Let's talk about whether Trump could really take Greenland.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about whether Trump could really take Greenland.

Okay, so we had a question that came in and it's both something we're known for doing on this channel and very different. But we're going to go over the math and the feasibility of something as we often do when rumors come up or some cut rate politician or pundit advises something or when some authoritarian decides they want to knock over their neighbor.

"Belle, somebody has to ask, so maybe I'll be the one." Those videos you always do that are, "No, Russia can't take Ukraine in three days. No, we don't actually have the troops to enforce real martial law in the US. No, we can't take and hold Venezuela with this many troops. No, the bombing run on Iran isn't a prelude to invasion. So, here's the question. Can the US really take and hold Greenland?

As people who have seen the other videos like this know, taking and holding are two very different things. What makes taking and holding something hard? Large population? Greenland doesn't have one. Drastically different terrains and climates? Nope. It's all pretty cold and rough. Heavy military presence? Nope. Lots of firearms in civilian hands? Nope. They have about 22 firearms per 100 citizens. For context, the US measures it firearms per single citizen. Not a joke. What about a long history of resistance and pre-organized militant structures? Nope. They do have an incredibly harsh climate working for them. But the short answer is that yes, the US can take it.

It could likely be taken within hours, but there would probably be some heavy fighting and bursts because the troops in Greenland have standing guidelines that give their troops a lot of autonomy to enact an order that could be summarized as don't wait for orders from brass. Light any invading force up immediately.

The US operation would likely be conducted by some combination of the 11th Airborne and 10th Mountain. You've probably never heard about the 11th Airborne. They're known as the Arctic Angels, and they're kind of the only outfit up to fighting in Greenland outside of major cities. Now, normally when we do these, the ideas are pretty laughable and we don't actually have the troops or wouldn't be willing to commit the troops. In this case, we do have the troops, easily. And Trump keeps hinting he's willing to commit.

Now, we have to go to the next thing on the can the US take it side of the question. Does this make sense? No, of course not. What's the strategic logic behind going to war and taking land we already have access to and in the process destroying the most important alliance the US has? In fact, the ease at which it could be taken is all the more reason not to.

In some kind of bizarre scenario where we would have to exert control for some kind of actual national security reason like say Russia nukes Denmark and we need to manage it during the war. We could do so quickly and with little effort. There is zero sense in upsetting an ally, destroying an alliance, weakening the nation, and taking control of a land that may be hostile to our presence.

So, can the US take Greenland? Sure. Should it? Of course not. It will leave the US isolated, alone, and weak. More importantly, the countries we viewed as near peers will be stronger by comparison if we're without NATO, especially if they can establish military ties with Europe.

This is the kind of move a stumbling empire makes to show it's still strong and it ends up being the thing that causes its downfall. The US has the standard of living it does because it can force project. It needs its allies to force project. People who want to make America great will leave the country weak and limping. This just covers taking Greenland. We'll dive into holding it later.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.