Danish troops told to 'shoot first, ask questions later' if US invades Greenland(lbc.co.uk)
lbc.co.uk
Danish troops told to 'shoot first, ask questions later' if US invades Greenland
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/danish-troops-shoot-first-us-greenland-5HjdQNW_2/
35 comments
Provocative is a stretch. A year ago a Danish soldier who responded to an ambiguous situation involving US bases that might be real or might be an exercise would have been court martialed and probably not able to justify their actions with this law despite it being on the books. The reminder is an emphasis that the US can be presumed to be such an invading force.
Sure. But a year ago the US didn't have a ministry of war and the head of that ministry didn't say he wants to betray and invade an ally.
Even the thought of this would have been laughed at for being to satirical a year ago.
But hey, Kamala Harris is really radical, right?
Even the thought of this would have been laughed at for being to satirical a year ago.
But hey, Kamala Harris is really radical, right?
You know this how?
The only NATO-NATO exchange of fire where it wasn't deemed a friendly fire incident or an AMOK that I am aware of are between Greece and Turkey. But feel free to enlighten me on cases where a European country has had soldiers fire on the US and decided this wasn't an internal discipline issue.
The headline explicitly mentions an invasion, and the whole debate is within the context of potential US invasion of Greenland, so I dont see what makes this headline "provocative".
Because it’s not like they were given new orders to “shoot first and ask questions later.” It’s just a normal standing defense directive that has always been there. In normal times, no one would describe standing defense orders as “shoot first, ask questions later.”
The news is that they were explicitly told those orders apply to the US.
The article says no such thing, it just makes sensationalist implications.
The actual meat is: Danish newspaper approaches government and asks if the 1952 order is still in effect-- government replies "yes".
Which is a complete non-story because it's the same unchanged, expected outcome since 1952.
The actual meat is: Danish newspaper approaches government and asks if the 1952 order is still in effect-- government replies "yes".
Which is a complete non-story because it's the same unchanged, expected outcome since 1952.
[deleted]
How should Germany treat the 35.000+ US soldiers on their soil when the US invades our neighbor? We don't have that many cells for prisoners of war.
German Police is ready https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier...
> It later transpired that the person carrying a weapon was a member of the German armed forces
They shot one of their own. I wouldn't call that "ready".
They shot one of their own. I wouldn't call that "ready".
De Gaulle proven right again.
Does anyone know what the actual treaty arrangements are for these bases? Is it still the legacy of the WW2 settlement?
(not that that will make a huge amount of difference if shooting starts)
(not that that will make a huge amount of difference if shooting starts)
There is no expiration. They are in effect as long as either party is in NATO. The same applies to … drumroll… Greenland…
Hence why they want to invade it. Most likely they are planning on leaving NATO. They are positioning for this event.
Hence why they want to invade it. Most likely they are planning on leaving NATO. They are positioning for this event.
Underlying this are two serious questions which a lot of military forces probably had to remind themselves of after 2022's invasion of Ukraine:
- how do you tell when a threat is real or bluster? Especially from a speaker who makes blustering threats all the time
- how do you tell when a war has gone hot, without too much of a risk of false positives or negatives? (see also Stanislav Petrov)
- how do you tell when a threat is real or bluster? Especially from a speaker who makes blustering threats all the time
- how do you tell when a war has gone hot, without too much of a risk of false positives or negatives? (see also Stanislav Petrov)
> how do you tell when a war has gone hot
When attacks are carried out or when an annexation is taking place. It's really quite simple to identify when a hostile force is moving in.
> Stanislav Petrov
Was litterally under the sea with no communications and took the prescient approach of better to wait. This is not some ambiiguity of hot war or not.
When attacks are carried out or when an annexation is taking place. It's really quite simple to identify when a hostile force is moving in.
> Stanislav Petrov
Was litterally under the sea with no communications and took the prescient approach of better to wait. This is not some ambiiguity of hot war or not.
> Was litterally under the sea with no communications and took the prescient approach of better to wait. This is not some ambiiguity of hot war or not.
1. Was actually on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow.
2. Was absolutely an ambiguity. The USSR's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, his ultimate confirmation that the satellite warning was in error was the subsequent non-arrival of an exploding nuke.
