Post New

A rapid primer:

https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/the-unfortuna...

Behind that triggering and, at least from this side of the pond, trolling, is a very serious security concern in the high north that Greenland is, literally, right in the middle of.

The great circle route from Russia’s nuclear weapon delivery platforms to CONUS all go over the high Arctic over or around Greenland. It isn’t just Russia. Here is the great circle route from the center of Iran to the center of CONUS:

(reference the map)

Denmark is a small nation of almost 6 million souls in a space of land about 2/3 the size of West Virginia. In the last year she finally started spending her fair share on defense, but even before then, she had been a solid ally. She already let us have bases in Greenland. If we need more we can sell the concept—along with Canada—as part of mutual defense. When it comes to keeping Russia and China at a distance, in backrooms we can work deals and twist Danish elbows. We won’t get all we want, but we should be able to get 80%. That’s good enough with friends.

I don’t get antagonizing the Danes like this. I think it is unnecessary and counterproductive. $0.02.

An additional primer on Greenland:

https://x.com/Object_Zero_/status/2008524560891588...

Why Greenland? Well because Moscow bases almost all of their strategic military assets on the Kola Peninsula next to Finland. This is where the Russian ICBM silos, submarine bases, and their strategic bombers are.

If you look at the flight path (ballistic or powered) from Kola to anywhere on the lower 48, then everything goes over Greenland.

Greenland is the theatre where any strategic exchange between Washington and Moscow is contested.

If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee.

That’s where Greenland is.

That’s where Greenland is.

The US has had a military base in Greenland, for some 75 years. As a NATO partner, Greenland would probably be willing to host more US military bases. The Canadians, that his nibs has been trying to irritate, for a year, and Greenland, both hosted radar stations of the DEW Line, for the defense of the US.

This map shows the DEW line stations, including the ones in Greenland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Early_Warnin...(DEW)_Line.jpg

Trump's "national security" excuse is just that, an excuse. He doesn't need to take over the place, against the will of the residents, and their parent country, to increase security in that area.

Steve

I don't like CDR Slamanders writing style, and I already know all of that. There's no reason we can't accomplish what we want with Bases and the Department of Reserves, that makes agreements and locks up strategic reserves for US. We are forward looking Capitalists, aren't we? :)

We are forward looking Capitalists, aren't we? :)

Ever read "Yertle the Turtle"?

Steve

Yeah the old Lefties probably only ever looked at the Mercator Projection map up on Mrs. Tiddlebits's wall in 4th grade and don't know about great circles and stuff.

That’s where Greenland is.

Part of a NATO country. We already have a military base there, as well as historic ties.

There is nothing of a legitimate nature that Trump wants to do in Greenland that cannot currently be done, cooperatively, with Greenland and Denmark.

But, legitimate defense issues and economic cooperation are not really the issues, are they?

Anymore than “stopping drugs” was the issue that prompted the deposing of Maduro in Venezuela.

Trump is a rapist to the core of his being. That’s what he does. He sees a shiny object and he takes it. It used to be women and girls, but that door is pretty much closed to him by his aging biology. Now it’s countries- minerals, oil and money.

Insatiable.

And the sad thing is- he has lots of fascist accomplices who similarly get a hard-on at the thought of raping entire countries (including America), and dominating entire populations (including Americans).

This won’t end until he is stopped. Either we stop him, or the world will.

Trump is a rapist to the core of his being. That’s what he does. He sees a shiny object and he takes it. It used to be women and girls, but that door is pretty much closed to him by his aging biology. Now it’s countries- minerals, oil and money.

This. Anyone who thinks Trump has any motivation other than his own bank account and making sure that people are talking about him every day, that the airwaves and social media are full of Trump, and that his name will be featured prominently in history books, is way off the track. This is evident in every word he speaks or tweets.

There may be people around him who have other motivations and are able to get him to go along with their ideas, as long as they can be made to fit into the above criteria. And some of those people may even be operating from what to them seems a place of using their power to genuinely try to better the world, although this seems increasingly unlikely in Trump's second term. It's all about accumulating more power and more wealth. And if that means that people have to die, or go without health care or good education in the wealthiest country in the world, so be it.

