Time is running out, his private storm troops are already flooding the cities of the opposition.
That was before he was orange or a politician. If you are trying to find the cause of some odd effect, look what happened when it first appeared.
I don't understand how you can defend this, a supposedly smart person on Hacker News is advocating for the invasion of an allied nation. It's flabbergasting to watch this kind of opinion appear even here.
Of course, if the USA no longer wants those bases all around the world, the US government is entirely free to withdraw them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_inst...
I suspect the military misadventures will have to end, but that’s a good thing. In terms of reserve currency and trade deals or whatnot—I’m not persuaded it matters for economic growth.
Can you point out on this chart of U.S. GDP per capita at which point we began enjoying the economic benefits of being the reserve currency? https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peth_09-72016....
In addition, having the world's trade be denominated in US$ makes it incredibly easy for the US government to apply economic pressure to bear on other countries.
This is a privilege that few other countries share in any meaningful way.
If none of that stuff makes the U.S. richer who cares?
Your bondholders certainly care, and you've been living beyond your means for quite some time.
I wish you the very best of luck with either massive expenditure cuts causing civil unrest, or hyper-inflation.
Honestly, I can't even believe that someone (who generally expresses reasoned viewpoints) would question the value of being the world's reserve currency. There's definitely downsides but it's allowed a lot more flexibility for the US since the 70s.
It's an ally as much as it could be, the US's presence in Greenland is entirely because it is in US's interests, and for that, as an ally, Denmark has always allowed the US to deploy as many troops as it wanted. Also as an ally it allowed Americans to do business in Greenland.
What else do you want? You aren't even American for the Trump administration, do not understand how you got so entangled in this bizarre worldview.
Outside of values, China and Europe have very few conflicting geopolitical goals. Core interests don't clash outside of Europe's conflict with Russia, and some rather minor disagreements in Africa. A Eurasian block with a weak Russia and a stable but balkanized Middle East would be very beneficial to both China and the EU. Even India could be largely integrated into that.
Even if the cost of NATO was higher than its immediate benefit, there is a very real risk of not only losing allies, but making new adversaries.
Admittedly, I don't know how to sunset NATO smoothly, but it ought to be done.
It's fucking bonkers that's even an argument to be had, it seems it's never enough for the empire.
The US's expenditure on its military was never to protect anyone from the Soviets but to impose its own world order against the Soviets, it's been always self-serving and for someone so educated it's a bit ignorant to not understand that.
> And what does my background have it do with my point? What Trump thinks of me has nothing to do with my analysis of any particular policy
It has to do with you aligning with the agenda, repeating the rhetoric about US's allies as not being worthy even though it built the USA as it exists today in 2026. The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today but given how you look [0] you'll also be considered not worthy when it's convenient by the agenda of the same administration you're aligning with to betray allies.
Good luck thinking the USA as it exists can do so without allies, it's a shame that "when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor".
The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before either world war, coming out of a long period of economic isolation.
US GDP per capita growth has been about 2% per year continuously since 1830: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... It wasn’t notably higher after World War II than before World War I.
> The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today
The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before mass immigration from countries like mine.
The real reason the U.S. is so rich is that it was already the richest country in the world in 1900. The U.S. had almost 50% higher GDP per capita than western europe in 1900: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-p.... Today, its still about 50%.
Nobody's denying that the US-created world order has been good for its partners but that doesn't mean the benefit was at the US's expense. International trade is not a zero-sum game - the lifting tide and all that.
If the U.S. obtained such a special benefit, it should have grown faster than western europe from 1950 to 1990, but it didn’t. If that growth comes from peace, not being the hegemon—as you put it, a rising tide lifts all boats—then the U.S. is disproportionately bankrolled a peace that western europe equally benefitted from.
Part of the story here is that international trade just isn’t that important to the U.S. 90% of U.S. GDP is domestic. Just 1.1% is exports to Europe.
Not necessarily; the US could have extracted that benefit by staying ahead of the rest of the world in terms of its citizens' wealth, with all the benefits this entails.
