KEY POINTS
Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, said he will introduce a resolution to block Donald Trump from invading Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory.
Concerns about U.S. action against Greenland have grown on the heels of the attack on Venezuela, which led to the capture of leader Nicolas Maduro.
“Everybody wants us to have a bigger presence in Greenland to combat the Russian/Chinese Arctic influence,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said.
If I were the “Boss of all Europe”, I’d have nuclear weapons in Greenland/Canada already; you could launch and wreck the USA long before the USA could retaliate against Europe (Greenland/Canada would be “taking one for the team”).
Ironically, that’s what Trump wants to prevent (security risk and so on).
By “Trump” I mean whomever has inspired our impaired, senile POTUS to take Greenland.
This probably means that the USA is planning moves against Europe/EU/NATO in the future, so it wants lots of ocean between us, as much as possible. This has always been the best defense for the USA, it’s allowed us to punch, but not be punched back. So far.
Europe has nuclear weapons closer to the US than Greenland.
Technically, if everything works as if on paper, an attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark. An attack on Denmark is an attack on France, according to EU articles, which are more tightly binding than NATO ones. And the French have nukes on subs floating under the Atlantic in undisclosed places, and their nuclear doctrine is basically “we use nukes as warning shots”.
In practice, just selling all US securities and cash reserves held by Europe would basically cause the US economy to implode overnight, and the US government to have to declare bankruptcy, and stop being able to pay or even feed its soldiers.
The problem is that it would also cause a deep recession in the EU and basically all over the world, so that’s why we’re playing chicken.
Oh, good.
We’ve had one mutually assured destruction, but what about second mutually assured destruction?
I don’t particularly mind the economic MAD. That’ll heal in mere decades.
And also hurt rich people with bunkers as well.
That’s very interesting, thank you, I will read up on the “French Connection”
I did not know that!
I do know USA has launch sites in Europe and submarines, also. I’m not sure if NATO or the USA controls them the sites in Europe.
IIRC the USA does not have intercontinental missile launch sites in anywhere but the US. The US nukes in Europe are all plane borne bombs.
Those can’t really be launched unless both the US and the host country agree, and France and the UK have a bunch of those as well.
You’re right on paper, they are weapons to be loaded on to planes…
Maybe I’m paranoid, but I think they probably have nuclear missiles on US military bases in spite of any agreements.
An IBCM is hard to hide. And they don’t need to.
They never needed to do any of this crap.
They want to.
Also, they wouldn’t need to use an ICBM, their targets are very close.
They just need nuclear warheads and a fast delivery system.