Clark Griswold
Supreme User
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
29s or J-10s? -
Another article I saw called this guy, Gen. Zhang Youxia, the last real general implying he was the last true military professional. The article had a positive point to it saying that it probably lessened the chance of a Taiwan invasion at least in 2026. I’m not sure about that, sycophants are not sources of sound advice. Sound advice though adjusting for my biases might be now is the time, hopefully not. IDK, what I am concerned is a timed action to take advantage of our electoral calendar and favorable weather conditions, namely a hybrid action in October.
-
-
You may be right but I have to have some hope there is a shred of wisdom / courage left in the ruling classes and maturity / character in the masses
-
I wonder if this is the beginning of the return of military escorts being required for most international shippers as Peter Zeihan has predicted? If there is something the US, Europe, Aussies, Japan, SK, etc… can agree on it is freedom of navigation / access to the global commons (at least for us), could we agree on growing our surface fleets for patrol and escort, agreeing to always protect each other?
-
Less awful than saying the border is secure when thousands brazenly crossed daily for months under the eye of LE told to let it happen
-
It’s a cool little jet, the block 20 brings a lotta capes for the money. The right jet for a lot of Allies and some missions in the AF. Vaporware but a good approximation of a stealthish FA-50
-
FA-50 with 9Xs The AviationistPoland Moves to Arm FA-50PL With AIM-9XPoland formalized the integration of the AIM-9X Sidewinder on the FA-50PL, enhancing air policing capabilities as deliveries of the light fighter shift to
-
The War ZoneE-7 Wedgetail Radar Jet The Pentagon Tried To Cancel Gets...Lawmakers already shot down Pentagon plans to buy E-2 Hawkeyes instead of E-7s Wedgetails.
-
Thankfully TACO not FAFO https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-21/trump-tells-europe-and-nato-to-hand-over-greenland-or-else Still, make Greenland Denmark an offer that they want to accept .
-
Hmmmm, a lot there… your comment on my editing my original post seems accusatory so I’m not sure we are arguing in totally good faith, I reserve the right to adjust my statements as I write them then let them stand, enough on that. My original post expressed my skepticism on kinetic action and my later post with not one weapon used to change the status quo, other IOPs are available but all the talk of military action is just that, talk. No one is going to order anything even close to that, I was wrong on Venezuela but I’m positive about this. All other parts of the government would just say no and he knows that. Trump says outlandish bullshit to break norms, to cause conversation and discussion that would have been dismissed out of hand before and to get the other party to engage. Maybe it’s crass or uncouth but for him it’s SOP. I’m ok with it because the pre Trump world, norms, expectations and paradigm were a bad deal for the USA, for the working and middle class and emasculating. Nothing is free in this world, especially not security, if you want us to guarantee it for you, the terms occasionally must be updated. I use the freedom for Greenland as humor, nothing more than that. Golan Heights is apt as a metaphor as i meant it as strategic territory from which a foe could use to attack if they held. All of your other points are true but will not be going into the future methinks, Golden Dome will be built out and will have a need for terrestrial infrastructure, in very high latitudes, rare earth minerals will become even more valuable and critical so the infrastructure to produce them will be built as China and Russia use their rare earth minerals as leverage over us, Russia/China will develop some hard power expeditionary capabilities to reach into the Arctic, etc… I’d rather have a dissuading presence there than have to react and figure out how to push them back or out. They may not use all hard power to get a foothold there but prepare for the worst. If not blowing up NATO means not getting a better deal for the US than essentially the arrangement we have had since the early 90s because the Western Europeans don’t want change of any kind in it then it should not exist. I’m not sure how I came across as a warmongering a hole on this as I’m not but I’m also not in favor of us just being a dupe and simping for the rest of the free world.
-
The security environment has changed / gotten more dangerous I don’t like it but methinks behind the scenes the other players are maneuvering their chess pieces, developing systems they are not publicly disclosing, preparing for another major military action to change the world order to their benefit. Blocking this is in our interest and Europe’s. Perhaps a bit over dramatic but a scene from the Netflix series the Diplomat gives a fictional but realistic reasoning why we need a new status with Greenland It’s strategic real estate in preparation for the inevitable tension and stand off in the Arctic, for basing and securing the North Atlantic and a source of the minerals we will need to build tech, weapons and prosperity to keep authoritarian regimes at bay. We are not perfect but we are a helluva lot better than the alternative hegemony.
-
But that is what people do, maybe they shouldn’t but force & intimidation with a mixture of the fair, unfair and semi-fair application of laws/rules/treaties is how entities that occasionally use violence to resolve disputes do things. I’m not for using one weapon on the Danes or anyone else participating in a presence and reassurance mission there for them but I am for using our leverage to get either a better status for first the USA, then the Greenlanders and ultimately for the Danes and NATO. If they can’t meet us halfway on this, then we give them fair warning that the US membership in NATO is not guaranteed. You meet us halfway and we give you X,Y,Z… Values based diplomacy/international relations is not viable in this next phase of global affairs we are in. Transactional relations with reasonable deference to civilizational values, natural rights and general respect for the natural world should be our COA going forward.
-
Maybe if the parties involved are equal but if they are not then eminent domain / you have to do this is just the way it is. If the state I live in says a road / utility line has to go thru for the greater good, here’s your check now move along. Great powers, more powerful countries sometimes just make things as they want. The difference between the US and Russia, China, etc… is the reasons why, how we treat those we make do as we want and the how we make our will done upon others, particularly in this situation. Plenty of examples where we could have done better. Not saying we are perfect, not saying the effort to “acquire” Greenland or just change the status quo is without criticism or risk but we can’t let the other powers into the Arctic more than they already are. This is our Golan Heights, we just have to have a greater say in what happens there. No apologies, not backing up and not going away. Working with us is way better than not.
-
So I read this and it’s only 1 article in a Trump friendly paper but… it seems like Greenland needs some freedom, not necessarily kinetically delivered. https://nypost.com/2026/01/16/world-news/greenlanders-speak-out-against-danish-rule-they-stole-our-future/ Should we force this issue? A new arrangement with a new independent Greenland or no more NATO?