We can't know the "what-if" (would the US have become even richer by being an isolationist MAGA dreamland), but we know for a fact that the world order was created and maintained by the US, so it must have had its benefits all this time.
Did hegemony help the U.S. maintain that edge? Maybe! But I think that’s a harder claim to prove than suggested by OP. I think the direct cause of America keeping its edge in the second half of the 20th century is we have Silicon Valley. I can think of a mechanism how reserve currency status is an indirect cause: reserve currency status means the world invests in American banks, and banks then use that money to fund tech startups. But is that really what’s happening? As I said above, I’m unsure.
This is disgusting.
I'm beginning to believe that there is no line that you won't cross to defend your idol.
Effectively you've departed reality and you are now in a world of your own making where the facts are no longer relevant, just how you can stretch and twist everything to make it fit your worldview.
I don't agree with rayiner's opinion, but it's a completely rational point of view. Every empire thinks like that. Which part of it is so flabbergasting that is has no precedent many times over in our human history?
Article 6 of the United States Constitution says international law is United States law. US courts are the enforcement mechanism as far as the United States Constitution is concerned. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
In the Treaty of the Danish West Indies (so according to the US Constitution, the law of the USA unless Congress withdraws from the treaty) the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3...
Why do you so carelessly and reckless disregard the Constitution of the United States, especially being a lawyer?
> Why do you so carelessly and reckless disregard the Constitution of the United States, especially being a lawyer?
We have an entire generation of jurisprudence based on the idea that “emanations from penumbras” are constitutional law and you’re lecturing me about Article VI?
The Supremacy Clause IS IN the Constitution. And IT (the Supremacy Clause) elevates treaties to be equal to and effectively law of the nation. Not treating treaties as such IS violating the Constitution.
But again, the Treaty Clause doesn’t elevate treaties to the same status as the constitution or laws. Treaties aren’t even self executing—that means they have no effect domestically unless Congress passes a law implementing the treaty.
Treaties aren’t even necessarily self-executing, which means they have no legal power domestically unless congress passes a separate law: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-1...
"When the terms of treaty import a contract or suggest that some future legislative act is necessary"
Does:
"not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland"
fall under? It is self executing. It doesn't need to be expanded upon by an additional act of Congress. Sure a more complex treaty might require a framework of laws flushing out what it mandates/requires or as discussed in your link when Congress needs to authorize funding, but this aint that.
Saying "treaties aren’t even self executing—that means they have no effect domestically unless Congress passes a law implementing the treaty." is bullshit. This legal thinking applies only to a SUBSET (but you know this) of treaties that fall under certain tests and doesn't apply here. You are spewing legal bullshit hoping it sticks not responding from a position of good faith. You have fallen down the MAGA hole and now defend the indefensible because you apply your MAGA leaders position first, and work backwards to justification from that.
Quite obviously. Just like robbing a bank is an objective win in terms of increasing one's own money. But maybe not in terms of not going to jail.
What America loses by gaining Greenland is that worldwide market and those close defense relationships forming a common bloc. The US dollar stops being the reserve currency; America's cheap credit line dries up. American soft power in Europe is gone, and Europe aligns itself with China or Russia for stability, and becomes an American adversary. All so you can have, what, a bunch of melting glaciers?
In a world where the US is not a trusted partner, I'd expect the EU to do partial deals with the US and China while maintaining pressure on Russia.
Lets not forget that the US imports vast amounts of EU capital, and in the new world that makes less and less sense. And the US market having 60% of global equity value is not sustainable in this world either.
But this just isn’t true! The U.S. overtook the UK in per capita GDP in 1880, near the peak of the British Empire: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... At that point the UK was already significantly richer than the rest of europe.
If you look at GDP growth rate, the US has consistently averaged 1.7% GDP per capita growth over the past 200 years. The mass industrialization during the war itself spike growth and helped recovery from the Great Depression, but America didn’t grow dramatically faster during the NATO era than it did before that.
