Greenland USA

[cherokeetroy]

It's a missile defence system intended to detect and destroy missiles at multiple stages of flight, including the early boost phase.

Something current systems don't reliably do very well, if at all in the boost phase. 

There is speculation that possible future satellites could be armed with beam weaponry.

But that's a pipe dream, harking all the way back to Reagan's "Star Wars" program.

Plus, weaponising space is still illegal as far as im aware.

The satellites will be used for targeting and detection purposes.

Some analysts have estimated the cost to be in the range of trillions of dollars.

Options and possible beam weaponry aside, It certainly won't be cheap and apt to cost an arm and a leg.

Not that it doesn't look rather cool, but I have to ponder that there are better things to spend trillions of dollars on.

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZAfOka_Ek]

I think because of the AI/defense race that we're currently in, any country that doesn't want to be left out in the cold or dependent on another country's protection, will have to scramble to build their own shield

Resources will be concentrated on assembling these new, weaponized surveillance grids as everyone competes for AI supremacy 

Link

[Solvedit]

What about his McCain remarks?

It's kind of hard to deny those.

https://www.nj.com/njv_john_piserchia/20...aly_f.html

It is possible the left exploited Trump's lack of specifics on McCain and told a few opportunistic lies to make it sound like Trump would criticize everyone who died or got captured in war.

Some people feel there is reason to believe McCain triggered a fire aboard the carrier USS Forrestal which caused over a hundred deaths.  They theorize his Admiral father saved him from a naval review board.

His actions in starting and supporting the administration which prolonged the second Gulf war suggest that it may not have been his father who protected him, but rather a grassroots gang among the sailors who knew he might be good for a favor.  Perhaps they called in their favor when they wanted government pork in the form of an ongoing war and occupation which required billions in equipment, untold man-hours, bought a lot of farms, and sent many men home to collect disability pensions instead of work, in new Veterans' Administration hospitals which had to be built, staffed, and supported, many in economically depressed areas, and the public could use the emergency rooms for free care before the ACA.

[Harte]

It's reported he said it, so what people there at the time "said he never said that?"

Debunk all 3 comments i presented you with, please, if you can.

Your first two comments are from John Kelly's book and are neither sourced nor confirmed by anyone that was present with the president at the time.
The third is understandable as Trump just running his mouth - long after him going to Vietnam is off the table.

What about his McCain remarks?

It's kind of hard to deny those.

He called "Rubio "Little Marco."
Remember all the things he said about Jeb Bush? Hillary Clinton?
John McCain doesn't get a pass, and neither do many others.

I think Trump plays to his audience, no question about it. 

If they happen to be white supremacists, he will happily hum their tune if it gets him their votes. 

All that aside, Trump is still not getting Greenland. 

You have nothing to support your belief that Trump wants the white supremacist vote.
That's not exactly a large voting bloc, and who are those idiots gonna vote for regardless of what Trump does or says?

As far as Greenland, Trump may not get it, but someone will.

Harte

[Harte]

It's a missile defence system intended to detect and destroy missiles at multiple stages of flight, including the early boost phase.

Something current systems don't reliably do very well, if at all in the boost phase. 

There is speculation that possible future satellites could be armed with beam weaponry.

But that's a pipe dream, harking all the way back to Reagan's "Star Wars" program.

Plus, weaponising space is still illegal as far as im aware.

The satellites will be used for targeting and detection purposes.

Some analysts have estimated the cost to be in the range of trillions of dollars.

Options and possible beam weaponry aside, It certainly won't be cheap and apt to cost an arm and a leg.

Not that it doesn't look rather cool, but I have to ponder that there are better things to spend trillions of dollars on.

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZAfOka_Ek]

Having sovereignty over Greenland wouldn't have any effect on a space-based system. But it's possible to get above atmospheric interference so Greenland could be involved with that.

Harte

[andy06shake]

Having sovereignty over Greenland wouldn't have any effect on a space-based system. But it's possible to get above atmospheric interference so Greenland could be involved with that.

Harte

Sovereignty over Greenland has never been on the table.

Greenland and Denmark are perfectly happy to be involved through NATO where defensive and patrol are concerned. 

And America can build military bases wherever it pleases, within reason.

Ownership, however, no, means no, something Trump has to learn.

What's to stop the next administration from simply cancelling Trump's Golden Dome down to the costs involved? 

See thats the issue with weapons systems and programs that take years impliment or are nothing more than concepts on a screen.

Again, sounds like a great idea, but given the size of your nation, it's a hell of an expensive prospect to consider, considering that a lot of people cannot afford to eat or keep a roof above their heads.