Egos unchecked. Character matters.

This won’t end until he is stopped. Either we stop him, or the world will.

Father Time is in the running, too. And he may be more reliable than us or the world.

But the problem is bigger than just Trump. There are hundreds of accomplices that need to be held to account as well. That was part of the successful recovery after WWII. The Nuremberg trials brought many accomplices to justice after the war. If the US is to recover from Trumpism, all of his enablers need to be brought to trial as well.

Further, we will need a number of institutional reforms - things like strict limits on campaign contributions (overturning Citizens United) and formalizing a number of informal understandings on the limits of Presidential powers. Perhaps a constitutional amendment or two.

It remains to be seen if we can make these changes on our own, or if the rest of the world will have to impose the changes on us.

—Peter

It remains to be seen if we can make these changes on our own, or if the rest of the world will have to impose the changes on us.

That IS the question.

The only saving grace: the longer tis travesty continues, the fewer people who will defend it, and the smaller the number of folks who be willing to simply shrug it off.

This thread went off the rails into NAZINAZI land, which is about what one expects from the howlers.

At any rate. A sub base with enhanced listening capabilities in Greenland + THAAD launchers would be what we're looking for. Sort of a new SOSUS that would connect Greenland, Norway, Alaska and Canada.

China's starting to run subs up there (much faster to get them to the trade routes in the Atlantic). Time for us to start putting measures in place.

At any rate. A sub base with enhanced listening capabilities in Greenland + THAAD launchers would be what we're looking for. Sort of a new SOSUS that would connect Greenland, Norway, Alaska and Canada.

Is there any reason to think that wouldn't be granted, if we had asked Denmark and Greenland to do that before all this?

Is there any reason to think that wouldn't be granted, if we had asked Denmark and Greenland to do that before all this?

I don't believe the bellicosity towards the Danes is warranted nor necessary.
However, I'm not in the room negotiating so I don't know why construction isn't moving already.

Trump only knows one negotiating style and that's to use a baseball bat inside the China shop. Who knows what the Danes did along the way?

At any rate, what is needed to be built there is pretty obvious.

The Danes probably don't want to let us beef up our ballistic missile war ing and defense systems in Greenland and the Artic Circle because it would have a negative impact on the environment or impinge on the sacred lands of indigenous people. Or some similar nonsense

At any rate. A sub base with enhanced listening capabilities in Greenland + THAAD launchers would be what we're looking for. Sort of a new SOSUS that would connect Greenland, Norway, Alaska and Canada.

Current treaty arrangements are already quite open ended.

Do you have evidence that we have asked for such stationing and been rejected?

At any rate. A sub base with enhanced listening capabilities in Greenland + THAAD launchers would be what we're looking for. Sort of a new SOSUS that would connect Greenland, Norway, Alaska and Canada.

I would agree with you on that. Why don't we hear measured, reasonable, discussions, about those things? All we hear is Trump bellowing he wants the entire island.

Steve

Trump only knows one negotiating style and that's to use a baseball bat inside the China shop. Who knows what the Danes did along the way?

At any rate, what is needed to be built there is pretty obvious.

He's not shy about being impolitic when he thinks people are wrong - so if they had asked the Danes and they had said "no," either in 2019-2020 or in his second term, we certainly would have known about it. It seems far more likely that he went straight to "baseball bat" rather than asking nicely, with predictable results.

There's no reason whatsoever that Greenland and Denmark wouldn't have let us build all the bases we want up there. There's already an agreement that gives us the ability to do that in three areas up there - but we've only built one base, and reduced staffing in the other base from by more than 90%. Both Denmark and Greenland had every reason the world to welcome us building more:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/08/lets-not-make-a-...

Current treaty arrangements are already quite open ended.

Do you have evidence that we have asked for such stationing and been rejected?

They're not open-ended. We can't just go to Germany and start building a random airfield someplace. Or, say, stage certain weapons just anywhere we want.

As for evidence: Do we have THAAD launchers up there right now? Or how about a sub base?

