A Hypothetical U.S. Military Invasion of Greenland – Grand Strategy, Strategy, Operations, and Tactics: A National Security Briefing

Grand Strategy – The “Why” Behind a U.S. Invasion of Greenland

The prospect of a U.S. military invasion of Greenland under President Trump, though extreme, is rooted in tangible geopolitical and economic motivations. Greenland, an autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, has long been coveted due to its immense strategic value, natural resources, and critical Arctic positioning. Analyzing this scenario from a grand strategic perspective involves understanding the high-level, long-term objectives that would drive such a bold move by the United States.

Geopolitical Control of the Arctic
The Arctic is rapidly emerging as a key geopolitical battleground due to climate change. As polar ice caps melt, previously inaccessible sea routes are becoming viable for commercial and military navigation. The Northwest Passage, which runs through Arctic waters north of Canada and Greenland, could significantly shorten shipping routes between Asia, Europe, and North America. Securing Greenland would give the U.S. unparalleled control over these Arctic shipping lanes, effectively dominating a region where Russian and Chinese influence is growing.

Resource Acquisition and Economic Gain

Greenland is estimated to hold significant deposits of rare earth minerals, critical for modern technologies including electronics, renewable energy systems, and military hardware. Additionally, the island is believed to possess untapped reserves of oil, natural gas, and precious metals. A U.S. invasion would aim to monopolize these resources, reducing American dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly China, which currently dominates the rare earth market.

Military Strategic Advantage
Greenland’s proximity to both North America and Europe makes it a prime location for military installations. Thule Air Base, already operated by the U.S. Air Force, provides early-warning missile defense capabilities and a vital Arctic outpost. An invasion would allow the U.S. to expand its military presence, creating a fortress-like Arctic bastion capable of projecting power across the northern hemisphere, deterring Russian military ambitions, and safeguarding American interests.

Great Power Competition and Global Influence

In the context of great power rivalry, particularly with China and Russia, securing Greenland would deliver a symbolic and strategic blow to both adversaries. It would disrupt Chinese investment in Arctic infrastructure and undermine Russia’s Arctic military strategy, which heavily relies on its Northern Fleet and Arctic bases. For President Trump, an invasion could also serve domestic political purposes, rallying nationalist sentiment, demonstrating global dominance, and distracting from domestic controversies.

Challenges and Risks at the Grand Strategic Level

However, the grand strategy behind such an invasion would not be without significant risks:

NATO Backlash: Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, falls under NATO’s collective defense umbrella. An invasion would likely trigger Article 5, obligating NATO members to come to Denmark’s defense.
International Condemnation: A unilateral U.S. invasion would isolate America diplomatically, drawing condemnation from allies and adversaries alike, potentially leading to economic sanctions and reduced global influence.
Logistical Nightmares: Greenland’s harsh Arctic environment poses severe logistical challenges for military operations, including supply chain management, troop sustainment, and equipment functionality in extreme cold.
Prolonged Occupation and Insurgency: Even after a successful invasion, holding Greenland would require a prolonged military presence. Greenland’s small but resilient population, supported by Danish and NATO-backed insurgencies, could transform the island into a costly and prolonged military quagmire.

This grand strategic analysis sets the stage for understanding the more detailed military strategies, operational considerations, and tactical maneuvers that would define a hypothetical U.S. invasion of Greenland.

Strategy – Crafting the Blueprint for a U.S. Invasion of Greenland

While grand strategy outlines the “why,” military strategy focuses on the “how”—the overarching plan to achieve strategic objectives through coordinated military, political, and economic actions. A U.S. invasion of Greenland would necessitate a complex, multi-layered strategy involving diplomatic maneuvering, economic leverage, and precise military operations.

Diplomatic and Political Strategy

Before deploying military forces, the U.S. would likely engage in a series of diplomatic and political actions designed to weaken Denmark’s position, divide NATO, and minimize global backlash.

