Trump threatening military action in Greenland

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

7 hours ago, Bronco said:

Honestly, if he attacks NATO soil. 
By virtue of article 5, he's attacked 2 nuclear armed nations.

No, that is false. Bronco is spreading dangerous fake news and he can't think of anything better than to misuse the LMAO button, trying to discredit other opinions because he has no facts.

Article 5 can be tried to be invoked by a member state as a means of assistance, but it must then be unanimously confirmed by all the other member states in the NATO Council. If even only one member state states that no armed attack has taken place, the collective defense clause will not be invoked as binding and then countries previously being convinced of an armed attack can withdraw their aid offers without violating NATO rules. This means that without the consent of the USA, it would not be possible; Article 5 cannot be applied in a conflict between two NATO member states because unanimity is not present. Therefore, the USA has a veto right in the event of an invasion of Greenland. 

NATO was created as an instrument against external aggression (that is, against non-NATO states like Russia), not to resolve conflicts between countries.

If no agreement is reached, France and the UK are not legally obliged to help Denmark under the NATO treaties. It would NOT be an attack on 2 nuclear armed nations by Article 5. 

Furthermore, each country can offer assistance under UN law independently of NATO, but it is not obligated to do so. I doubt that any country from the other NATO countries would go to war against the USA if it were not obligated to do so. And they are not obligated if the US disagrees.

Source: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/consensus-decision-making-at-nato

"Consensus decision-making means that there is no voting at NATO. Consultations take place until a decision that is acceptable to all is reached." 

It wasn't long ago that Turkey refused to approve Sweden's NATO accession and delayed it, although all the other states were in favor of it. 

 

6 hours ago, Bronco said:

Honestly, if France or the UK turned around and called Trump's bluff immediately and waved the N word around that little pedo rat would fold instantly. 

No, they wouldn't, because these countries are afraid of the US. The nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia are far superior to those of France and the UK.

If France were to threaten the US, neither would use nuclear weapons first, and it would inevitably lead to a conventional war, which the US would win due to its superior conventional military capabilities. Furthermore, there's the risk that the US would financially and medially support the separatists in France's overseas territories, potentially leading to France losing some of these territories due to a declaration of independence. The US could also impose financial sanctions against France and shield it from Western technologies. France also sometimes intervenes in Africa in violation of international law, sometimes with US intelligence assistance – France would lose this intelligence as it would become unpopular with the US. In short, I can think of countless reasons why threatening the US would be a bad idea for France and why the betrayal of Denmark makes more sense for France.

Without the involvement and support of the US, France and the UK wouldn't dare to do anything alone in Ukraine, such as send troops or aircraft. Because they are afraid of a Russian nuclear attack since Russia has a superior nuclear arsenal and is in a better position to survive a nuclear war due to being almost as large as South America. London and Paris are not worth Kyiv to them. 

Furthermore, the UK is a close ally and would be one of the last countries on Earth to threaten the US.

France doesn't have nuclear weapons to threaten the US, but because it doesn't trust the NATO mutual defense clause – that's why it developed its own. 

Should Trump annex Greenland, France and the UK will send Denmark empty words of solidarity but do nothing to defend it militarily. (That's the sad reality ... ) Moreover, France would never want to sacrifice Paris in a nuclear war for another country.

France and the UK are also highly centralized countries, with their capital cities being the absolute center of power, and both are 40-60 times smaller than the US. An atomic bomb dropped on London and Paris would essentially devastate both countries.

The US, being polycentric with several major metropolitan areas thousands of miles apart, is in a far better position and could survive multiple atomic bomb drops and still be a world-class nation. France and the UK possess nuclear weapons to secure their existence, not to jeopardize it.

Edited January 7 by Ayesha Erotica

[Morphine Prince 109,709]

2 hours ago, MOT said:

I wonder is climate change a factor in all this. It IS an existential threat. If parts of the world are going to become uninhabitable, that might be the driver for the superpowers to make radical changes to the world order. 

It absolutely is and it’s so interesting seeing all of this happening years after these topics were mentioned in an environmental science class I took. 

[Monstermilo 5,473]

canada here i come ion wanna get nuked

[27monster27 15,916]

7 hours ago, elijahfan said:

Not to mention it will likely embolden the other imperialist crazies of the world.

This might sound like a weird comparison, but I truly blame the Azerbaijani government for this. The seizure of Artsakh and then not facing much of any backlash for it. That was the thing that likely gave Netanyahu, now Trump, etc. the go aheads to take control of other nations for imperialistic values without taking enough backlash to stop them. That only really happened to Putin after the invasion started in 2022, which at least is possibly why Xi Jinping keeps delaying stuff with Taiwan to only now.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,976]

12 hours ago, 27monster27 said:

People in the US are too comfortable to go to the extremes needed to remove him and his entire administration from power. This isn't me insulting, but more so stating the situation at hand. People can still eat and make money. If we were in Myanmar or Nepal this would be a very different story.

Not so much comfortable as scared as well as brainwashed. A large part of the population still supports Trump. A lot of them crazy. It would likely mean a civil war. And because it's not really region specific, that makes it a lot harder as well. And even if people were willing to risk that, you have a federal government that has already deployed the National Guard against its own people. It likely wouldn't get anywhere. The absolute best thing to do is "let" Trump continue to do his own thing and hope there's nothing too atrocious leading up to the midterms. But I think the midterms could possibly be turning the tide. And at that point we can only hope he gets impeached and there's somewhat of a peaceful transition. But at the end of the day, Trump has made a mockery of democracy in the US. There's glaring issues in the independence and autonomy of the Supreme Court and lower courts, specifically with them actually having any sort of enforcement power. And I think that same concept has applied to Congress as well. The Presidency is the only place that holds any means to actually maintain power and control, and in a political environment that is so mixed and imbalanced, the country really starts to struggle internally. 

[LG2008 6,310]

And what's the reason for this? Do they have a dictator as president too?  Maybe Trump should bomb the US since they have one as a president too 

Edited January 7 by LG2008

[FfFfFfFF 58,286]

Those saying American military intervention in Greeland is impossible need a reality check, I fear. Trump is 100% the type to do it. 

[Shadow 6,697]

 

Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark-us-defense-pact.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ClA.PD-q.cpCoyMGW7ecS&smid=url-share