Greenland is once again becoming a crucial issue on the American security agenda and it is time for the United States to secure its position on the island. However, offering to buy the island is not the best way to achieve this goal. Not only will it be unlikely to succeed, it will make the United States worse off than it is today. Only proper engagement with Denmark and Greenland can produce a win-win-win situation.

Well, yeah.

There shouldn't be any question in anyone's mind that arming Greenland is a priority, and a big one.

As for evidence: Do we have THAAD launchers up there right now? Or how about a sub base?

I’ll repeat; do you have evidence that we’ve asked to build such installations and been rejected?

If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee.

That’s where Greenland is.

That's one aspect of a "national security" strategy (and a debatable one at that per Steve's post).

Another aspect of "national security" strategy that seems to be overlooked by our right-wingers is the nature of our relationships with other countries. If we can minimize the number of our enemies and maximize the number (and quality) of our friends/allies, that also greatly enhances our national security.

We have pursued that strategy quite successfully I would say at least since WWII (in my admittedly limited knowledge of political history). At least I can say that as a kid growing up in the 70's, I had a constant low level fear of a nuclear war occurring. Then the world order seemed to progress to a more stable place where I stopped worrying about it. Until Trump's first term, when my old constant fear surfaced again. Thankfully, his first term passed without it, and I thought we had dodged that bullet. Now, with all the world and domestic turmoil occurring in Trump's second term, we seem to have flushed that strategy down the toilet and I'm not even sure I would say that I have a "fear" of nuclear war so much as a "resignation". I don't doubt that he would love to flex his "muscle" of our nuclear weapons, because as a bully that's the kind of thing he likes to do. And it would put his name in the history books for sure, in an even bigger way than will already happen.

Character matters, if your aim is to try to make the world a better place.

But if your aim is to accumulate as much wealth and power as possible, then character goes out the window. And yes, if you know that you're going to be pissing off a lot of people/countries in the process and having them turn against you, then you'd better accumulate as much territory and military bases and hardware and energy resources like oil as you can before they start shooting missiles at you. But you'll then have to live in constant fear of someone trying to take them away from you.

We are forward looking Capitalists, aren't we? :)

Ever read "Yertle the Turtle"?

I looked and U don't remember that one. And I loved Dr Seuss.

If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee.

That’s where Greenland is.

Where is this missile originating from? Also, are you looking at a Mercator projection map? Remember, the world is spherical, not flat. If you look at a globe, the only missile that would pass over Greenland would originate from Iran and also pass over Poland. The US has had antimissile defences in Poland for a while .

Aussi

https://share.google/LsspvwBPi9BVOuv4M

Yep. Canada is more strategic if you're concerned about ICBMs. Which is why NORAD already is working in/with Canada. We also have Thule in Greenland.

This whole affair is pointless and stupid. Which shouldn't be a surprise from the Felon.

Besides, Greenland isn't ours, and we have no right to take it. And no need. Even if we did have a need, we still have no right. If we go down that road, we're no better than the Axis powers of the 1930s.

Yep. Canada is more strategic if you're concerned about ICBMs.

Huh? No.
Canada is important, but nukes fly over Greenland. You want your THAADs shooting at them at their highest point.

Where is this missile originating from? Also, are you looking at a Mercator projection map? Remember, the world is spherical, not flat. If you look at a globe, the only missile that would pass over Greenland would originate from Iran and also pass over Poland. The US has had antimissile defences in Poland for a while .

Look at the circular map here:
https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/the-unfortuna...

...and the pink "cone". The cone is basically over Greenland.
The Russkies base all their missiles on the Kola Peninsula (next to Finland).

Uhhh...no.

Russia has sites scattered all over their vast country, including the Urals and Siberia. Like us, they put their silos in pretty remote locations.

https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/location/russian...

Clicking on the map link, you get this: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1VrJm...

From Kamchatka to Bryansk, and even Belarus.

Certainly some would overfly Greenland.

And that still doesn't give us the right to appropriate Greenland.

According to the map, they have NO silos in the Kola Peninsula. Though they do have some strategic bomber sites there.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.