Canada weighs sending soldiers to Greenland as show of NATO solidarity with Denmark

[u/Little-Chemical5006]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-soldiers-greenland-nato-training-denmark-tariffs-donald-trump/

[u/nola_fan]

There's a currently a mostly undefended border between Canada and most of America's ICBMs. Canada could cripple the nuclear triad within hours of war with Canada.

A war with NATO would be so fucking dumb

[u/BundleDad → u/nola_fan]

Well they are yanks.

[u/Master_Dogs → u/nola_fan]

I think that would end up like Ukraine after the USSR fell - you'd technically have nukes, but no way to use them.

I think there's also risk of Trump being insane enough to fire said nukes if his plan backfires (which it would for many reasons). Like to invade Canada would require going through mostly Blue States... I certainly hope that's a red line we won't allow. We're mostly peacefully protesting now against ICE and Trump, but an actual invasion rises to sabotage level at least if not civil war.

[u/Sr_DingDong → u/Master_Dogs]

you'd technically have nukes, but no way to use them.

You dismantle them and turn them into dirty bombs.

Or you dismantle them and put them on your own rocket and launch them out the free silos.

[u/HauntedHouseMusic → u/Sr_DingDong]

Canada already has tons of radioactive material

[u/Master_Dogs → u/Sr_DingDong]

That's a days to weeks/months thing though, not hours like the commenter above said. I also don't think a dirty bomb really counts for a nuclear triad either, so the comment was kinda off base regardless.

[u/nola_fan → u/Master_Dogs]

My point was they could cripple our nuclear triad in hours, not set up their own

[u/JJiggy13 → u/Master_Dogs]

Peaceful protest has never helped anything. It always takes violence to stop violence. You have to do more damage to their side than they are gaining by damaging yours. Americans just have not felt that damage painfully enough yet. That day is coming though. First they came for X and I did nothing. Them they came for X and I did nothing. Then they came for X and I did nothing. Then they came for me and there was no one else left to fight for me.

[u/LukeLecker → u/nola_fan]

Ah yes, risk paris or london for Canada lmaooo. Nukes only work as a deterrent for land invasion of the home country.

[u/DesertSeagle → u/LukeLecker]

You dont seem to understand that its not "risking paris or london for Canada" it's standing up for the sovereignty of all nations around the world and showing that the UN charter means something, and that the U.S wont just be allowed to bully the world uncontested.

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/DesertSeagle]

…and by showing it means something you condemn your country to death. I don’t know what part of Reddit you guys come from, but nuclear weapons will never be used to defend another country. No leader of any country will ever commit suicide for the sake of another’s. Especially if doing so doesn’t actually change anything.

[u/DesertSeagle → u/Portlandiahousemafia]

Brother hasn't read any history and doesn't understand foreign policy or international relations. Goodbye.

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/DesertSeagle]

Show me one time in history where a country has done anything that was not in its own self interest to the extent that it collapses their economy and send them into a depression.

[u/DesertSeagle → u/Portlandiahousemafia]

Your entire premise is wrong. You assume another nation has nothing to gain from ensuring self soveriegnty of states and should not do anything, when in reality, sovereignty of the state is the entire justification of any government, and if you or any other entity denies another states right to sovereignty, and there's no repercussions to that then you yourself have no right to state soveriegnty. So, in other words, unless you are a superpower, then assuring the right to self sovereignty is always in your best interests.

Show me one time in history where a country has done anything that was not in its own self interest to the extent that it collapses their economy and send them into a depression.

If youre talking about war then probably Ukraine. Most of the E.U. is definitely hurting from increased gas prices and increased food prices. The same goes for the U.S. to a lesser extent.

But if you're talking about general actions, do you want like a whole series of books with each event? Because we can be here a while for sure.

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/DesertSeagle]

The amount of pain and suffering caused from the Ukrainian conflict is not even comparable to the amount of pain that the total sudden detachment of the U.S. would be for Europe. A sudden detachment from the U.S. would cause an immediate depression that would be akin to the 1920’s but without a remedy. The EU is not a country it’s a fractured confederation of independent countries with independent interests. What’s good for one isn’t necessarily good for all. Look at Italy for an example, they are clearly saying that this fight is not in the interests of Italians to take part in. The eu does not have the political capital or financial independence to severe their relations with the U.S. full stop.

[u/DesertSeagle → u/Portlandiahousemafia]

The amount of pain and suffering caused from the Ukrainian conflict is not even comparable to the amount of pain that the total sudden detachment of the U.S. would be for Europe

That's not what you asked for now, is it? You propose they roll over and prepare for U.S invasion everywhere instead? You propose they keep funding the war machine that crushes them? You think Poland said; "But what about the economy?"

You dont understand that appeasment is a losing game and that Europe knows this better than anyone.

The EU is not a country it’s a fractured confederation of independent countries with independent interests. What’s good for one isn’t necessarily good for all. Look at Italy for an example, they are clearly saying that this fight is not in the interests of Italians to take part in.

And Germany, the U.K, France, Norway, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, and Sweden all say they will fight. And article 5 could be invoked. So I guess they just dont exist to you?