The U.S. is rich because its been one of the richest countries in the world since the 18th century and has been extraordinarily stable. It was considerably richer than western Europe even going into the 20th century: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-p.... In 1900, U.S. gdp per capita was almost 50% higher than western europe. In 1990, it was also about 50%. There was a temporary period right after the war when the U.S. was much richer than western europe, but europe actually grew faster during this 1950-1990 period.
If you're really concerned about preserving American culture against dilution by immigrants bringing other cultures, have you ever thought that maybe it's time for you personally to hold back with the developing-country-style populist strongman boosting? Not some vague "other" that might come here and do even more of the same, but you personally, right here, right now.
If this lauded western European culture is based around consensus, process, and compromise (rough points you've made elsewhere about the importance of culture), surely you can recognize that this culture has something to say about the wisdom of attacking longstanding allies (regardless of any perceived immediate benefit). Essentially, if you see value in the incumbent culture then maybe you should be content deferring to it a bit more while you're still assimilating.
I'm sure you're going to have rationalizations aplenty in response to this comment, so all I can really say is perhaps try some self-reflection.
Trump himself reflects how immigration is changing America. Blue Rose Research projects that Trump tied or narrowly won naturalized citizens like me: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (page 9). Democrats historically got 80% of the Bangladeshi immigrant vote. But last year, Trump actually campaigned in Queens and Little Bangladesh in Jackson Heights swung a net 50 points to the right. Mitt Romney isn't a viable Republican today. Trump is.
So your diagnosis is correct. But I think your prescription is like telling liberals "why don't you just pay more taxes if that's what you want?" I would like to return to an America where my options are between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. But I don't see how unilaterally disarming gets me there. We're locked in a prisoner's dilemma. As more and more of the electorate is comprised of people who don't have traditional Anglo cultural sensibilities, both sides have strong incentives to capitalize on that however they can. Mamdani is what that looks like on the left, Trump is what that looks like on the right.
Total US goods exports in 2024 were $2,083.8 billion
Total US goods exports to the European Union were $369.8 billion, to the UK $79.5 billion
Total US services exports in 2024 was $1,107 billion
Total U.S. services exports to European Union in 2024 were $294.7 billion, to the UK another$99.4 billion
The EU is 26% of our services exports
The UK is 9%
Canada another 8%
Sure, our economy, industry, and service sector can totally just eat losing this trade, it's not significant at all. /s
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe...
https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/us-international-trade-goods-a...
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_33...
I am not from the US. If I was I wouldn't be very thrilled for it, no.
I live in the EU, and I think it will actually be very positive in the medium to long term that the EU sheds its dependency on the US and starts treating it for what it is - a hostile foreign nation.
The Mercosur trade agreement, for example, is something great that came out of this. Trump finally pushed the EU to look for good partnerships elsewhere.
So, in a sense, this whole bullshit with Greenland may have positive outcomes still. I am hoping that the EU uses the anti-coercion instrument against the US and their companies.
"The selection of the 11th Airborne Division has immediately drawn scrutiny. Reconstituted and reoriented in recent years, the division is widely regarded as the Army’s premier Arctic and cold-weather formation, optimized for sub-zero operations, austere airfields, glacier movement, and high-latitude logistics.
Military planners note that for domestic crowd-control or security missions in the Midwest, National Guard units or conventional active-duty formations are typically preferred. “This is an Arctic hammer being readied for an urban nail,” said a retired logistics officer familiar with force-generation planning. “That mismatch is what’s raising eyebrows.”"
it's about to get really effing cold in Minnesota.
Just another click/rage bait article...
If you still believe the president at this point, sure. That's the current spin.
If you don't, it's very weird to need (what is taken from their website) the division that " conducts Multi-Domain Operations in the Indo-Pacific theater and the Arctic." to come down to the continential US to control a few protestors in Minnesota. I think only Hawaii is a father set of troops to deploy in comparison.
You say this like it's better?
This is what everybody hopes for, myself included.
