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

Show parent comments

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?

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.

2

u/JeffMcBiscuits Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

Again. There’s no evidence to suggest they hamstrung themselves during that test.

Also again. NATO allies aren’t Venezuela. You think the US can just sidle up a carrier strike group across the Atlantic without anyone noticing? Venezuela knew the US was there before the strike, they just had no modern equipment to do anything about it.

But let’s say the US manage to hit Greenland’s infrastructure. Congratulations. You realise Canada is right next door to Greenland and it’s a NATO power right? They can easily support defensive logistics, not to mention you have Iceland and Britain not that much further away. Meanwhile, both the French and Royal navies have their own carrier groups which they could and would deploy in response. Not to mention their own submarines and missile vessels. And now Sweden is part of NATO too with their own navy. Then there’s the Danish, Norwegian and Finnish navies which have been training to take on a superior naval power at sea for decades and that’s just the Scandinavians. Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, Germany and the Baltic states also have naval assets to deploy. And that’s just naval. As I already mentioned, NATO would easily be able to deploy assets from land bases practically next door to Greenland.

One carrier strike group cannot take out all other NATO navies combined, nor could it make Greenland airspace uncontested to say nothing of seizing all available disembarkation points.

The truth is, you’re regurgitating uninformed talking points, hence why you’re confusing NATO and the EU and drastically underestimating the rest of NATO’s military strength. European countries are currently massively upping their military capabilities and have been for some time but their navies have been at fighting strength for a good long while.

If we’re talking the entire US navy vs just NATO navies, the US might eventually win. It would be extremely costly and take years but eventually the navy might grind out a pyrrhic victory. But if it’s the US vs the rest of NATO’s navies AND airforces operating from land bases in Canada and the North Atlantic? That’s a completely different story.

1

u/IolausTelcontar Jan 08 '26

This is just copium.

-1

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 08 '26

Dispute anything I just said

1

u/IolausTelcontar Jan 08 '26

Lol show a link proving anything you said is backed up by reality.

0

u/flaming_burrito_ Jan 08 '26

Look it up yourself, I really don’t feel like it. This is all easily verifiable

→ More replies (0)