Political Destabilization: The U.S. could exploit existing political fractures within the Kingdom of Denmark by encouraging Greenlandic independence movements. Greenland’s population has long expressed a desire for greater autonomy, and the U.S. could clandestinely support pro-independence factions through financial aid, propaganda, and promises of economic investment post-invasion.
Undermining NATO Unity: NATO’s cohesion is often tested by internal divisions, particularly regarding defense spending and military commitments. The U.S. could leverage these divisions by applying economic and political pressure on NATO members, particularly those with significant economic ties to the U.S., to prevent a unified response.
Economic Coercion: As the world’s largest economy, the U.S. could threaten Denmark with economic sanctions, trade embargoes, and diplomatic isolation, creating internal pressure within Denmark to avoid direct military confrontation.

Military Strategy

The military strategy for a U.S. invasion of Greenland would focus on achieving rapid dominance, neutralizing Danish defenses, and establishing control before international forces could mobilize a response. Key strategic options might include:

Preemptive Strikes on Danish Military Assets: Before initiating the invasion, U.S. cyber forces would likely target Danish military communications, air defense systems, and logistical networks to cripple Denmark’s ability to coordinate a defense. Concurrently, U.S. naval and air forces could launch precision strikes on Danish naval vessels, airbases, and military installations both in Denmark and Greenland.
Rapid Deployment and Seizure of Key Locations: The initial military phase would involve rapid airborne and amphibious assaults to seize key locations, including Nuuk (the capital), Thule Air Base, and major ports and airfields. Speed would be critical to prevent Denmark and NATO from reinforcing Greenland.
Naval Blockade and Air Superiority: U.S. naval forces, particularly the Second Fleet, would establish a blockade around Greenland to prevent Danish or NATO reinforcements. Simultaneously, U.S. air forces would establish air superiority, ensuring uncontested control of Greenland’s airspace.

Hybrid Warfare Approach

Given the complexities of Arctic warfare, the U.S. might employ a hybrid warfare strategy, blending conventional military operations with covert actions, cyber warfare, and psychological operations. This could include:

Information Warfare: The U.S. would likely flood Greenlandic and global media with narratives justifying the invasion, emphasizing economic development, security, and independence for Greenlanders.
Covert Operations: U.S. special forces could infiltrate Greenland ahead of the main invasion, sabotaging infrastructure, gathering intelligence, and fostering local support.
Economic Warfare: Targeted sanctions against Denmark, economic incentives for Greenland, and disruption of Danish trade routes would be key economic levers.

Denmark’s Strategic Response

Denmark, despite its smaller military, would have strategic options to counter a U.S. invasion, including:

Invoking NATO’s Article 5: Denmark’s primary strategic move would be to invoke NATO’s collective defense clause, potentially drawing European powers into the conflict.
Asymmetric Warfare: Recognizing the imbalance in conventional forces, Denmark could resort to asymmetric warfare tactics, including sabotage, cyber attacks, and guerrilla resistance.
Leveraging International Law and Diplomacy: Denmark could rally international support through the United Nations, European Union, and other international bodies, seeking economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the U.S.

Strategic Risks for the U.S.

Escalation into Global Conflict: An invasion could escalate into a broader NATO-U.S. war, involving major powers like the UK, France, and Germany.
Economic Blowback: Sanctions and trade disruptions could harm the U.S. economy.
Prolonged Occupation: Holding Greenland would require significant military resources and could result in prolonged insurgency.

This strategic blueprint sets the foundation for operational planning, detailing the deployment, logistics, and military engagements necessary for a U.S. invasion of Greenland.

Operational Planning – Executing the U.S. Invasion of Greenland

Operational planning translates strategy into concrete military actions, detailing how forces will be deployed, sustained, and coordinated across land, sea, and air. A U.S. invasion of Greenland would demand meticulous operational planning due to the harsh Arctic environment, limited infrastructure, and the potential for rapid NATO intervention.

Key Operational Objectives

Establish Initial Control of Strategic Locations:
- Thule Air Base: Already under U.S. control, Thule would serve as the primary logistical hub for Arctic operations. Securing and expanding Thule’s capacity would be the first operational priority.
- Nuuk (Capital City): Capturing Nuuk would be essential for political control, neutralizing Danish governance, and establishing a U.S. administrative presence.
- Ports and Airfields: Greenland’s limited infrastructure makes every port and airfield critical. U.S. forces would target key locations such as Kangerlussuaq Airport, Sisimiut, and Qaqortoq.

