HN Explorer

11 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 38.8 ms ] thread
akagusu
Finally someone with balls.
dingaling
Well it's how Denmark defended their claim on Greenland in the late 1800s, attacking any European ships that tried to land there. But this time, the other side has more "might".
manarth
It's a provocative headline.

A more reasonable statement of the army standing orders / Rules of Engagement would be:

    > The military has authorization to counter-attack an *invading force* without waiting for further approval from the command chain
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.

seper8
Americans reading this, please, get your mad dogs under control, one way or another.

What the hell has it come to.

piva00
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...

tlp2279
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?
nkmnz
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.
pjc50
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)

myrmidon
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.