggest war in world history the US sent troops to Greenland and control was returned to Denmark after the war despite the existence of those war plans at the time.  Greenlanders should ignore your warning.

[Gene Mills Fan]

4 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I sunk your battleship would be better 

Both below and above

airspace buffer and long range departure and return

incoming missile defense

So we can sleep better at night.

Edited January 21 by Gene Mills Fan