If the USA were to place a missile defence station on Greenland, they would be able to intercept Russian missiles.
Except no, because you can intercept ICBMs only in the first and final stages of flight. In the coast phase they are too high and do not light up on radars.
I am explicitely not attacking your person, but your style of debate. You might very well be a great person to hang out with. I’m not making assumptions about that.
You cannot change who you are, so it would be unfair to comment on your person. You can however change your debate style by not saying things like “next argument please”.
The problem is that your post consists only of specious arguments that indicate you haven’t really thought about this. EG it makes little sense to try to annex Greenland for defense when the act of trying to take it would blow up half of our alliances, start a war, and ultimately provide no more benefit than simply continuing to ally with Greenland/Denmark.
If I were the glorious leader of the USA, I could just fall back on the fact that I am the smartest person by presidential decreed. But I am not, so I can only make specious arguments.
It is a great thought experiment though. How can the glorious leader justify the American claim to Greenland?
He has literally said he would claim it based on the US needing to take its shit and make it his shit. He doesn’t appear to need reasonable or even sane justifications. That said its ridiculous. It would be spitting on all of Europe and taking it militarily would have massive economic consequences.
Except no, because you can intercept ICBMs only in the first and final stages of flight. In the coast phase they are too high and do not light up on radars.
Next argument please.
I’ll pass. You have a shitty style of debate.
Right, because attacking the person rather than the actual argument is a stellar example of mature discussion skills.
I am explicitely not attacking your person, but your style of debate. You might very well be a great person to hang out with. I’m not making assumptions about that.
You cannot change who you are, so it would be unfair to comment on your person. You can however change your debate style by not saying things like “next argument please”.
Next argument please.
Lol, I am making assumptions about your person now 😅
Next person please.
The problem is that your post consists only of specious arguments that indicate you haven’t really thought about this. EG it makes little sense to try to annex Greenland for defense when the act of trying to take it would blow up half of our alliances, start a war, and ultimately provide no more benefit than simply continuing to ally with Greenland/Denmark.
If I were the glorious leader of the USA, I could just fall back on the fact that I am the smartest person by presidential decreed. But I am not, so I can only make specious arguments.
It is a great thought experiment though. How can the glorious leader justify the American claim to Greenland?
He has literally said he would claim it based on the US needing to take its shit and make it his shit. He doesn’t appear to need reasonable or even sane justifications. That said its ridiculous. It would be spitting on all of Europe and taking it militarily would have massive economic consequences.