• @Scott_of_the_Arctic
      link
      English
      112 days ago

      If the USA attacks another NATO country, article 5 requires that the rest of NATO all pile on. None of those countries could individually do much, but you’d be loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and trillions of dollars to possibly take an icy rock with a population of 56000. It’s fucking stupid.

      • @Jesus_666
        link
        English
        81 day ago

        …besides the fact that two of those other NATO members have nuclear weapons, which severely complicates matters.

        • @Scott_of_the_Arctic
          link
          English
          21 day ago

          No-one is getting nuked over Greenland. That’d be retarded even by trump’s standards.

          • @Jesus_666
            link
            English
            623 hours ago

            Depends on how the war goes. Nobody uses nuclear weapons as a first response but they’re always there as a reminder that if my country goes down, so does yours.

            Besides, intercontinental force projection becomes a lot more complicated when your opponent has the ability, theoretical or not, to sink entire carrier groups at once.

            I think it’d be more likely that Trump would get immediately kicked out of office if he actually managed to start a war with the EU. There’s a limit to how stupid the GOP is willing to be for him.

            Counterproductive policies that can be used to pocket some more money? Sure, why not. But a war that threatens to fuck the economy, dramatically curtail international trade, and probably hand global hegemony over to China? Too risky for too small a reward.

            • @Peck
              link
              English
              113 hours ago

              Lol. Time of carrier groups is over my friend. 100 cheap naval drones will make short work of that.