[andy06shake]

Your first two comments are from John Kelly's book and are neither sourced nor confirmed by anyone that was present with the president at the time.
The third is understandable as Trump just running his mouth - long after him going to Vietnam is off the table.
He called "Rubio "Little Marco."
Remember all the things he said about Jeb Bush? Hillary Clinton?
John McCain doesn't get a pass, and neither do many others.
You have nothing to support your belief that Trump wants the white supremacist vote.
That's not exactly a large voting bloc, and who are those idiots gonna vote for regardless of what Trump does or says?

As far as Greenland, Trump may not get it, but someone will.

Harte

That's just justification and acceptance, hardly a debunk.

And if you want to give him a pass thats up to you.

Other people are far less forgiving. 

He certainly wants the White Christian nationalist vote, which is the same thing as the White Supremacist vote.

Trump or the USA won't get Greenland that's been made perfectly clear to him multiple times and on numerous different occasions. 

Can you provide any sort of evidence that somebody else will take green land?

Because it seems to me that would involve triggering Article 5.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nana.13135
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...hey-be-his

[andy06shake]

https://www.nj.com/njv_john_piserchia/20...aly_f.html

It is possible the left exploited Trump's lack of specifics on McCain and told a few opportunistic lies to make it sound like Trump would criticize everyone who died or got captured in war.

Some people feel there is reason to believe McCain triggered a fire aboard the carrier USS Forrestal which caused over a hundred deaths.  They theorize his Admiral father saved him from a naval review board.

His actions in starting and supporting the administration which prolonged the second Gulf war suggest that it may not have been his father who protected him, but rather a grassroots gang among the sailors who knew he might be good for a favor.  Perhaps they called in their favor when they wanted government pork in the form of an ongoing war and occupation which required billions in equipment, untold man-hours, bought a lot of farms, and sent many men home to collect disability pensions instead of work, in new Veterans' Administration hospitals which had to be built, staffed, and supported, many in economically depressed areas, and the public could use the emergency rooms for free care before the ACA.

As far as im aware or can establish, multiple investigations found no proof McCain caused the USS Forrestal fire.

It's been debunked by Navy records and eyewitness accounts.

And policy support for the Iraq War was shared by hundreds of politicians, not covert debts.

Large wars create economic effects Solvedit.

But that does not imply they were prolonged to reward veterans or contractors.

What's the old saying "Correlation is not causation."

[Solvedit]

As far as im aware or can establish, multiple investigations found no proof McCain caused the USS Forrestal fire.

It's been debunked by Navy records and eyewitness accounts.

I'd say it remains plenty controversial. Mainstream TV shows have covered it from the angle that he may have caused it. "Not proven" is not "debunked."  But that's not the point.

The point is leftists may have opportunistically extrapolated Trump's remarks about a controversial figure to make it sound like he dumps on all veterans. 
 

And policy support for the Iraq War was shared by hundreds of politicians, not covert debts.

The leaders of policy support are all-important since politics involves coalitions.  "Shared by hundreds of politicians" is not the same as definitely "not covert debts."  How does support disprove the leaders couldn't be beholden?  The knowledge that some areas of the country could use a little government pork is also "shared by hundreds of politicians."
 

Large wars create economic effects Solvedit.

Surely what every politician learns in Politics 101, wouldn't you say, Andy06Shake?

But that does not imply they were prolonged to reward veterans or contractors.

I'd say it doesn't prove they were prolonged to reward veterans or contractors or areas which historically produce veterans and military contractors. But you're smoking crack if you think it doesn't imply it may be so.

What's the old saying "Correlation is not causation."

I never claimed there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt because of correlation.

Correlation can be mighty suspicious.

[andy06shake]

I'd say it remains plenty controversial. Mainstream TV shows have covered it from the angle that he may have caused it. "Not proven" is not "debunked."  But that's not the point.

The point is leftists may have opportunistically extrapolated Trump's remarks about a controversial figure to make it sound like he dumps on all veterans. 
 

The leaders of policy support are all-important since politics involves coalitions.  "Shared by hundreds of politicians" is not the same as definitely "not covert debts."  How does support disprove the leaders couldn't be beholden?  The knowledge that some areas of the country could use a little government pork is also "shared by hundreds of politicians."
 

Surely what every politician learns in Politics 101, wouldn't you say, Andy06Shake?

I'd say it doesn't prove they were prolonged to reward veterans or contractors or areas which historically produce veterans and military contractors. But you're smoking crack if you think it doesn't imply it may be so.
I never claimed there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt because of correlation.

Correlation can be mighty suspicious.

Which mainstream TV shows?

As to what politicians learn, im apt to ponder that equates to something along the lines of the higher they climb the career ladder, the more slippery and corrupt it gets. 

And that's all sides of the political aisle. 

[Kurokage]

Having sovereignty over Greenland wouldn't have any effect on a space-based system. But it's possible to get above atmospheric interference so Greenland could be involved with that.

Harte

NATO, Greenland and Denmark have told Trump No. So it's not going to happen, his backdown is public knowledge, he's having to settle with an agreement of a lease that's already in place, and has been for a while now.