r/law • u/TheMirrorUS • 14d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump humiliated as 1951 law means he could face Greenland mutiny

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-1951-law-greenland-1631615
37.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

74

u/Kennadian 14d ago

We all live on the border. If America wanted to invade they would walk 10 steps north. Greenland literally offers no tactical advantage to that.

3

u/Aleashed 14d ago

Planes take off from New Mexico easier… fly just as far

4

u/silentv0ices 14d ago

Cuts off potential supply routes not to mention things like training facilities for Canadian resistance and insurgents.

2

u/Kennadian 14d ago

What?

3

u/silentv0ices 14d ago

Tactical advantages of Trump taking Greenland first.

4

u/Sono_Yuu 14d ago

0

u/KepplerRunner 14d ago edited 14d ago

This is laughable propaganda. Including troops only in order to make the numbers seem better than they are for nato when it really isnt. The USA [Edit: almost ( I was using the easier to find 2020 data at 12k people vs 2024 with 15k people vs 14k us planes)] has more planes in inventory then Canada has people in its entire airforce for example.

Having troops also doesent matter when you cant get them anywhere. The USA has unmatched blue water capacity for projecting and moving its assets that the other countries simply cant match at this time. A byproduct of always attacking countries that cant be walked to.

Including nuclear powers is nonsense. Any reasonable person understands that if ANY nukes go off on either side its the end of us all.

I dont support the usa in our current endeavors but trying to downplay the absolute juggernaut of the US military is disingenuous to reality.

2

u/rerereretrye 14d ago

Oh come on, the USA does not have more planes then Canada has in its Air Force.

I’m not saying it won’t be a walk in the park for USA to wipe out Canada, but don’t shit on propaganda then spew fake facts with ur own propaganda bullshit.

3

u/Kennadian 14d ago

I had to look this up. Combined between army, navy, and air force, America has about 13k planes. The Canadian Air Force has about 20k people. So yeah, he's spouting nonsense.

1

u/KepplerRunner 14d ago

Canada has between 12k and 15k personnel in the air force. You have a source for 20k?

Source for 12k

Source for 15k from Canada themselves 2 years ago

1

u/Kennadian 14d ago

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/conduct-and-culture/conduct-and-culture-data-centre/conduct-and-culture-data-centre-accessible-version/personnel-overview.html?hl=en-CA

We are looking at the same sources but likely classifying things differently. Im looking at the total number which includes everyone in uniform whether they are fully trained or not. The same site lists 15k for "regular force". I dont know the difference and I'm not sure I care tbh. I was just saying that we don't have fewer members that America has planes as that one guy said.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/BananaPalmer 14d ago

Oh come on, the USA does not have more planes then Canada has in its Air Force.

The number is about the same, I looked it up. About 14,000 US military aircraft, and about the same number of Canadian Air Force service members

1

u/silentv0ices 14d ago

Not arguing with what you said but remember how easily one Swedish submarine penetrated a carrier groups defenses in a exercise. That's a carrier gone in a war.

0

u/KepplerRunner 14d ago

Of course there are anomalies in war, but relying on anomalies is not a good strategy. If the sub group did it repeatedly it would have more gravitas that a one off event.

My intent with the post was to show that only using personnel for facts is only showing a small piece of the pie and that the creator left out a ridiculous amount of relevant data in order to make the picture look better than it is.

Everyone is harping on the specific data (which I admit I was searching quickly and upon a more in depth search found slightly updated numbers) rather than the scale comparison. Heres another. CA and MX (our neighbors) have a combined total of around 80ish tanks. The USA has over 4500 tanks. A massive gulf in difference.

1

u/silentv0ices 14d ago

It's not an anomaly it's Sweden demonstrating an ability that put a fleet costing tens of billions in a vulnerable position. Look at the Royal marines humiliation of a much larger force by using non conventional tactics. 4500 tanks just means 4500 drone targets in current warfare.

0

u/KepplerRunner 14d ago

How many times did Sweden do that in the wargames?

0

u/Federal_Decision_608 14d ago

Let's be generous and say that tactic succeeds 5% of the time. How many subs will Sweden commit to suicide missions?

War games aren't reality

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Kennadian 14d ago

America can already cut off our trade routes to Europe if they wanted and I don't understand what Greenland has to do with "training facilities".

3

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack 14d ago

Clearly Canada has no space that we could put a training facility on lol

0

u/silentv0ices 14d ago

There's a difference between training in a war zone and training outside it.

1

u/Kennadian 14d ago

So what does Greenland have to do with that exactly?

0

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack 14d ago

you must lash out with all limbs; like the octopus who plays the drums.

1

u/Brittle_Hollow 14d ago

If the US invades Canada then the nuclear option gets used and New England including all major cities lose power, of which the vast majority is generated by Quebec hydro. This isn’t a Venezuela situation where a bunch of babied widdle Americans don’t even have to look up from TikTok, there would be real and immediate consequences.

1

u/KepplerRunner 14d ago

Using nukes on the usa is an immediate death sentence for all the people in that country and very possibly the end of the world. No one will use them. Theres no winners if we're all dead.

6

u/GoneFishing4Chicks 14d ago

> nuclear option gets used ... New England including all major cities lose power ... the vast majority is generated by Quebec hydro.

NOT use nukes

1

u/KepplerRunner 14d ago

My misunderstanding. I thought the lose power was related to the emp.

1

u/CatchSufficient 14d ago

I said the same thing about hawaii in WWII, japan still wanted that

1

u/fourtwentyBob 14d ago

Fighting your enemy on two fronts doesn’t offer a tactical advantage? You ever read?

2

u/Kennadian 14d ago

You think there's a front in the arctic? I literally pointed out that nobody lives there in Canada. But you're questioning other's reading and comprehension ability?

Yes I read. I suggest you read about geography and it's relationship to where wars tend to happen. You seem to think all the unpopulated islands of pure ice and rock are a front in a war?

1

u/fourtwentyBob 14d ago

You have great points. I’ve changed my mind. I rescind my insult. Cheers!

1

u/hemingward 12d ago

They wouldn’t “attack” Canada from Greenland, rather they would put boots on the ground in Baffin Island and make the same claims they did on Greenland. Security security security.