2. Neutralize Danish Military Presence:

Danish forces in Greenland are minimal, consisting primarily of the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol and small naval detachments. The U.S. would aim to neutralize these forces swiftly to prevent prolonged resistance.

3. Secure Arctic Air and Sea Lanes:

The U.S. Navy’s Second Fleet, supported by the U.S. Coast Guard, would establish naval dominance, preventing Danish reinforcements from Europe.
The U.S. Air Force would establish Arctic air superiority through F-35 squadrons, B-2 bombers, and aerial refueling tankers based in Thule and Iceland.

Forces and Resources Deployed

U.S. Navy: Carrier Strike Groups would provide air cover, while amphibious assault ships (e.g., USS Wasp, USS America) would deploy Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs). Attack submarines would enforce blockades and conduct covert strikes.
U.S. Air Force: B-2 Spirit bombers for strategic strikes, C-17 Globemasters for troop and equipment transport, and MQ-9 Reaper drones for reconnaissance and precision strikes.
U.S. Army: The 10th Mountain Division, renowned for cold-weather warfare, would serve as the primary ground force, supported by the 82nd Airborne Division for rapid deployment.
U.S. Marine Corps: Amphibious assault units would secure coastal cities, while Marine reconnaissance teams would conduct inland raids and sabotage.
Special Operations Forces: Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and Delta Force would infiltrate ahead of the main invasion, targeting Danish command centers, disrupting communications, and securing key infrastructure.

Logistics and Supply Chain Considerations

The Arctic environment presents formidable logistical challenges:

Harsh Weather: Extreme cold, high winds, and snowstorms would affect troop movements, equipment functionality, and supply chains.
Limited Infrastructure: Greenland’s vast, rugged terrain and lack of road networks would require reliance on airlift, sealift, and over-the-snow vehicles.
Supply Hubs: Thule Air Base, Keflavik Air Base in Iceland, and naval supply ships would form the backbone of the U.S. supply chain, delivering food, fuel, ammunition, and medical supplies.

Phases of the Operational Campaign

Phase 1: Pre-Invasion Preparations
- Cyber attacks on Danish military and governmental networks.
- Deployment of reconnaissance drones and satellites for intelligence gathering.
- Infiltration by Special Operations Forces to sabotage infrastructure and prepare landing zones.
Phase 2: Initial Invasion
- Airborne Assaults: The 82nd Airborne would parachute into Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq, securing airports for follow-on forces.
- Amphibious Landings: Marines would conduct beach landings near major ports, overwhelming local defenses.
- Naval and Air Superiority: The U.S. Navy would blockade Greenland’s waters, while Air Force jets neutralize any Danish air presence.
Phase 3: Consolidation and Expansion
- Establish forward operating bases across Greenland.
- Deploy Army units for inland operations and securing remote settlements.
- Implement a military administration, establishing U.S. governance while suppressing potential insurgencies.
Phase 4: Defense Against Counterattacks
- Fortify key locations with anti-air and anti-ship defenses.
- Prepare for potential NATO intervention by positioning rapid reaction forces.

Operational Risks and Challenges

Arctic Environment: Severe cold could immobilize equipment, impact troop morale, and disrupt supply lines.
NATO Intervention: Rapid deployment of European forces could threaten U.S. positions, leading to prolonged conflict.
Insurgency and Resistance: Greenlandic and Danish forces, potentially supported by NATO, could engage in guerrilla warfare, targeting U.S. supply lines and installations.

The operational planning stage sets the foundation for tactical engagements, detailing the specific battles, troop movements, and combat scenarios that would unfold during a U.S. invasion of Greenland.

Tactical Engagements – On the Ground in Greenland

Tactical engagements represent the execution of operational plans through specific battles, skirmishes, and military maneuvers. Given Greenland’s unique Arctic environment and limited infrastructure, tactical planning would emphasize rapid deployment, precision strikes, and adaptability in extreme conditions.

Initial Tactical Movements

Airborne Assault on Nuuk:
- The 82nd Airborne Division would execute a nighttime drop onto Nuuk, Greenland’s capital. Paratroopers, equipped with cold-weather gear and lightweight weapons, would seize control of Nuuk’s airport, government buildings, and communication hubs.
- Special Forces units already embedded in Nuuk would neutralize key figures in Danish administration, disrupt local defenses, and guide airborne troops to strategic targets.
Amphibious Landings on Coastal Cities:
- U.S. Marines, launched from amphibious assault ships, would storm key coastal cities such as Sisimiut and Qaqortoq. Using hovercrafts, amphibious vehicles, and helicopters, the Marines would swiftly overwhelm local defenses, securing ports for follow-on forces and supply shipments.
Sabotage and Special Operations:
- Navy SEAL teams would infiltrate critical infrastructure sites, including power stations, fuel depots, and communication lines, crippling Danish logistical capabilities.
- Green Berets would organize Greenlandic locals sympathetic to U.S. control, forming militias to assist in maintaining order and identifying Danish resistance fighters.

Urban Combat in Nuuk and Other Settlements

While Greenland’s cities are small by global standards, urban combat would still pose significant challenges. Tactical operations would focus on:

Securing Key Buildings: Rapid assaults on government offices, police stations, and military barracks would neutralize Danish authority.
Managing Civilian Populations: U.S. forces would establish curfews, checkpoints, and patrols to prevent civil unrest and detect insurgents.
Countering Danish Guerrilla Tactics: Danish forces, familiar with the terrain, might employ hit-and-run tactics, sniper attacks, and sabotage. U.S. response teams would conduct aggressive counterinsurgency operations, utilizing drones, thermal imaging, and rapid-reaction squads.

Combat in Greenland’s Harsh Terrain

Mountain and Arctic Warfare: The 10th Mountain Division, trained for cold-weather combat, would conduct long-range patrols, establish defensive outposts, and engage Danish forces hiding in remote areas.
Use of Arctic Vehicles: Snowmobiles, tracked vehicles, and sleds would provide mobility across Greenland’s icy terrain.
Aerial Support: Apache helicopters and AC-130 gunships would provide close air support, while MQ-9 Reaper drones conduct reconnaissance and precision strikes.

Naval and Air Tactical Operations

Naval Blockade Enforcement: U.S. Navy destroyers and submarines would patrol Greenland’s waters, intercepting Danish supply ships and preventing reinforcements from reaching the island.
Air Superiority Patrols: F-35 fighter jets, operating from Thule Air Base and U.S. carriers, would conduct regular patrols, intercepting any Danish or NATO aircraft attempting to breach Greenland’s airspace.
Submarine Warfare: U.S. attack submarines would hunt Danish submarines, laying mines in key shipping lanes to prevent Danish or NATO access.

Potential Danish and NATO Tactical Responses

Danish Guerrilla Warfare: Small, mobile units of Danish soldiers, trained in Arctic survival, would conduct ambushes, sabotage, and reconnaissance against U.S. forces.
NATO Special Operations: Elite units from the UK’s SAS, Germany’s KSK, and France’s GIGN could be deployed covertly to assist Danish resistance fighters, gather intelligence, and conduct high-value target raids against U.S. commanders and supply depots.
Cyber Warfare: NATO cyber units could disrupt U.S. communications, GPS systems, and supply chains, creating confusion and logistical challenges for U.S. forces.

Tactical Risks and Mitigation

Logistical Vulnerabilities: Greenland’s vast, icy terrain makes supply lines vulnerable to disruption. U.S. forces would establish multiple supply depots, use aerial resupply methods, and deploy quick-reaction forces to secure supply routes.
Civilian Resistance: While Greenland’s population is small, any civilian uprising could complicate U.S. operations. Psychological operations, propaganda campaigns, and humanitarian aid efforts would aim to win civilian support or, at minimum, prevent active resistance.
NATO Counter-Intervention: The greatest tactical threat would be rapid NATO intervention. U.S. forces would prepare contingency plans, including defensive fortifications, rapid deployment of reinforcements, and preemptive strikes on NATO staging areas (such as bases in Iceland and the UK).

The tactical level provides a granular view of how U.S. forces would engage in combat, secure territory, and manage resistance during an invasion of Greenland. However, the long-term feasibility of such an occupation presents its own set of challenges.

Sustaining the Occupation – Post-Invasion Challenges and Governance

While a successful U.S. invasion could secure Greenland militarily, the long-term occupation and governance of the island would present formidable challenges. Sustaining control over Greenland would require significant military, economic, and political efforts, all while managing international backlash, potential insurgency, and the harsh Arctic environment.

Establishing Governance and Control

Military Administration: Immediately following the invasion, Greenland would be placed under U.S. military administration. A senior U.S. military official, likely from U.S. Northern Command, would serve as the de facto governor, overseeing security, law enforcement, and essential services.
Civilian Governance Transition: The U.S. would likely aim to establish a civilian government loyal to American interests. Greenlandic political leaders supportive of U.S. control would be promoted, while Danish loyalists would be detained or exiled.
Economic Development as a Tool of Control: Massive U.S. investment in Greenland’s infrastructure, including ports, airports, and resource extraction industries, would be used to gain the support of the local population. Job creation, modern amenities, and economic incentives would serve to pacify dissent.

Military Presence and Security Operations

Permanent Military Bases: In addition to Thule Air Base, the U.S. would construct new military bases along Greenland’s coast and interior. These bases would house rapid reaction forces, surveillance systems, and Arctic warfare units.
Counterinsurgency Operations: U.S. forces would conduct regular patrols, establish checkpoints, and utilize advanced surveillance technology to detect and neutralize insurgent activities.
Special Forces Deployment: U.S. Special Forces would remain active, conducting raids against insurgent cells, training local militias loyal to the U.S., and gathering intelligence on resistance movements.

Logistical Sustainment

Supply Chains: Maintaining supply lines from the continental U.S. would be critical. Naval convoys, airlift operations, and pre-positioned supply depots would ensure a steady flow of food, fuel, ammunition, and medical supplies.
Arctic Infrastructure Development: The U.S. would invest in building roads, ports, and airfields across Greenland to enhance mobility, supply distribution, and rapid deployment capabilities.
Technological Support: Advanced communication networks, satellite coverage, and drone surveillance would be essential for coordinating operations, gathering intelligence, and maintaining situational awareness.

International and Domestic Backlash

NATO and European Response: The invasion would likely fracture U.S.-NATO relations, leading to economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and potential military confrontations. European powers might covertly support Greenlandic insurgents, supply weapons, and conduct sabotage operations.
United Nations Condemnation: The U.N. would likely condemn the invasion, with resolutions calling for U.S. withdrawal. However, the U.S. could veto any binding resolutions through its permanent seat on the Security Council.
Domestic Opposition in the U.S.: While some Americans might support the invasion due to perceived economic and strategic benefits, others would criticize the violation of international law, the cost of military occupation, and the risk of prolonged conflict. Anti-war protests, political opposition, and legal challenges could arise domestically.

Potential for Prolonged Insurgency

Greenlandic Resistance: While Greenland’s population is small, prolonged U.S. occupation could foster resentment and insurgency. Greenlandic fighters, supported by Danish and NATO elements, could engage in sabotage, ambushes, and propaganda warfare.
Danish Support for Insurgency: Denmark could covertly supply arms, funding, and intelligence to insurgent groups, using its extensive knowledge of Greenland’s terrain and population to undermine U.S. control.
NATO Covert Operations: Special operations units from NATO countries could infiltrate Greenland, conducting raids, gathering intelligence, and training insurgents, similar to Cold War-era proxy conflicts.

Economic and Resource Exploitation

Resource Extraction: The U.S. would rapidly exploit Greenland’s natural resources, including rare earth minerals, oil, and natural gas. American companies would be granted lucrative contracts, with profits potentially offsetting the cost of military occupation.
Environmental Impact and Local Opposition: Large-scale resource extraction could lead to environmental degradation, further fueling local opposition and international criticism. Managing these environmental concerns would be a secondary priority to maintaining control and extracting resources.

Exit Strategy and Long-Term Viability

U.S. Long-Term Goals: The U.S. would aim to integrate Greenland into its sphere of influence permanently, potentially offering statehood or territory status to justify continued occupation.
Potential Withdrawal: If the costs of occupation became unsustainable, the U.S. might negotiate a withdrawal in exchange for long-term economic and military rights in Greenland.
Risk of Protracted Conflict: Without clear exit strategies, the U.S. risks becoming entangled in a prolonged Arctic conflict, draining resources and damaging international standing.

Sustaining the occupation of Greenland would be an immense challenge, requiring continuous military, economic, and political efforts. The final section will explore the long-term geopolitical implications, potential outcomes, and strategic lessons from this hypothetical scenario.

Long-Term Geopolitical Implications and Strategic Lessons

A U.S. invasion of Greenland would not only reshape Arctic geopolitics but also have far-reaching consequences for international relations, military strategy, and global power dynamics. This final section explores potential outcomes, strategic lessons, and the broader impact of such an unprecedented military action.

Global Geopolitical Impact

Arctic Geopolitics Redefined: U.S. control over Greenland would drastically shift the balance of power in the Arctic. Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline and military presence, would view this as a direct threat, potentially increasing its own military investments and presence in the region. China, which has pursued Arctic access through investments in Greenland and Iceland, would be effectively shut out, prompting diplomatic and economic retaliation.
NATO’s Future in Question: An invasion of a NATO member’s territory could fracture the alliance beyond repair. While some NATO members might choose to confront the U.S. militarily, others may hesitate due to economic dependencies on the U.S. This could lead to a weakened, divided NATO or even the alliance’s dissolution, fundamentally altering Western security architecture.
European Militarization: Europe, particularly nations like Germany, France, and the UK, might respond by significantly increasing defense spending, developing independent military capabilities, and forming new security alliances, possibly excluding the U.S.

Economic Consequences

Sanctions and Trade Wars: The invasion would likely trigger widespread economic sanctions against the U.S., disrupting global trade and potentially leading to a prolonged economic downturn. The U.S. economy, heavily reliant on global trade, could face severe repercussions, including inflation, unemployment, and market instability.
Resource Windfall vs. Economic Drain: While Greenland’s resources could provide economic benefits, the costs of invasion, occupation, and international backlash might outweigh these gains, leading to a net economic loss for the U.S.
Global Supply Chain Disruption: Sanctions, military blockades, and disrupted Arctic shipping lanes could impact global supply chains, particularly in sectors reliant on Arctic resources, maritime shipping, and transatlantic trade.

Military and Strategic Lessons

Arctic Warfare Innovations: A Greenland invasion would drive advancements in Arctic warfare tactics, equipment, and logistics, influencing future military operations in polar regions. Lessons learned could be applied to other cold-weather theaters, including potential future conflicts in the Arctic, Antarctica, and mountainous regions.
Challenges of Large-Scale Occupation: The logistical, environmental, and political challenges faced during the Greenland occupation would underscore the difficulties of sustaining large-scale military operations in hostile environments, influencing future U.S. military planning and doctrine.
Hybrid and Asymmetric Warfare: The likely use of hybrid warfare tactics, including cyber warfare, information operations, and covert actions, would highlight the increasing importance of non-conventional warfare in modern conflicts.

Potential Long-Term Outcomes

Protracted Conflict and Insurgency: A prolonged insurgency in Greenland, supported by Denmark, NATO, and other global powers, could mirror historical conflicts like the Soviet-Afghan War or the U.S. occupation of Iraq, leading to significant U.S. casualties, economic drain, and political fallout.
U.S. Isolationism or Expansionism: Depending on the outcome, the invasion could push the U.S. towards increased isolationism, focusing on domestic stability and reducing foreign interventions, or embolden further expansionist policies, leveraging military power to secure strategic interests globally.
Greenlandic Independence or U.S. Annexation: Long-term governance could result in Greenland becoming a U.S. territory, similar to Puerto Rico, or achieving full independence under U.S. protection, depending on political dynamics, local sentiment, and international pressure.

