Let's Invade Greenland and Panama! Inside America’s Most Awkward Invasion Scenarios

Wait… Did We Just Admit to Invasion Plans?

SENAFRONT, the National Border Service of Panama, attend the Fuerzas Comando 24 (FC24) opening ceremony in Cerro Tigre, Panama, May 13, 2024. (US Army National Guard photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jennifer Reynolds / 196th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment) Public domain

In what can only be described as the most casually imperial moment on Capitol Hill since the Spanish-American War, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just told Congress, on the record, that the Pentagon has detailed contingency plans to invade Greenland and Panama.

Yes, Greenland. Yes, Panama. And yes, he said it with a straight face.

At a chaotic, occasionally surreal House Armed Services Committee hearing, Hegseth dodged questions like Neo in The Matrix, especially when pressed about using Signal chats to discuss strike operations in Yemen… with his family.

But the real showstopper came when Rep. Adam Smith asked a deceptively simple question: Do we have plans to take Greenland or Panama by force, if necessary?

Hegseth, clearly proud of his “I’m just here to plan for everything” mantra, said yes, multiple times.

Cue the sound of every allied ambassador facepalming in unison.

Now, to be fair, the Pentagon has contingency plans for just about everything. We probably have a playbook for what to do if Canada invades Buffalo, (God only knows why they would want that shithole).

But there’s a big difference between planning quietly and blurting it out during a high-profile hearing while dodging classified intel leaks and culture war landmines.

So, let’s run with this.

If the United States were to roll tanks into Nuuk or seize the Panama Canal, what would that actually look like? What does it take to occupy a glacier or take back a chokepoint without kicking off World War III?

Let’s walk through the scenarios, military, political, logistical, and why neither of these invasions would end the way the Pentagon might hope.

Strap in: it’s not 1898 anymore.

The Greenland Gambit

What Happens If the US Tries to Invade the World’s Largest Ice Cube

This isn’t just some frozen fantasy from a bored State Department intern. The US has been eyeing Greenland like a strategic timeshare since at least 1867, and in 1946, President Truman actually offered Denmark $100 million for it; real cash, not a "we'll stabilize your region" IOU.

They politely declined. Fast forward to 2019, and President Trump floated the idea again, sparking a global reaction somewhere between confusion and laughter. But beneath the MAGA memes and Danish eye-rolls lies a real strategic obsession.

Why the fixation? Three reasons: geography, minerals, and the melting Arctic.

First, location. Greenland sits like a big, icy chess piece between North America, Europe, and Russia. If you're planning missile defense, long-range radar coverage, or just want to keep an eye on who’s planting flags in the Arctic Circle, Greenland is your high ground. Thule Air Base, built during the Cold War, still serves as a key US outpost for missile warning and space surveillance.

Second, the island is resource-rich. Beneath its icy surface are deposits of rare earth minerals, uranium, and oil. As the ice cap recedes thanks to climate change (we're not solving that one anytime soon), access to these materials becomes a tempting prospect, particularly as China corners the rare earth market.

Third, the Arctic is opening up. Like it or not, we’re entering the age of the Northwest Passage. Climate change has turned what used to be a glacier-blocked Penthouse forum fantasy into a viable shipping lane. Whoever controls Greenland controls Arctic maritime traffic. That’s power projection; that’s logistics domination.

Greenland is becoming prime real estate in the New Cold War, except this time, instead of Berlin, the flashpoint is a polar island populated by 56,000 people, most of whom want to be left alone.

How Would a US Invasion of Greenland Actually Work?

Let’s pretend Hegseth stops dodging and says the quiet part even louder. The US wants Greenland, and we’re not asking this time. What’s the playbook?

Step one: Thule Air Base. Already home to US Space Force operations and a legacy of Cold War radar stations, this would be our forward operating base. It’s got a runway long enough to land C-17s, and enough infrastructure to house a large expeditionary force. Invasion by invitation? Not exactly. But it saves you the trouble of staging from scratch.

Step two: airborne and amphibious assets. If we’re serious, we’d need to drop airborne units, think 173rd Airborne or the 82nd, depending on political optics, and secure Nuuk, the capital, and key ports along the western coastline. The problem is, you’re not landing on beaches. Greenland’s topography isn’t Saving Private Ryan, it’s Interstellar on ice. Steep cliffs, fjords, glacial valleys. Oh, and nearly zero roads connecting the towns.

Interestingly, just last week, the Defense Department quietly shifted military responsibility for Greenland from US European Command to US Northern Command. I’m not sure why nobody is talking about this, but this shift in responsibility, basically, which units will invade or defend Greenland, is interesting if for no other reason than it aligns Greenland more closely with “Homeland” security… And further away from Europe.

Step three: establish control. Secure the small government institutions, communications hubs, and airfields. Greenland has no military of its own, so resistance would come in the form of civilian protests, general strikes, and the mother of all PR disasters.

And here’s the geopolitical landmine: Denmark. Greenland is an autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. Invading Greenland is functionally invading a NATO member.

Other than the “Cyprus Problem” between Turkey and Greece, no NATO member has ever invaded or annexed another NATO member.

That puts Article 5 on the table, yes, the same Article 5 that obligates the US to defend Estonia from Russian tanks. Now we’re the aggressor, and every ally from Oslo to Ottawa is rethinking their next military contract.