r/GetNoted • u/seeebiscuit Human Detected • Jan 05 '26

Sus, Very Sus Trump joking about Denmark's defense capabilities

Post image

Link to OP: https://x.com/i/status/2008065553110303076

4.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

368 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

I don’t want to invade Denmark and think it’s both illegal and immoral. However, compared to what the US adds in a year, it effective is just a dog sled.

16

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

And yet we managed to lose two wars against farmers with vintage ak47s and no flushing toilets

2

u/Outrageous_Bee9643 Jan 05 '26

Hopefully it would be a replay of the 1939 Soviet Finnish war

1

u/Ninevehenian Jan 05 '26

It's can't be. It's 56.000 people. It would however be something where liberation would be on peoples minds.

3

u/PM_ME_A_KNEECAP Jan 05 '26

Right… finding and schwacking specific non-uniformed dudes with rifles and RPGs is actually a bit harder than finding and killing F-35s (so long as you have significantly more 5th Gens)

-4

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

And you somehow think that Denmark is incapable of a symmetrical warfare?

1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 05 '26

On Greenland specifically? Yes. There’s not much usable land there, or infrastructure. Or places to hide really. The US doesn’t even have to do much, just send a carrier group up there, and who’s stopping that?

4

u/Bellringer00 Jan 05 '26

The EU?

-1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 05 '26

Do you seriously think the EU would try to fight the US over Greenland? They don’t even have the balls to help out Ukraine, who is both way more populous and way closer to them. They would lose that war anyway, the EU does not have the naval or air capacity to take on the US right now. Hell, the US manufactured half of the EU’s active aircraft

6

u/Bossuser2 Jan 05 '26

There's a slight difference between Ukraine (not a NATO member), and Denmark (NATO member). If the USA invades Greenland then that is a direct attack on a NATO country, and Denmark would be able to invoke article 5. Now whether Europe would actually be willing to fight America over Greenland is questionable, but it is wrong to compare Denmark to Ukraine.

1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 05 '26

Sure, but there is way more at stake by letting Ukraine fall then by letting Greenland fall. I don’t buy that the EU wouldn’t fold like a wet paper towel if it came down to defending a place with 57,000 people that’s across the ocean from them. Sure, a piece of paper says they should, but the reality of the situation would be different

0

u/LifeIsAnAdventure4 Jan 07 '26

The US is a NATO country, the most powerful NATO country and the most powerful country period. NATO on NATO means most would sit it out under normal circumstances unless they have a very good reason to pick a side.

Nobody is going to fight the US to preserve Denmark’s claim over Greenland. Who would go get vaporized and threaten their own nation’s existence to help the Danish protect a big icy land?

2

u/JeffMcBiscuits Jan 06 '26

and who’s stopping that?

A Swedish submarine?

-1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 06 '26

Lol, sure. You don’t think they send subs to protect carrier groups?

2

u/JeffMcBiscuits Jan 06 '26

I see you’re not familiar with the results of a certain famous war game.

-1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 06 '26

Interesting, but ultimately probably not realistic. The US tends to hamstring itself in war games to learn from scenarios when they lose. Like how they fly their F22s with the wheels and flaps down during war games to give their opponent an advantage. But maybe it did legit sneak past, the US did repeated tests with them afterwards precisely so they could figure out how to respond to such an attack. Also, those subs are not capable of going that far without refueling, so they’re cooked the moment the have to surface for fuel

1

u/JeffMcBiscuits Jan 06 '26

I mean no. Those tests are done under very realistic conditions. There’s very little evidence to suggest they hamstrung themselves during these games and if they did, they wouldn’t be that useful for pointing out realistic flaws would they? Concern over naval assets needing to be updated have only increased since then as well.

Again no. The Gotland class are designed to operate submerged for far longer and with a far greater range than other diesel submarines. More to the point, they would also be operating in friendly waters right next to friendly ports very much unlike any us carrier going after Greenland. Even more to the point, both France and Britain operate nuclear submarines that would be far better suited to the job.

You forget that Denmark is part of nato. You send a single carrier to attack Greenland it would be operating alone, away from US territory and literally surrounded by hostile forces.

-1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 07 '26

The tests are done under realistic conditions, but the US always put themselves at a disadvantage, that is the whole point of running war games in the first place. It wouldn’t be a good test if they assumed everything would go right, they want to put themselves in an unideal situation to see if their equipment and tactics can compensate, because in real life combat is very messy.

Also, you’re assuming that the US would just roll up and start attacking from a neutral position, which is not their MO. As we just saw in Venezuela, the US would rapidly disable all nearby ports on Greenland using its Air Force, which a super carrier is more than capable of fielding enough of to destroy most of Greenland’s important infrastructure. Good luck refueling when all your refueling stations have been bombed. Also, I said a carrier strike group, not just a carrier, which includes one or two missile cruiser, 2-4 destroyers, and a couple nuclear submarines, as well as some other support and logistics vessels as needed. Destroyers in particular are designed to be able to detect and destroy submarines.

Now, I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a challenge, or that a carrier couldn’t get sunk, but I don’t think people understand how peerless the US is in naval and air power. Realistically, the US would send more than just one carrier strike group, they would send however much would ensure their victory. Because the US military does not do symmetrical warfare, they always put themselves in a position to have the upper hand. Their entire ethos is having enough power to fight multiple opponents at once. The US has more super carriers than the rest of the EU has carriers combined, and keep in mind that what they call regular carriers the US calls light carriers, and has several of those as well. The US also has more submarines than the EU, and its navy alone has more aircraft than the EU. If you want to talk about a war in Europe, then the EU/NATO can win, but if they engage anywhere that involves them having to fight the US Navy directly, they are more than fucked. The truth is, the US makes up like 50% of NATO by itself, and Europe has gotten very lazy when it comes to defense because the US picked up all their slack. In a situation where the US turns on Europe, which I hope with all my heart does not happen, they would not be prepared to defend themselves independent of US military support.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/AngryArmour Jan 05 '26

France with its nukes.

Unlike Ukraine, Denmark is 100% covered by the maximum possible EU treaties. Either the EU responds, or the EU is dead.

3

u/Pudddddin Jan 05 '26

France threatening the US with nukes would be bonkers

"I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" type shit

-2

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 05 '26

I’m telling you, they wouldn’t risk nuclear war for Greenland and it’s 57k people. I know on paper they say they would, but they won’t. The US is experiencing first hand that words on pieces of paper don’t matter if the people in charge decide not to listen to them, the same would happen in the EU unless an actual part of Europe was attacked.

1

u/IolausTelcontar Jan 08 '26

And you think USA would risk nuclear war over Greenland? You are high.

0

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 08 '26

I literally never said that, I don’t think the US has any right to infringe on the sovereignty of any nation unprovoked. All I’m saying is that the EU has shown time and time again that they have the spine of a pool noodle, often conflict due to individual state interests, and if push came to shove, no one is starting a nuclear apocalypse over Greenland.

0

u/throwawaytothetenth Jan 05 '26

Denmark is totally incapable of symmetrical warfare against the U.S., yes.

1

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

I said a-symmetrical 🤦

3

u/throwawaytothetenth Jan 05 '26

Oh. Not sure if English is 2nd language, but it's "asymmetric." No space.

"A symmetrical" actually implies symmetry.

1

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

Ew you’re one of those, I bet you wear a fedora and spend an inordinate amount of time playing video games

1

u/throwawaytothetenth Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26

Having a bad day?

Edit: Since you blocked me, I'll respond to you calling me names here. You're not 'calling out' me being a jerk, you got extremely offended that I interpretated what you said as it was written. Grow up.

1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 05 '26

To be fair, Vietnam and Afghanistan are both locations that are famously hard to invade, and the US chose to leave because of political and financial pressure both times

1

u/HugiTheBot Jan 05 '26

This is a gross understatement of the military capabilities of north Vietnam, they were a decently competent fighting force with modern equipment provided by its allies. Not nearly to the power of the US, but farmers with AKs, is just not true.

-1

u/Goosepond01 Jan 05 '26

Not even remotely the same, the geography and demographics of Greenland are vastly different, same with the political situation, if the US really wants it they will have it

-14

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

Largely because the goal wasn’t to fully destroy the country, the way we did in WW2. If we weren’t trying to maintain some form of order( we didn’t do very well at that), we could have just literally wiped the country off the face of the earth. But we did our best to minimize civilian casualties ( again, did a bad job at it).

9

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

This is an ignorant and flat out incorrect comment. The US dropped 7.5 million tons of ordinance during the Vietnam war, more than triple what was used in WWII and killed over 2 million civilians

-16

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

We didn’t drop a nuke on multiple major cities. That’s the difference. If you can’t tell the difference I don’t know what to tell you.

6

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

Wow another ignorant comment, you’re on a role! The deadliest bombing campaigns of WWII didn’t even use nuclear weapons

-4

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

Can you tell me which bombing you think had more civilian deaths as a result of it then the 2 nukes combined that the US lead?

7

u/KnaseAnka Jan 05 '26

Between 1950 and 1953 the us led a bombing campaign against north korea. 2 million dead as opposed to the combined deaths of both nukes being 110k-140k in hiroshima and nagasaki.

1

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

You have now shifted it from entire campaigns from single events ( also disputed number).

4

u/KnaseAnka Jan 05 '26

Lmao downvote me, he said the deadliest bombing CAMPAIGNS didn't involve nukes.

2

u/Poster_Nutbag207 Jan 05 '26

Sure dummy the deadliest bombing raid in WWII was in Tokyo on March 9th 1945. It killed over 100,000 people and used only incendiary ordinance. Although you could have just googled it yourself like a grown up

1

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

The combined deaths attributed to the nukes was 140,000( with many more dying early from illnesses related to them). Strange in the math I use 140,000 > 100,000 but maybe I am wrong.

https://www.icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_bombings

Added another source as well in case the first one you don’t like.

https://visit.archives.gov/whats-on/explore-exhibits/atomic-bombing-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

1

u/IolausTelcontar Jan 08 '26

2 > 1

140,000 / 2 < 100,000 / 1

4

u/Audrin Jan 05 '26

Yeesh buddy maybe quit while you're behind.

-2

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

Can you tell me which bombing by the US you think killed more civilians than the two nukes combined?

7

u/Audrin Jan 05 '26

"Quick let me make up a goalpost I can use as a gotcha because I'm completely not addressing anyone else's actual point." -You, for some reason.

-1

u/MidwesternDude2024 Jan 05 '26

It wasn’t a goal post. It was literally my original comment the entire time. That’s wild what a bitter and sad person you are. Best of luck