Strategic Recommendations for Future Conflicts

Invest in Arctic Capabilities: Future U.S. military investments should focus on Arctic-capable forces, equipment, and infrastructure to ensure readiness for potential conflicts in polar regions.
Strengthen Alliances and Diplomacy: Maintaining strong alliances and diplomatic relations is critical to avoid isolation and secure support during international crises.
Prepare for Hybrid Warfare: Developing comprehensive hybrid warfare strategies, including cyber defense, information operations, and covert actions, is essential for modern military operations.

Conclusion

A U.S. invasion of Greenland under President Trump, while highly speculative, illustrates the complex interplay of grand strategy, military operations, and geopolitical consequences in modern warfare. Such an action would not only challenge U.S. military capabilities but also reshape global power dynamics, potentially leading to prolonged conflict, economic turmoil, and shifting alliances. The Arctic, once a remote and desolate region, is emerging as a critical battleground for future geopolitical struggles, making strategic planning and preparedness in this region more important than ever.

Order of Battle for U.S. Invasion of Greenland Scenario

Phase 1: Invasion Phase – Order of Battle

United States Armed Forces

U.S. Navy (Arctic Maritime Operations)

Second Fleet:
- 1x Carrier Strike Group (USS Gerald R. Ford or USS Harry S. Truman) with ~70 aircraft (F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, E-2D Hawkeyes, EA-18G Growlers).
- 2x Amphibious Ready Groups (USS Wasp and USS America) carrying Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs).
- 4x Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for air defense and missile strikes.
- 2x Ticonderoga-class cruisers for naval gunfire support and air defense.
- 2x Virginia-class attack submarines for undersea warfare and blockade enforcement.

U.S. Air Force (Air Superiority and Strategic Strikes)

2x B-2 Spirit bombers from Whiteman AFB for initial stealth strikes.
4x B-52 Stratofortress bombers from Barksdale AFB for heavy bombing and mine-laying.
3x squadrons of F-35A Lightning II (48 aircraft total) from Eielson AFB, Alaska.
2x squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles (32 aircraft total) from RAF Lakenheath, UK.
1x squadron of AC-130 gunships for close air support.
1x squadron of MQ-9 Reaper drones for ISR and precision strikes.

U.S. Army (Ground Invasion Forces)

10th Mountain Division (approx. 15,000 troops), specializing in cold-weather warfare.
82nd Airborne Division (approx. 8,000 paratroopers) for rapid deployment into Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq.
1x Stryker Brigade Combat Team for mobile ground operations and urban combat.

U.S. Marine Corps

2x Marine Expeditionary Units (7,500 troops total), including amphibious assault vehicles, CH-53 helicopters, and MV-22 Ospreys for vertical envelopment.

U.S. Special Operations Forces

1x Battalion of Navy SEALs for coastal sabotage and infiltration.
1x Battalion of Green Berets for unconventional warfare and local militia organization.
Delta Force operatives for high-value target raids.

Danish Armed Forces

Royal Danish Navy

3x Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates (air defense, anti-ship, and ASW capabilities).
2x Thetis-class patrol vessels for Arctic operations.
2x Knud Rasmussen-class Arctic patrol vessels (already stationed near Greenland).

Royal Danish Air Force

1x squadron of F-16 Fighting Falcons (~18 aircraft), deployable from Denmark with mid-air refueling.
2x C-130J Super Hercules for logistics and troop transport.

Danish Army (Deployed to Greenland)

Sirius Dog Sled Patrol (~30 personnel for Arctic reconnaissance).
Joint Arctic Command (~150 personnel stationed in Greenland, including logistics, communications, and support staff).
1x company of Danish infantry (approx. 120 troops) deployable from Denmark within 72 hours.

Greenlandic Militia (Hypothetical)

Ad hoc militia formed from Greenlandic civilians, possibly 500-1,000 personnel initially, with small arms and knowledge of local terrain.

Casualty and Material Loss Estimates (Invasion Phase)

U.S. Forces:

Estimated casualties: ~1,200-1,500 (KIA, WIA, MIA).
Material losses: 1-2 aircraft (due to weather or Danish resistance), 1-2 naval vessels (minor damage), limited ground equipment losses.

Danish/Greenlandic Forces:

Estimated casualties: ~2,500-3,000 (KIA, WIA, POW).
Material losses: Most naval vessels neutralized, majority of aircraft destroyed, infrastructure severely damaged.

Phase 2: Insurgency/Occupation Phase – Order of Battle

Once the initial invasion concludes, the conflict transitions to a prolonged insurgency and occupation phase. U.S. forces would shift from high-intensity combat to counterinsurgency operations, while Danish and Greenlandic forces (supported covertly by NATO allies) would resort to guerrilla tactics, sabotage, and asymmetric warfare.

United States Armed Forces (Occupation Phase)

U.S. Army

10th Mountain Division remains as the primary occupation force (~12,000 troops post-invasion).
173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (~4,000 troops) deployed for rapid response to insurgent attacks.
1x Stryker Brigade Combat Team (~4,500 troops) for mobile operations and patrolling remote areas.

U.S. Marine Corps

1x Marine Expeditionary Unit (~3,000 Marines) retained for coastal defense and rapid deployment.

U.S. Special Operations Forces

1x Battalion of Green Berets for counterinsurgency training and advising Greenlandic collaborators.
Navy SEAL teams for high-value target elimination and sabotage prevention.

U.S. Air Force

Persistent air patrols using MQ-9 Reaper drones for ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance).
2x squadrons of A-10 Thunderbolt IIs for close air support against insurgent positions.
AC-130 gunships for night operations and suppression of insurgent strongholds.

U.S. Navy

1x Amphibious Ready Group on station for rapid reinforcement.
Virginia-class submarines for intelligence gathering and supply route interdiction.

Danish Resistance and Greenlandic Insurgents

Danish Covert Forces

Deployable Special Operations Command (SOF) units like Jaeger Corps and Frogman Corps (~200 personnel operating covertly).
Danish military advisors embedded with Greenlandic insurgent cells.

Greenlandic Insurgents

Estimated growth to ~5,000-7,000 fighters drawn from local population, trained by Danish and NATO SOF.
Armed with small arms, IEDs, and light anti-tank weapons supplied covertly by NATO members (potentially UK SAS, German KSK, and Canadian JTF2).
Operating in remote mountainous and icy terrain, using guerrilla tactics such as ambushes, sabotage of supply lines, and hit-and-run raids on U.S. installations.

NATO Covert Support

Limited air and sea supply missions to insurgents via submarines and long-range airdrops.
Cyber warfare units disrupting U.S. communications and logistics.

Casualty and Material Loss Estimates (Insurgency/Occupation Phase)

U.S. Forces:

Estimated casualties over 12-18 months: ~5,000-7,500 (KIA, WIA, PTSD-related discharges).
Material losses: Multiple vehicles (Strykers, MRAPs) lost to IEDs, ~10-15 aircraft damaged or destroyed (mainly drones and helicopters).
Economic cost: Estimated $80-120 billion annually for occupation and counterinsurgency operations.

Danish/Greenlandic Insurgents:

Estimated casualties: ~3,000-5,000 insurgents killed or captured, but insurgency sustained through NATO support.
Material losses: Continuous depletion of equipment, replenished by covert NATO supply lines.

NATO Support:

Minimal direct casualties, but potential for escalation if U.S. detects and retaliates against NATO covert operations.

This order of battle highlights the sheer scale of military resources required for a U.S. invasion and occupation of Greenland, along with the inevitable human and material costs. A prolonged insurgency would strain U.S. resources, risk diplomatic isolation, and likely result in significant casualties on both sides, drawing historical parallels to past occupation struggles in hostile environments.