It would, at best, be a domestic show of force to further an ongoing campaign of violent, including lethal, state terrorism directed against the civilian population, in violation of the Constitution and laws and direct judicial orders; and at worst a direct addition of the military to the federal paramilitary forces actively engaging in that campaign, rather than merely a show of force in support of it.
Can't think of any Trump action that has manifested in the way that would have been described as “at best” in advance, but I guess it is theoretically possible this could be the first.
The thing Trump's spent months "hinting" at? Yes.
Are we still giving the BOTD after what happened at Venezuela, and how they are trying to push the "Donroe Doctrine"? Do we REALLY need this to escalate to WW3 before we stop defending Trump?
No, people died in COVID defending their stances. People will never admit out loud that they regret their vote. Will be burning in radiation and still trying to put up a front that Trump was good for America.
FTFA> "Adding to the unease are unconfirmed reports of increased Special Operations Forces activity linked to Arctic training and reconnaissance."
Narrator> it's Winter in the US..
I.e., the quote attributed (falsely) to a CSIS analyst, "A domestic mission provides legal cover to load aircraft, marshal equipment, and place units on short notice. The moment of truth is the flight plan", is unique to this domain.
And: "This is an Arctic hammer being readied for an urban nail" has no results anywhere else on the internet. Nor do the substrings, "arctic hammer" + "urban nail".
If the article isn’t booted from this site for being too political, it would probably be beneficial to edit the headline somewhat, to note that it is speculation.
Or, a pack of angry, trembling chihuahuas that keep on attacking dogs with certain colour fur.
Although, to be fair, the Trump administration might 'just' be planning a military occupation of some of Minnesota.
One thing is for sure: If Trump for whatever reason manages to attack Greenland, there will be some signals beforehand. Like moving any and all US personnel currently in Denmark, out of Denmark. There's a good chance US personnel in neighboring countries would also need to be moved out, like in Norway.
A military attack on Greenland would send the US and Europe into a geopolitical crisis.
I think that the US threatening to invade Europe or Canada already qualifies as some kind of geopolitical crisis, doesn't it?
Action is permanent.
If you tell your neighbour "I will soon come to your house and kill you", and your neighbour buys a gun to defend themselves specifically against you, doesn't it count as "action"?
By the way, if you threaten the physical integrity of someone with "just words" and they go to the police, I don't think it counts for "nothing".
All I did was try to see past all the nonsense in the news and try to observe actions.
In a way they have forced EU to do part of what they wanted: take security more seriously and signing some sort of "deal" allows everyone to walk away.
This was a really dumb way to go about it but Trump does not do smart politics. The long term mess will be inherited by his successor and they will be blamed for it.
But we're already off to a horrid 2026 between Venezuela and Minnesota, and even Jerome Powell. This isn't just big words anymore. Trump's shown he's willing to escalate to foreign intervention, shoot citizens in the street in broad daylight, and disrupt the core Dollar itself to fit his needs. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point.
>The long term mess will be inherited by his successor and they will be blamed for it.
Sure, but that was never in question. Trump appointed Powell and no one in the media brings this up. People still think Biden is the one who screwed up the immediate COVID response (hell, Trump caught COVID and I almost feel we're in some bizarro world that no one talks about this). And I've even seen absolutely fringe takes that Biden was president during Jan 6th.
We're sadly in a post truth era. You don't change the minds of people like that with obvious, verifiable facts. I don't know what to do with them. I feel it takes less energy to focus efforts on those who can still be reasoned with than to convert the devout.
For the record im not saying any of these things are good. As a millenial, I completely understand that what this idiot is doing is going to take the rest of the millennial lifespan to correct and hopefully improve things for the next generation. He has forced us to become a transitional generation, but at the same time we need to take these things one at a time and understand what is bluster and what is action.
Clearly, the Venezuela raid is action and it's set into motion some dire consequences, but if you look at it from 50,000 feet it is not the same thing as the Greenland situation. The Greenland situation has been all fluster. There hasn't even been movements on the American side in terms of troop movements. Lets look at this article and its concept of "strategic deception"
To treat this as real preparation for Greenland, I would argue that we should see at least some of the following: overseas deployment authorities invoked, War Powers legal movement, classified funding reprogramming, NATO ally notifications or deconfliction, airlift tasking orders toward the North Atlantic, pre-positioning of sustainment or maritime assets(I'd argue most important)
What we have:
1. A unnamed CSIS analyst offering a conceptual possibility
2. no documents, orders, or timelines
3. no corroboration from Reuters/AP (Important)
This article is definitely in the bluster category.
On the EU side they are obviously not in support of what America wants, and the most they have done is place a small number of troops and give a lot of rhetorical pushback.
The thing in Minnesota, again, was very terrible, and it remains to be seen if it expands into full‑on martial law. But martial law is the actual action. That's the door that leads to real consequences.
We have to separate the action from the bluster. Ruling out anything is just falling into the media narrative.
>We're sadly in a post truth era. You don't change the minds of people like that with obvious, verifiable facts. I don't know what to do with them. I feel it takes less energy to focus efforts on those who can still be reasoned with than to convert the devout.
I'm in complete agreement with you. My thinking is that I think back to a saying discussed at the end of Chernobyl: it was a disaster that was partly a response to hiding the truth. You cannot avoid the truth, eventually that debt has to be paid, and many times it's paid in irreparable damage. When that debt is paid, all the bluster in the world, all the fake news, all the "alternative facts" can try to hold back the debt but it must be settled.
How do we translate that to the modern day? I suspect it's going to be a repeat of what happened during the George W. Bush era. When the economy finally crashed, all that pig‑headedness and honcho behavior that Bush supporters exhibited quietly disappeared. Many of them retreated into their caves for a while...at least until the United States elected a Black man and gave them a reason to come out and be hateful again.
Some were so devastated by reality finally bearing down on them that many abandoned the Republican Party and actually voted for Obama twice (only to be let down again) and now end up with either Bernie or Trump.
I say the act of shooting US citizens is the action. Marial Law is the point of no return. We could have backtracked on Renee Good with a proper reaction, but instead we get gaslighting and doubling down. As well as autohritain slogans like "one of us, all of you". To use the Venezuela metaphor above, this is the shooting of the ship.
Marial law would be invading Maduro. We can't really come back after that. But we're still past what I see as "they won't take action".
>When the economy finally crashed, all that pig‑headedness and honcho behavior that Bush supporters exhibited quietly disappeared. Many of them retreated into their caves for a while...at least until the United States elected a Black man and gave them a reason to come out and be hateful again.
You're probably right and I really hate that. I don't want this to just be swept under the rug for 8 years until they get emboldened again. I don't know how far we'll really go, but I do at least hope these next 10-12 years or so isn't spent sighing in relief and instead focused on reminding Americans what happened and to energize old and new voters that their votes do in fact matter.
Heck, I'd hope to even lay the groundwork for 3rd parties in that time, but that's probably too ambitious. But I'll at least try to do my part and practice what I preach this time.
I'll always assert that 2024 was lost not because the R's came out in droves, but because D's stayed home. Trump 2024 got less votes than Biden 2020. He did get 3M more (likely due to COVID restrictions coming down), but Harris lost 6 million compared to Biden. We don't fix that by "appealing to R's", we need to get the D's back (because I doubt half of all Biden voters converted overnight to Trump).
>I say the act of shooting US citizens is the action. Marial Law is the point of no return. We could have backtracked on Renee Good with a proper reaction, but instead we get gaslighting and doubling down. As well as autohritain slogans like "one of us, all of you". To use the Venezuela metaphor above, this is the shooting of the ship.
Yeah for people observing in Europe this situation is beyond crazy. The standards have dropped so far in the US. Historically the state has enacted violence against people in the past. Ask George Floyd..ask the countless minorities that have had to live with this fear.
I'm reminded of the time I volunteered for Bernie Sanders in 2020. I was very dismayed when he lost South Carolina. He was on a massive winning streak and even seeing TV pundits who were all for the establishment start to get scared and cry on TV about Bernie winning made me realize that maybe he could pull it off! When he collapsed in South Carolina, I asked friends in both Georgia and South Carolina as to why he cannot seem to get through to older black folks. They were the main reason he collapsed and broke sharply against their kids who were for Bernie. They went for Biden in huge numbers despite the fact that Bernie was on the front lines fighting for civil rights (He is that old).
Turns out, they all had this learned helplessness where Biden promised that nothing would fundamentally change. That to them was better then taking a risk to go against the system (By supporting Sanders) and potentially losing the few breadcrumbs they fought for over their lives.
The craziness you see is decades of the state molding its people to accept this reality. Its crazier to think that as of a few years ago old about half the country does not even have a passport. They haven't even seen how the rest of the world operates (either because they cant afford it or the continent is so big that it has every season you could possibly want).
Regarding third parties, I'm not too sure that will happen. There was a massive online push among some of the most leftist people in 2020 to push for a Green party vote. Howie Hawkins and the party have done a commendable job in such an unforgiving system to raise the stature of the green party but even as of today they are not on all state ballots. In 2020 their numbers were terrible. I think we are forced to reckon that either we take over the Democratic party like Trump did the Republican party or there is no way forward. The parties have decades (centuries?) of deep institutional knowledge of each area of the country that it would take an unprecedented event for a third party to take over.
I blame the Democratic party for 2024. They played games with their voters in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of 2020. I'm convinced that they knew all along that Biden was not a long term prospect and they always intended to put Kamala in bypassing the primary. Kamala was on track to lose her own home state in the 2020 primary and dropped out early to avoid the potential career ending embarrassment. Due to the party wanting her as the pick they put her in place as the VP and then she spent four years completely fumbling her one assignment: immigration. They then put this person at the top of the ticket and expect pissed off voters to come out for her?! The party was already polling in the low 30s during the biden years. They deserve the majority of the blame for playing games.
We still have a storm to do through, so I hope we can have more of this discusion after that dust settles (and not have the community flag all efforts to have such talks in a more subtle space). But I do think 2 unprecedented events happening in real tome may shift some thinking after said storm.
1. Seeing Trump's reign and the several tepid responses will definitely radicalise America on both ends. But the response from the right over the year on the micro scale is definitely changing. I'm not exactly in a red area, but even I saw all the trump memorabilia in 2024. That's pretty much all disappeared over the 2nd half of the year.
2. Simply put, those older folk will die out. People who held the reigns for an unprecedentedly long time. I just hope Millenial did not learn this same helplessness as they (including I) had to spend their 20s or 30s navigating this hellhole of a government. And Gen Z especially can't even get a boot on the ground as the country tells them they are lazy and entitled. Saying "you will be be jobless and like it" isn't how you create learn helplessness.
It may not be in 2032 or even 2036, but as long as we don't forget these feelings, we can push to something unprecedented yet again.
1. Trump accuses Venezuela of trafficking in drugs to the US
2. Trump blows up a ship under suspicion of harboring drugs, breaking multiple laws in the process
3. January 3rd just happens. Congress is unaware, the press is unaware, the only dang signal of something major going on was increased orders from a local pizza joint.
4. The admin tries to spin it as drugs. Trump very openly says it's about Oil
5. the admin fumbles to talk about next steps. The supposed regime Trump wants to topple remains and already defects against the US.
6. in meetings with Oil companies (again, not congress. not his Cabinet. Oil companies), he now tries to sell the idea of investing in Venezuela
7. Pretty much no one except Chevron is really committing because it's an unstable situation. Trump comes out and says "we reached an agreement" anyway.
And here we are today (and that's the cliff notes. Not even mentioning how many the US killed in that Raid despite saying "no casualties". Or the idea of charging a venezuelan leader under old US laws. Or the mentality of Stephen Miller as a white nationalist war mongerer). The actions were not only compltetely reckless and circumvented all legal channels, but it also had zero mid/long term planning. It wasn't some carefully orchestrated upheaval. Even his greed can't think more than a few days ahead.
So yes. We have a stupid and reckless president. We can't really apply the same logical channels to this that we would for any other operation. We can only look at what's happened so far
1. President "jokes" about wanting greenland last year. And Canada. Remember that even going this far would be near impeachable offense in normal times
2. Trump runs a bunch of tarriffs on the whole world.
3. Trump tries to go on the "peace president" narrative to try and get the Nobel Peace Prize. Because Obama won one. this massively backfires in multiple ways
4. Trump does not win the peach prize. Well, he won the coveted FIFA peace prize. But that clearly wasn't enough for his ego
5. Venezuela happens. Talks on claiming Greenland continue to ramp back up.
6. Stephen Miller goes on an unhinged rant on CNN about the "Donroe doctrine" and spouts about how history had had countries conquer by force. We'd call it an over the top Onion article in normal times
7. White House reports of strategic advisers needing to refuse illegal orders to plan an attack on Greenland. Not corroboated by many because the most trustworthy press is still (illegally) banned from briefings and sources probably can't risk talking to them.
8. As recently as today, Trump made an unhinged letter to Sweden over the Nobel Peace prize kerfluffle. Remember at this time that the real winner already gave her trophy to Trump. But he's mad that Norway had to remind him that this isn't a transferrable reward.
in terms of Venezuela, we're still between #1 and #2 (an actual aggresion). But the amount of utterly deranged drivel coming out shows that once again, this admin is crazy and dumb. A dangerous combination. It's really coming down to whether or not soldiers on the ground can refuse illegal orders to prevent an all out war. This is awfully close to one of those nuclear crises avoided simply because the operator didn't approave the launch.
I really pray you are right and I look back and breathe a sigh of relief. But we truly are on a tipping point right now. And not one we can lay out a logical breadcrumb for (I spent 4 of my points talking about a president mad at not getting the Novel Peace Prize. Of course I'm very worried about the breadcrumbs).
Why? I mean, if this was another president and another scenario, I'd agree. But I can very well imagine Trump taking Greenland by force and at the same time leaving all American units in Europe as they are.
Of course it makes no sense. You're trying to apply logic to the illogical. We should know by now that this is an admin driven by ego. Not by duty nor even something sensible like greed or ideology.
>if the unthinkable happens, I believe American soldiers would be quite safe staying in Denmark.
I sure hope you're right. Meanwhile;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-20/greenland...
So that might indicate some of the apparent urgency to make this happen now before SCOTUS rules.
Unfortunately a lot of damage is already done, even if we walk it all back our allies will no longer trust us - nor should they.
I for one am tired of 'interesting times'.
> troops [..] deployed to oppress and maybe even kill Americans in one of our cities, or our allies
I guess you are not one of those smart people. That's a shame.
What kind of shitty plotline is this? I swear, Call of Duty games were more realistic.
Fuck USA!
Being assigned to the "premier Arctic and cold-weather formation" sounds like the worst possible posting a young soldier could get. Is this drawing the shortest straw, or do people have any flexibility in getting deployed here? For something so remote/frigid/generally terrible, do you get shorter rotations?
Others join to broaden their horizons and see the world. This unit would check that box too.
Personally I'd love to go to the Arctic or Antarctic as a civilian as it would be an interesting challenge.
This is actually possible! Friends of friends have done it (with NSF I believe).
Research expeditions to the arctic sometimes take civilians as support (janitors, IT, cooks, medics, etc). It can be a cool way to spend a few months aboard a boat in the arctic.
https://betterhumans.pub/how-to-join-a-scientific-expedition...
https://science.nasa.gov/citizen-science/fjord-phyto/
https://news.airbnb.com/wanted-five-volunteers-to-join-scien...
