301
how can it be necessary to invade a country?
Whenever a republican president wants to be reelected
Resources. The answer is always resources.
Idk, the gdp of Greenland is only 3b a year and it's mostly from fishing. There's really nothing the US could extract from Greenland that would be worth the cost of invading it. There's some potential for mining, but you'd have to build an entire infrastructure to do it, and we don't even want to invest in building infrastructure in the US.
Realistically the only thing that makes Greenland strategically important would be controlling the shipping lanes up north. However, the only strategically significant rival we have that utilizes those shopping lanes are Russia, whom the administration wants to buddy up too.
I think it's just meat they throw out to the media anytime they want to distract from their failures, and of course our pathetic press just gobbles it up every time.
Lots of great reasons that aren't the actual reason.
Greenland is very big on the map, and if it was apart of the United States then the US would look so big on the map.
Everyone says Trajan was the best roman emperor because the roman empire had the largest amount of territory under him, ergo if Greenland or Canada became part of the US then everyone would say the same thing about Trump.
That is the only reasoning behind this obsession.
I'd def agree with that before him wanting resources.
It's because of climate change. Rich Americans that pretend climate change isn't real) want to go there to bug out.
However, the only strategically significant rival we have that utilizes those shopping lanes are Russia, whom the administration wants to buddy up too.
If that doesn't play out, Putin will be dropped like Saddam.
load more comments
(2 replies)
As long as you're counting location as a resource. Ex. Cuba was an advantageous location for the Soviet Union during the cold war.
Necessary resources*
This by no means diminishes this guy’s level of evil stupidity, but I’m entirely certain the pentagon had developed plans for all kinds of batshit insane shenanigans, including (but not limited to) invasions of probably most other countries in the world.
I think they have alien invasion plans.
They 100% do.
Zombies, aliens, Zeus and the gods of Olympus attacking Pearl Harbor…if you can imagine it there’s a folder in the Pentagon somewhere with general plans
The DoD had a plan to attack the U.S. and blame it on Cuba. Not an invasion, but attacks.
We stopped maintaining a handful of them, but waay later than you would expect. At some point we decided we didn't need a plan to deal with an invasion by the British empire kept up to date at all times.
I thought that was the definition of the pentagon? 🤔
I find that a credible thought, though one would imagine an answer to say that they try to have plans for any concevaiable scenario, no matter how unlikely, and have done so for years.
One would imagine if he was good at this politics thing, he would have found an answer to distance such plans from the current contentious situation.
And upon reading, he said precisely that...
Or not even mention them at all, because what possible beneficial purpose could there be to divulging anything related to your military strategy or planning beforehand?
I wonder if Denmark regrets this yet (arc)
With 94 votes in favor and only 11 against, the Danish parliament last night (June 11) passed a new defense agreement granting the United States extended access to military bases in three Danish cities: Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg. The deal allows the US military to operate from these sites, store military equipment, conduct maintenance, exercises, and station personnel. The US forces will also have autonomous legal jurisdiction over their own military, relieving them from compliance with Danish law in the first degree.
There must be some interesting behind the scenes to this, considering trump has repeatedly threatened their sovereignty in Greenland
load more comments
(1 replies)
We'd absolutely use Denmark as a springboard to invade Greenland.
Oh trust me, the Danish people find this highly criricisable. It's been debated a lot over the past months - but the government - which is made up of the neoliberal parties who's always had their tongues way up USA's ass - has done everything they can to push it under the rug and to make it as secretive as possible. These people see only profit and the thought of "losing" USA as a partner is worse than the fact that we just invited the enemy in - with a deal where they can do whatever they want to do and we can't even take them to court. Officially it's because of "the Russian threat" but the only country that'd ever invade Denmark or has ever threatened to do so is USA.. Russia has a few other countries to go through and they can't even win their current war.
We've just always been an American puppet state.
What is wrong with these morons.
Everything
Well, there are "plans" and then there are plans. I'm certain Canada has a "plan" for military operations against the US should that be necessary, but we aren't planning it.
I have plans to start flossing regularly too.
It's less weird to have a contingency plan than it is to specifically mention it.
The US wants to attack a NATO partner?!?! Krasnov is working for the Kremlin to destabilize NATO.
no, only 'if necessary' lol
did he hear they have booze there or something?
A quick search shows Greenlands population is 56,865. In what world would 56 thousand people, half of which are likely incapable of fighting due to age or sickness, be of any meaningful threat that we would need 'contingency' plans against them. Even if all 56 thousand could fight it would be a non war lasting hours against the military. That gigantic country has a similar population of my home COUNTY.
This shit is dumber than invading the middle east over oil. Is their hard on for... minerals and err... resources? Im not entirely sure why they want Greenland so much. This is stupid.
The contingency plan probably isn't about the people at all. It's likely the government has had a plan for a long time, maybe since WWII, about any number of countries including Greenland. Strategic points to either destroy or control. How to repel an invading force as well as how to invade against a repelling force.
That's who the US has become over the last 80 years.
So wait, your saying it's about the golden dome or trumps anti nuke wall or whatever i gods name he was talking about.
I stand by the "this is stupid" comment.
No, it has nothing to do with the "Golden Dome" nonsense.
The US did all sorts of war game scenarios and plan making during and directly after WWII and they've never stopped.
There's actually probably a lot of countries who have done the same, though I'm not sure to the extent the US has.
The fact that the US has a plan like this by itself isn't newsworthy. Who it's coming from makes it noteworthy because, while the plan may have been created decades ago, it's a very unsubtle threat against another nation.
I agree that this is stupid, but understanding is important because this is how they weasel out of things. If confronted or challenged they'll say, "Oh, that plan was put together decades ago." Everything they do is done with cover because not only are they fascists, they're cowards too.
That's 2k more than my small suburb I live in. That's nothing at all.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
It's not necessary to take Greenland at all, so there's no need for a contingency plan. "if necessary" makes no sense.
So Russia is going to test article 5, and so is the US. Interesting.
We have contingency plans to invade just about every country on earth, if we didn't military planners wouldn't be doing their job
Fingers crossed for a space alien invasion.
FAFO
Everyone has contigency plans for war with their neighbors and allies.
the difference between Most of the world, and Agressive countries like Russia, America, Israel, Iran and China, is that the rest of the world generally has those plans be "if Attacked by X, We will do Y"
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
301 points (100.0% liked)
News
33653 readers
2249 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS