> Not sure how this is relevant to anything.

You are not sure how it's relevant the main pillar of NATO is openly talking about military action against one of the founding members of NATO?

It's relevant since everything in your life right now if you live in any Western country is reliant on this partnership since the end of WW2. If it changes you'll live in a different world, not sure how this is not relevant to you.

> it would still last about ten minutes. Not sure how this is relevant to anything.

I don't think there's much doubt about a US success if it came to that. The relevance—and yes, this is highly relevant—is to determine what would be left of the current world order after those "ten minutes".

for a "rule of law" analysis, see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46633038

> The issue won't come to military action.

How can you be so certain with that diaper-filler in chief?

Deploying troops looks like an attempt to dissuade invasion by highlighting that the optics of US troops capturing (hopefully not shooting at) NATO troops would be real bad...

Taking Greenland by force against a NATO (supposed?) ally would be the end of "the West" as a largely aligned block since WWII. The effects would be felt by everybody, including technologists.

Because the hacker community is worried about it, and because it is such a nonce thing to do yet it is still being threatened.

Sure the US could para a few soldiers in and raise the flag, but then what? US equipment and training isn’t designed for a country where the average temperature is above freezing for only 3 months of the year. When it’s minus 30 Celsius, lubricants gum up, batteries die and you need ice-breaker ships to resupply forces (which the US doesn’t have many of). Denmark and the other Nordic countries do have equipment and training designed for those conditions, and they know the (vast) landscape well, since they train there.

Imagine Afghanistan but against a modern, professional army and with the weather trying to kill you.

Which isn’t to say that it would be impossible, but certainly it would cost more in terms of casualties and money than most Americans realise.

The US has a military base on Greenland now, and has had more in the past. We also have experience in Alaska and the South Pole.

The US understands cold.

The military base there is small, and the number of troops trained in Alaska is also comparatively small. It also has little dedicated cold-weather gear, and logistical pipelines (especially if Canada refuses to let them in their airspace/waters) with be very hard to set up.

The US may have some understanding of the cold, but the nordic countries have far more, and are far better prepared.

Seema like you don’t want to be bothered about the ugly side of what you voted for.

It's about what happens globally after an occupation

You're not sure how the potential for the US to go to war with an EU member state is relevant?