Ok. Point taken and I agree with @Barnabas62 that my response was harsh.
I accept that if Scandinavian units trained in Arctic warfare did arrive in Greenland before any putative US invasion then it wouldn't be quite the push-over that one might otherwise assume it to be.
That still doesn't obviate the possibility of the US striking NATO targets elsewhere if they faced serious opposition or Putin taking advantage of the absence of Finnish units to roll across their border.
Any clash between the US and European powers could quickly escalate or at least weaken NATO to the extent that Putin could lever significant advantage.
Which is one reason why I don’t think it would happen.
At any rate, apologies for my tone last night. It was unnecessarily harsh and combative.
Ok. Point taken and I agree with @Barnabas62 that my response was harsh.
I accept that if Scandinavian units trained in Arctic warfare did arrive in Greenland before any putative US invasion then it wouldn't be quite the push-over that one might otherwise assume it to be.
There are a number of problems with that video; starting with the fact that there are not 100K troops in Greenland, and no way of getting them there and then re-supplying them in the face of the USN/USAF.
When I was involved in winter warfare exercises (80-3), we wore whites over top of our normal khaki uniform. I wonder if global warming or research has had an effect on the current uniform colours.
Yes, but as @chrisstiles says, the Arctic trained troops aren't there and if the Trump administration were serious about the use of military force they'd make pretty damn sure they swooped and seized key installations before they had time to cross the Atlantic.
Which is another reason why I think Trump is blustering with his threat of military seizure.
Even he isn't stupid enough to say, 'We're on our way ...'
No, if the US were ever to seize Greenland they'd do so before the European nations put boots on the ground to oppose them.
No, I haven't done any Arctic warfare training nor any military training of any kind. I've only ever fired a shot gun at clay targets.
But even I have enough strategic savvy to know that aggressors tend to rely on the element of surprise.
Besides, if the European nations were serious about gearing up to resist a potential US attack on Greenland they would have sent more than one British officer and a token 'reconnaissance team.'
All this talk of who'd win a fight in the Arctic wastes is complete speculation.
You may as well speculate whether King Kong could beat Godzilla or whether a Roman legion could defeat a Zulu impi or the horsemen of Genghiz Khan.
Ok, I know all military forces conduct exercises and test out various scenarios and that's all very interesting.
But if a US invasion of Greenland did take place they wouldn't wait for any serious opposition to prepare to meet them.
My reserve duty station was in Grand Forks. One time we were sent to Fairbanks, Alaska for Arctic Training. Turns out Fairbanks was warmer than Grand Forks. Minus 40F wind chill in Grand Forks was not unheard of. We would always say the only thing that was between us and the North Pole in Grand Forks was a fence at the Canadian border, and it was down.
From the little I've read about warfare, sudden offensive operations are always harder to pull off successfully than you'd think. The successful examples this century have been against outdated militaries.
(Autocratic militaries tend to be outdated because modern militaries require lots of competent officers and you don't want competent officers in your army unless they're convinced that government by military coups are illegitimate.)
Comments
According to you - artic warfare specialist ? Perhaps you could find something that explains why he’s wrong.
I accept that if Scandinavian units trained in Arctic warfare did arrive in Greenland before any putative US invasion then it wouldn't be quite the push-over that one might otherwise assume it to be.
That still doesn't obviate the possibility of the US striking NATO targets elsewhere if they faced serious opposition or Putin taking advantage of the absence of Finnish units to roll across their border.
Any clash between the US and European powers could quickly escalate or at least weaken NATO to the extent that Putin could lever significant advantage.
Which is one reason why I don’t think it would happen.
At any rate, apologies for my tone last night. It was unnecessarily harsh and combative.
There are a number of problems with that video; starting with the fact that there are not 100K troops in Greenland, and no way of getting them there and then re-supplying them in the face of the USN/USAF.
AFF
Only with the grandchildern.
I have.
Which is another reason why I think Trump is blustering with his threat of military seizure.
Even he isn't stupid enough to say, 'We're on our way ...'
No, if the US were ever to seize Greenland they'd do so before the European nations put boots on the ground to oppose them.
No, I haven't done any Arctic warfare training nor any military training of any kind. I've only ever fired a shot gun at clay targets.
But even I have enough strategic savvy to know that aggressors tend to rely on the element of surprise.
Besides, if the European nations were serious about gearing up to resist a potential US attack on Greenland they would have sent more than one British officer and a token 'reconnaissance team.'
All this talk of who'd win a fight in the Arctic wastes is complete speculation.
You may as well speculate whether King Kong could beat Godzilla or whether a Roman legion could defeat a Zulu impi or the horsemen of Genghiz Khan.
Ok, I know all military forces conduct exercises and test out various scenarios and that's all very interesting.
But if a US invasion of Greenland did take place they wouldn't wait for any serious opposition to prepare to meet them.
(Autocratic militaries tend to be outdated because modern militaries require lots of competent officers and you don't want competent officers in your army unless they're convinced that government by military coups are illegitimate.)
I would, if I were him. Especially the Alberta part.