The issue is the US can park a carrier at the northernmost part of Maine and be about 1,200 km from the largest city in Greenland. So still within range.
I also think Afghanistan is a poor comparison. The US never intended to conquer the nation. It wanted to setup a puppet government. It also didn’t throw the full military force at it.
Truthfully we’ve never seen the US engage in a total war to conquer a nation.
If the US threw everything it had at Greenland they could take over most major cities within days. Likely before Denmark/the remainder of NATO could mount a response.
Now that being said effectively patrolling all of Greenland probably wouldn’t be realistic. This would allow for counter insurgency, which is effective against the US typically. Although I doubt this government would give up based in that. More notably the vastness of Greenland will give Denmark and allies an opportunity to establish a foothold to reclaim Greenland.
The best thing Denmark and its allies could do right now is to put more defenses in Greenland. Make it impossible for a quick strike to topple it.
Ideally defensive posturing would discourage an attack entirely. If it doesn’t it would save Denmark and it’s allies more lives while costing the US more.
Either way if the US does invade it will be a lot of pointless bloodshed.
Also unrelated to the war bit, but Greenland is mostly populated by native peoples. Not the descendants of vikings (although there is certainly a percentage that are)
Truthfully we’ve never seen the US engage in a total war to conquer a nation.
Ahem: Vietnam.
Also I think you’re missing a massive point here: You can’t “topple” Greenland by totally destroying or taking over Greenland because it’s part of Denmark and the seat of the Danish Government isn’t there, nor are their main military assets, and this is before you even consider their European allies.
If Greenland was a country relying only on itself, it would totally make sense that it could be taken by just taking its major cities, but it’s not, it’s an independent region of Denmark, a country which in turn is allied with almost all other European countries.
The US can invade and totally crush Greenland’s big cities and that will still do very little to crush resistance because that’s not were most of it will be coming from. This also brings us around the whole carrier group thing: the carrier group would be how the US would be trying to stop the feeding of resistance in Greenland from Europe, since that would be coming from the very opposite side of the island (and as “islands” go, Greenland is huge, with 25% of the area of the US, so that’s a pretty insane task).
IMHO what the Greenlanders and more in general the Danish should be doing is not to try and stop the elements of warfare that the US does best - such as the actual initial invasion - but actually try and make that as costly as possible whilst at the same time setting up the conditions for a long term Resistance effort from the areas outside the cities to turn Greenland into a graveyard for American soldiers, something which is far more likely to end up with an outcome like Vietnam were the daily procession or american coffins turns an overwhelming majority of the population against the War and the end result was that America ultimatelly lost it.
Finally on the last point, fighting Greenland is fighting Denmark and there are way more people in the rest of Denmark than in Greenland. That said you are right that many (if not most) of the people living in Greenland who know the whole place including the hardest and most remote areas, are probably descendants of the Innuit rather than of the Vikings (both people colonized the place).
While more involved than Afghanistan the goal was still never to annex a nation. It was to prop-up another puppet government. Plus the US relied more on sending bodies to the meat grinder there. If we see the US engage at WW2 levels that’s where things get much bleaker. Also worth mentioning we’ve never really seen the US engage in total war this close to home. The last notable war that happened this closely was the Civil War. Greenland is close enough that you can move soldiers from the continental US and have them engaged in combat within the same day. If not under 12 hrs. That was not the case in either Vietnam of Afghanistan
Also I think you’re missing a massive point here: You can’t “topple” Greenland
Not what I said. You can 100% occupy Greenland and remove it from the control of Denmark before they can respond. I’m well aware that Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.
Vietnam was definitelly “all out” but I grant your point that America wasn’t trying to make it part of its territory, not least because since the days of Puerto Rico and taking territory from Mexico, America’s Imperial strategy has always being one of installing puppet governments rather than direct control.
As for the rest, I disagree on it being possible for even America to 100% occupy Greenland unless the locals agree - remember it’s 25% of the territory of America, most of it being far harsher. As long as support for a Resistance keeps on arriving from Denmark and Europe, an American occupying force would keep suffering casualties.
This is actually the basis of my point: America invading and occupying Greenland’s cities is probably easy, its actually controlling a territory the size of 25% of America with very specific characteristics that totally favor the locals over American troops (hence my reference to Afghanistan, were the territory was equally large and almost equally harsh and Poshtun were in a very similar situation vs the American occupiers) is impossible unless to locals overwhelmingly side with America.
IMHO Greenland would quite possibly turn in the kind of quagmire war that happens at the stage of empires when they’re starting to fall and engage in reckless military adventures to try and prop-up the elites, which end up overextending their military and draining most of their power.