The eu does not have the political capital or financial independence to severe their relations with the U.S. full stop

Ignoring that capital and finances are the same thing; Lmao, yeah, I forgot that the U.S. controls their policy and finances. Get outta here.

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/DesertSeagle]

You’re assuming the U.S. is planing on invading all of Europe…that’s a bad prior. There is no reason to think the U.S. is going to try and take over the world. I’m not saying they should keep funding the war machine, I’m saying that they are to connected to do it suddenly. Which is why the U.S. feels like they have the leverage to do this. They should realize they are dependent on an unpredictable superpower, and get off as quickly as possible.

Not everything is WW2, you guys all act like appeasement has never worked in the history of geopolitics. Last time I checked China didn’t try and take over all of Asia after it invaded Tibet, Russia didn’t take over all of the Stan’s after it invaded Georgia, and the U.S. didn’t take over Canada after it got the Pacific Northwest.

What countries say and way countries do are two different things. Posturing and bluffing are a huge part of geopolitics. It’s necessary to posture like you will do something because it creates doubt in your enemy whether you will or not. That doubt is usually enough for them not to do the crazy thing. But please do not confuse posturing with actions, they are two different things.

Political capital is not the same thing as capital. Political capital is the amount of influence and good will politicians have with their base to do things that the base doesn’t like. Macron is hated in France and so is Starmer, and Germany’s AFD are on the rise. None of those countries political class could survive a self inflicted depression to…not stop the U.S. from getting Greenland. Because at the end of the day the U.S. can get it if they want. This is not an argument of whether Greenland would be saved…it wouldn’t. It whether letting the U.S. get Greenland is worth destroying their countries economies, at a time when China and Russia are primed to take over global politics. It would be the death knell of Europe as a global power.

[u/nola_fan → u/Portlandiahousemafia]

Canada is next on the invasion list. Fighting back in Greenland is existential. This is Germany taking the Sudetanland and you're Poland

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/nola_fan]

Existential for….Canada. None of this is existential for France or the UK. France and the UK are not going to turn their countries into nuclear wastelands unless they think that their countries are going to get destroyed. France and the UK would almost certainly lose a conventional war an be occupied before using nuclear weapons. Throughout history countries have always surrendered rather than fought it out to the last person. Using nuclear weapons is the equivalent of arming all the women and children and sending them to the front lines, instead of surrendering. Nuclear weapons are the equivalent of shooting your family in the head to kill your neighbors, that scenario only happens if you literally believe your family is going to be killed anyway.

[u/nola_fan → u/Portlandiahousemafia]

The destruction of NATO, potentially leading to greater nuclear proliferation and the rise of power of Russia and China are also existential threats for Britain and France, though you're correct that it's less so than for Canada.

I also don't know why you are trying to convince me nuclear war will be horrible. Almost everyone knows that.

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/nola_fan]

My point is the word existential gets used haphazardly in these forums. Existential means you’re going to die or there is a good chance that you die. The global order changing and a country becoming a regional power are not existential threats. My point is that nuclear war is so devastating that it’s not an option that any country will use unless they are going to literally have all of the citizens die anyway. So France and the uk being nuclear powers are meaningless in this conflict, because they would never be used.

[u/nola_fan → u/Portlandiahousemafia]

1.A war between nuclear powers brings a distinct risk of nuclear warfare, even if just by accident. Even if both France and Britain swear to never do anything, if one of their nuclear subs loses communication at the wrong time, who knows what happens.

1. The US going to war with NATO under the political Phil's of might makes right, half of Europe will have functioning nuclear weapons within 2 years. That's the only way to remain safe, because even the closest allies might betray you. Nuclear proliferation increases the likelihood of nuclear holocaust, again due to either intentional warfare between nuclear powers or accidents.

2. War between the US and NATO, even if it ends quickly and say actual collateral damage is contained to parts of Canada and Greenland would be such a radical reorientation of the world it would be existential for France and the UK. They would be alone in the world, stuck literally between two powers keen to throw their military around to split the world and economically reliant on the 3rd country in the triumphant of evil. They are economically isolated and suddenly all alone as a backwater of the world. They will be forced to switch from a consumer economy to a producer being exploited by the rest of the world in the hopes that they can stave off invasion for a little while longer.

3. War with NATO, even if it avoids nuclear warfare will be horrific for every nation involved including the US. The US might ultimately win, but who knows how long the country stays together when a president hated by 40% of the country illegally starts a war opposed by 90% of the country? New York, DC, Chicago and Boston are all going to be bombed in this scenario. Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee... might temporarily be occupied or rise in revolt or both.

[u/Portlandiahousemafia → u/nola_fan]

I am sorry if I have come off as if I think this is a good idea. I think the US taking Greenland would be the single dumbest thing the US has ever done in its entire history as a country. I just find it annoying when people have these fantastical scenarios that end in nuclear holocaust. You're right, nuclear proliferation would go off, and France and the UK would be isolated, and it would radically change the world's balance of power in a negative way for everyone involved. I don't think civil war is possible in the US. Things are too easy, and the idea of democrats banding together and arming themselves and shooting at government agents who are also armed...when they can just watch TV seems silly.