And for that I am grateful
(Hehe, ow, sowwie about triggering someone’s feelings. Fun to see that jingoism should have safe spaces even as the same electorate railed against it on college campuses).
Thanks for coming out.
These are the Arctic Airborne folks (11th division) — above average (which isn’t saying much), but not elite. They are tasked with rapid deployment, and they are good at that, but they aren’t the point of the spear.
There are elite arctic troops who I am confident would sow fear into any opposition troops (arctic or otherwise). If you know any elite Norwegian or Finnish arctic troops, then they have either worked with or know someone who has worked with highly competent US counterparts.
No need to conflate the two.
While I'm not certain of how desirable an Arctic posting is, I do know that Antarctic postings are heavily oversubscribed (more demand than spots available), and I rather suspect that the Arctic stuff is in the same boat. It's not like there's a huge amount of spots that need to be filled, so even if getting an "Arctic soldier" tab appeals to only like 1% of the soldiers, well, that's enough to fill all the slots.
I cannot imagine the background (other than never reading a single word about the world between, say, 1800 and 1990) would lead someone to choose that starting point.
(I am willing to credit that one might dismiss the earlier cases that occurred during the revolution as dubious for the label of “invasion by the US”.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-n...
He’s clearly educated and articulate, so not much else makes sense.
Yes it's a bad joke
Probably a good time to read up again on Poe's Law[0], which does always pertain to attempted sarcasm in online forums.
I flagged this. There are a million places on the internet talking about it: Twitter, news outlets, Instagram… even my loony relatives have all weighed in on Facebook.
No need to add this forum to that list of places talking politics - it’s against the guidelines for HN anyway.
I think evidence of a potential war escalation falls under the "unless". Are we really going to be starting WW3 and have people like you keep covering your ears because you need a cozy space?
The devaluation of the US Dollar that is likely outcome of this will disrupt our supply chains leading to chaos. I expect 80% or worse.
Also, this will drive interest rates through the roof, drying up funding.
Even if you're not interested in politics, it's interested in you.
> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The early days of Silicon Valley were literally the product of defense contracts and defense research spending. The whole consumer and business products thing (hardware or software) came much later. Even the early days business computing, the days of mainframes and minis, were largely driven by east coast companies.
I am surprised people think it is something more than just a drama spat.
The US will do something on the back of this cover eventually or it's just hiding other bad news.
Tech professionals used to be more conservative and even more moderate but these days they've been conditioned to drink from the liberal Koolaid.
I don't know how you can dismiss this as drama when we actively have another country's leader detained. I really hope this is just drama, but this isn't something to just dismiss at this point.
>but these days they've been conditioned to drink from the liberal Koolaid.
Tell us how you really feel about Trump, please. I genuinely want to know your mindset here.
You remind me of the people who actually think the Cybertruck is a real thing and not just another one of Tesla's drama gimmicks.
Trump is the same as every other country leader of the modern era. Does nothing, talks a lot. Except Trump has enough confidence to actually do half the prank, half the time. Which is hilarious. He's a generic superpower puppet.
Yes, Greenland drama is something to dismiss. It's hilarious. Venezuela has nothing to do with it or Trump.
>Tell us how you really feel about Trump, please. I genuinely want to know your mindset here.
At this point this will tell me more than anything else you feel bold enough to type in a throwaway account.
I'll admit, "Cybertruck was just a joke, bro" was certainly a surprising response to all of this. You got me there.
You're clearly not on this throwaway to have a conversation you fear connecting to your main, so I'm not not going to bother. You should know better if you have an actual account here. If you wish to continue this conversion, answer the question. Otherwise, goodbye.
EDIT: sneaking in an non-commital edit and responding with snark definitely tells me the kind of persona being played here. just someone downplaying the US's actions and giving enough leeway to give themselves an "out" when the tides change.
Not a surprising answer for a normal account, but fairly cowardly for a throwaway. I'd hope someone trolling this hard would at least have some conviction when they have at least 3 layers of proxies. But alas. Fence-setters are oft more annoying than the diehard supporters