The issue is the US can park a carrier at the northernmost part of Maine and be about 1,200 km from the largest city in Greenland. So still within range.
I also think Afghanistan is a poor comparison. The US never intended to conquer the nation. It wanted to setup a puppet government. It also didn’t throw the full military force at it.
Truthfully we’ve never seen the US engage in a total war to conquer a nation.
If the US threw everything it had at Greenland they could take over most major cities within days. Likely before Denmark/the remainder of NATO could mount a response.
Now that being said effectively patrolling all of Greenland probably wouldn’t be realistic. This would allow for counter insurgency, which is effective against the US typically. Although I doubt this government would give up based in that. More notably the vastness of Greenland will give Denmark and allies an opportunity to establish a foothold to reclaim Greenland.
The best thing Denmark and its allies could do right now is to put more defenses in Greenland. Make it impossible for a quick strike to topple it.
Ideally defensive posturing would discourage an attack entirely. If it doesn’t it would save Denmark and it’s allies more lives while costing the US more.
Either way if the US does invade it will be a lot of pointless bloodshed.
Also unrelated to the war bit, but Greenland is mostly populated by native peoples. Not the descendants of vikings (although there is certainly a percentage that are)
Ahem: Vietnam.
Also I think you’re missing a massive point here: You can’t “topple” Greenland by totally destroying or taking over Greenland because it’s part of Denmark and the seat of the Danish Government isn’t there, nor are their main military assets, and this is before you even consider their European allies.
If Greenland was a country relying only on itself, it would totally make sense that it could be taken by just taking its major cities, but it’s not, it’s an independent region of Denmark, a country which in turn is allied with almost all other European countries.
The US can invade and totally crush Greenland’s big cities and that will still do very little to crush resistance because that’s not were most of it will be coming from. This also brings us around the whole carrier group thing: the carrier group would be how the US would be trying to stop the feeding of resistance in Greenland from Europe, since that would be coming from the very opposite side of the island (and as “islands” go, Greenland is huge, with 25% of the area of the US, so that’s a pretty insane task).
IMHO what the Greenlanders and more in general the Danish should be doing is not to try and stop the elements of warfare that the US does best - such as the actual initial invasion - but actually try and make that as costly as possible whilst at the same time setting up the conditions for a long term Resistance effort from the areas outside the cities to turn Greenland into a graveyard for American soldiers, something which is far more likely to end up with an outcome like Vietnam were the daily procession or american coffins turns an overwhelming majority of the population against the War and the end result was that America ultimatelly lost it.
Finally on the last point, fighting Greenland is fighting Denmark and there are way more people in the rest of Denmark than in Greenland. That said you are right that many (if not most) of the people living in Greenland who know the whole place including the hardest and most remote areas, are probably descendants of the Innuit rather than of the Vikings (both people colonized the place).
While more involved than Afghanistan the goal was still never to annex a nation. It was to prop-up another puppet government. Plus the US relied more on sending bodies to the meat grinder there. If we see the US engage at WW2 levels that’s where things get much bleaker. Also worth mentioning we’ve never really seen the US engage in total war this close to home. The last notable war that happened this closely was the Civil War. Greenland is close enough that you can move soldiers from the continental US and have them engaged in combat within the same day. If not under 12 hrs. That was not the case in either Vietnam of Afghanistan
Not what I said. You can 100% occupy Greenland and remove it from the control of Denmark before they can respond. I’m well aware that Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.
But anyway the rest I’m in agreement.
Vietnam was definitelly “all out” but I grant your point that America wasn’t trying to make it part of its territory, not least because since the days of Puerto Rico and taking territory from Mexico, America’s Imperial strategy has always being one of installing puppet governments rather than direct control.
As for the rest, I disagree on it being possible for even America to 100% occupy Greenland unless the locals agree - remember it’s 25% of the territory of America, most of it being far harsher. As long as support for a Resistance keeps on arriving from Denmark and Europe, an American occupying force would keep suffering casualties.
This is actually the basis of my point: America invading and occupying Greenland’s cities is probably easy, its actually controlling a territory the size of 25% of America with very specific characteristics that totally favor the locals over American troops (hence my reference to Afghanistan, were the territory was equally large and almost equally harsh and Poshtun were in a very similar situation vs the American occupiers) is impossible unless to locals overwhelmingly side with America.
IMHO Greenland would quite possibly turn in the kind of quagmire war that happens at the stage of empires when they’re starting to fall and engage in reckless military adventures to try and prop-up the elites, which end up overextending their military and draining most of their power.