The population of Greenland is 57,000. The population of the U.S. is 340,000,000.
While God is not always on the side of the bigger battalions, in this case the disparity is too overwhelming
Wikipedia says guns per capita is 22 per 100 in Greenland. Not zero, but compare with Canada’s 34 per 100, and the United States’s 121.
As for Denmark, the Danes are not overwhelmingly popular in Greenland. I cannot see Denmark fighting to the last Dane for the sake of Greenlanders long exempt from the Danish military draft.
I did find a little evidence of preparedness in this year-old article:
But the above is likely too little, too late.
The isolation of Greenlandic communities (only reachable by air and, sometimes, ship) is a tremendous military weakness. The U.S. can pick them off one by one in the unlikely case of major resistance.
Guns don’t matter. For resistance you want explosives, not guns.
And I expect there will be resistance, once the destruction and atrocities start. They might not be all that loyal to Denmark, but Denmark isn’t dropping cluster bombs on them, or raping and torturing them either.
Unfortunately given the sheer disparity in size and power that probably just results in a quick genocide.
A great disparity in size and power does not mean genocide for the loser. It means quick, hopefully short-term, for the loser.
If Trump fails to chicken out here, Greenlanders can expect a few bad, but survivable years, after which a non-MAGA American regime gains power and gives Greenland its well-earned freedom.
As for example of big countries conquering little ones without genocide, we could start with Granada.
Conquering all of Panama could be a military problem. Unvaccinated U.S. troops would find the Darien Gap challenging.
But Trump’s rhetoric focuses on the canal, not the country. It seems that when the U.S. left in 1979, little more than one percent of Panamanians lived in the Canal Zone. Might Panama keep on fighting if the U.S. conquered just the approximate territory of the old canal zone? Maybe, except that they theoretically do not have a standing military.
One reason I’m a little worried about 2028 is that Trump may have some real military successes. Conquest of Greenland and the canal, while morally indefensible, do not seem to me beyond American capability or likely to result in tens of thousands of deaths on either side.
I do know this stuff is extremely hard to predict. The war the experts think will end quickly often does not, and vice versa.
Trump does not want war. He wants a quick victory after which he meets with grateful quislings. So if his generals tell him to expect some military resistance, Trump may lose interest.
At that time, my bosses boss had a meeting we all attend. Nice guy. He said “We will meet again in two weeks if we are not in the middle of a civil war”.
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face,” - Mike Tyson. I’m hoping we can deliver that blow. It means that a plan is fine until reality hits you in the face. Unfortunately reality is/has not hit republicans in the face. I consider all but a few traitors.
Republicans are drillings holes in the boat so they can get water. This may not end well for them.
I’m not seeing military success in American imperialism being a asking point for Trump.
I’m more worried about Trump having military success in California and Washington state.
The good news about living in Texas is I probably don’t have to worry about Trump sending in the Marines. The bad news is the local fascists are more than willing do the job themselves.
I think that’s moot. With the degree of information isolation that the Right imposes, just arriving and declaring victory is a “military success” that justifies breaking the Constitution.
The new Olympics thread just made me think of another way to deter Trump. Nations which do not want Trump using military force to increase the physical size of the United States should be thinking about this January 2025 Trump statement::
Trump cares about sports. A lot. Telling him U.S. conquest of the Canal or Greenland (or Canada) would cause their Olympic team to withdraw would have a significant deterrent effect.
I don’t follow. If the US conquered Canada, then its Olympics team would presumably be absorbed into America’s, so there would be no withdrawal. Neither Greenland nor the Panama Canal Zone has any team of its own to withdraw. Denmark and Panama might withdraw their teams in the event of a US military invasion into the aforementioned territories, but I doubt this possibility factors into Trump’s planning.
Or are you talking about a general politically motivated boycott of the LA Olympics, similar to what was done for the 1980 and 1984 games (the latter of which was coincidentally also in LA)?
The more countries that make the threat, the more effective it will be. Also, if dozens of countries are in on the threat, it makes it harder for Trump to retaliate (even though he will claim their threats influenced his ever-changing tariff rates).
All NATO countries (except for the obvious exception of the U.S.) should threaten an Olympic boycott if Trump invades Greenland.
Organization of American States members should say the same about Panama.
P.S. I didn’t mention Canada because of the thread topic, but also because I believe Canada has too much military strength for the bully to actually invade.
The Olympics would happen anyway, the U.S. would sweep the medal counts (Trump is only interested in numbers of medals), and Trump would declare the Olympics ‘The Best Olympics Ever. Nobody has seen Olympics like this. America is Number One! Because of me!’
