• Cybersteel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 小时前

    What’s stopping the US from nuking the shit out of Greenwich

    • realitista@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 小时前

      First off it’s not that far from the US so they might get some fallout from that. Second, they are doing this for access to rare earth minerals which will be considerably harder to get under conditions of nuclear radiation. It may make the whole project untenable for a long time. Which is the opposite of what they want.

      So generally, even removing all the humanitarian and geopolitical ramifications, which would be enormous, I don’t think it would serve their interests

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 小时前

        Newest generation of nukes has significantly reduced fallout and can be re-occupied by troops in days. Scary stuff

        • realitista@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 小时前

          The logical counter response I guess would be for Denmark to get their own nukes and nuke the Americans on Greenland then. Then everyone can just keep nuking Greenland every few years.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 小时前

      The immediatelly obvious reason is that you can’t really have resource extraction operations in a nuclear wasteland, so Greenland (which is what I assume you were trying to spell) would become useless for them.

      The next big reason is the same as why Russia isn’t doing it in Ukraine - any nation that agressivelly uses nukes will be turned on by everybody else and end up nuked themselves, because if nuclear aggression is not severely punished, other countries will go nuclear ASAP with more and more countries actually using nukes in war, incentivising even more countries to go nuclear and use nukes, a vicious cycle which is guaranteed to end with all life on planet Earth dead. Specifically in the case of Greenland, it would be an attack on Europe which not only already has 2 nuclear armed nations but also is the region in the World with the most non-nuclear countries with the knowhow and technology to go nuclear very fast if they feel threathened, so the delay between America attacking European territory with nukes and ending up a nuclear wasteland itself would be a lot smaller than if America had attacked with nukes, say, countries in Latin America (and even that would end up with America turned into glass, it would just take longer).

      Obviously the highest levels of the American Military know this (its not as if they haven’t run countless scenarios on it) and would be far more likely to choose to assassinate Trump if he ever gave such an order (which would be even easier to do than the whole “Kidnap Maduro” thing) than to nuke an European nation and start a cycle that would end up with cockroaches being the dominant species of this planet.