The argument that Petrov relied on to make an informed guess in advance is essentially "it would be strange and surprising for the USA to attack in this way". Nobody could make such an argument to justify failing to respond to a suspected attack while Trump is in charge, because Trump is repeatedly observed doing strange and surprising things like calling for an annexation of multiple allies or violating the US constitution and apparently getting away with it.
1. Was actually on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow.
2. Was absolutely an ambiguity. The USSR's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, his ultimate confirmation that the satellite warning was in error was the subsequent non-arrival of an exploding nuke.
The argument that Petrov relied on to make an informed guess in advance is essentially "it would be strange and surprising for the USA to attack in this way". Nobody could make such an argument to justify failing to respond to a suspected attack while Trump is in charge, because Trump is repeatedly observed doing strange and surprising things like calling for an annexation of multiple allies or violating the US constitution and apparently getting away with it.
Okay. I'm wrong, he was a cog in the chain to report an attack in order to facilitate a response to a nuclear attack. It's not the same though, Greenland is litterally saying don't wait for confirmation of invasion. The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious and to claim it's compatible to the cold war is nothing but gaslighting in my opinion.
What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally.
What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally.
> Okay. I'm wrong, he was a cog in the chain to report an attack in order to facilitate a response to a nuclear attack. It's not the same though, Greenland is litterally saying don't wait for confirmation of invasion.
Your description of the forces in Greenland matches Petrov's orders: don't wait for confirmation. His orders were to immediately raise it with superiors, which he chose not to do.
Your description of Petrov matches the forces in Greenland: cogs in a machine.
> The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious
Not to soldiers on the receiving end. That's the problem.
I was recently linked to this story, same category problem with different details and impact: https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier...
> What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally.
Troubling, yes. Ignored? Ah, no, not in Europe it isn't? Are you American or Danish?
Your description of the forces in Greenland matches Petrov's orders: don't wait for confirmation. His orders were to immediately raise it with superiors, which he chose not to do.
Your description of Petrov matches the forces in Greenland: cogs in a machine.
> The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious
Not to soldiers on the receiving end. That's the problem.
I was recently linked to this story, same category problem with different details and impact: https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier...
> What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally.
Troubling, yes. Ignored? Ah, no, not in Europe it isn't? Are you American or Danish?
This is exactly how a lot of "misinformation" spreads in reality:
The article implies to a typical reader that the danish governments stance changed in some way, or that there was some kind of posturing regarding US/greenland.
This is not the case. A newspaper asked the danish government to comment on the rules of engagement, and those are unchanged since 1952.
So there was neither a change in stance nor posturing by the government in any form.
The article implies to a typical reader that the danish governments stance changed in some way, or that there was some kind of posturing regarding US/greenland.
This is not the case. A newspaper asked the danish government to comment on the rules of engagement, and those are unchanged since 1952.
So there was neither a change in stance nor posturing by the government in any form.
Americans reading this, please, get your mad dogs under control, one way or another.
What the hell has it come to.
What the hell has it come to.
Not much we can do, our system of government is broken at the moment and we're too sparsely spread out for protests to be treated as meaningful.
It's not even a slow boil which is the craziest aspect of it. They're speedrunning into Corporations Lebensraum, the American twist is to call it "national security" (such a great bit of propaganda, umbrella term for stamping out anything internal or external since 9/11).
Watching Stephen Miller talk is fucking scary, I cannot comprehend what happened to American society to allow this to happen, I understand social media brainrotting many, I don't understand the sane ones simply sitting on the sidelines, and wailing on the internet...
Watching Stephen Miller talk is fucking scary, I cannot comprehend what happened to American society to allow this to happen, I understand social media brainrotting many, I don't understand the sane ones simply sitting on the sidelines, and wailing on the internet...
What basis is there to prevent undocumented American migrants from deciding to make Greenland their new home? Don't we believe in free movement of people? X with out borders?
[deleted]
Almost every statement coming out of the administration contains a lie, and the ones who vote for the liars only speak more lies. Their relationship with truth is nonexistent. There is no way to snap these people out of it because they are agenda driven, not evidence driven. It has to run its course until betraying the truth costs more than driving the agenda. Counterintuitively, this means driving them further into the abyss, not taking them out of it.
mpalmer(1)
A more reasonable statement of the army standing orders / Rules of Engagement would be:
I've emphasized invading force – it's not a general free-for-all fire-at-will.
This is a standing order which dates back to 1952, and hasn't been created as a response to the recent aggressive posturing.