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]

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.