Name: 美國入侵格陵蘭的真實樣貌會是什麼樣？！ (What a US Invasion of Greenland Would Actually Look Like)
Uploaded: 2026-01-30T17:18:39.000Z
Duration: 40 min 58 s

情態助動詞 B1

There is unfortunately an increasing chance of a war happening between Denmark and the United States, a sentence that you would have said was insane and completely unrealistic just a couple of years ago.

說到丹麥和美國之間戰爭的可能性越來越高，這句話聽起來真是瘋了，幾年前根本不可能。

程度副詞

The recent escalation in tensions began just Hours after the U.S.

緊張局勢的最近一次升級，就發生在美國

情態副詞

military raided Venezuela and seized that country's president, when Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller, the architect of President Trump's immigration and domestic policies, tweeted out an image of Greenland covered in the American flag with a caption ominously reading soon in all capitals.

軍隊突襲委內瑞拉並逮捕了該國總統的幾個小時後。當時，川普總統移民和國內政策的推手史蒂芬·米勒的妻子凱蒂·米勒，在推特上發布了一張格陵蘭島被美國國旗覆蓋的圖片，並附上一句意味深長的標語：很快，全大寫。

At nearly the same time, Trump himself, while aboard Air Force One, insisted that America needed Greenland from the standpoint of national security.

差不多同一時間，川普總統在空軍一號上堅持認為，從國家安全的角度來看，美國需要格陵蘭。

Trump has repeatedly said over the past few weeks that anything less than full American control over Greenland is completely unacceptable to him and that deploying military force to seize the island isn't off the table.

川普總統在過去幾週一再表示，任何低於美國完全控制格陵蘭的條件，他都完全無法接受，而且動用軍事力量奪取該島的可能性並未排除。

On 14 January, the Danish Foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D.

1月14日，丹麥外交部長和格陵蘭對口官員在華盛頓與國務卿馬可·魯比歐和副總統 J.D.

vance in Washington to discuss the status of Greenland, which ended with the Danish foreign minister leaving exasperated and convinced that Trump fully intends to conquer Greenland by any means necessary.

Vance 會面，討論格陵蘭的地位。會談結束時，丹麥外交部長感到非常沮喪，並確信川普總統決心不惜一切代價征服格陵蘭。

Shortly afterwards, eight European countries sent a small token force of military personnel to Greenland to conduct joint exercises with the Danes on the island and to send a message of solidarity against the United States, which Trump responded to with fury.

稍後，八個歐洲國家派遣了一小批軍事人員前往格陵蘭，與丹麥軍隊在島上進行聯合演習，並向美國傳達團結的資訊，川普總統對此勃然大怒。

A couple of days later, on the 17th of January, he he announced that he would be implementing new tariffs of 10% on all goods exported to the US by the European countries who sent their troops to Greenland plus Denmark, and

幾天後，也就是1月17日，他宣佈將對所有由向格陵蘭派遣軍隊的歐洲國家以及丹麥出口到美國的商品徵收10%的新關稅，

that the rate would increase further to 25% on each of them by 1 June unless they relented and agreed to support America's desire to purchase Greenland, in which case the new tariffs would be dropped.

並且，除非他們讓步並同意支持美國購買格陵蘭的願望，否則關稅率將在6月1日前進一步提高到25%，如果他們同意，則取消新關稅。

Denmark and Greenland's position throughout this whole dispute has repeatedly been that Greenland is not for sale, no matter what the price on offer is.

丹麥和格陵蘭在整個爭議中的立場一再表明，格陵蘭不賣，無論出價多少。

While the Trump administration has repeatedly threatened that they will do whatever it takes to acquire Greenland, including using military force through an invasion, if they continue refusing.

川普政府一再威脅，如果他們繼續拒絕，他們將不惜一切代價奪取格陵蘭，包括通過入侵使用軍事力量。

Trump has since seemingly walked back some of these threats, though while speaking at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Trump for the first time said that he was dropping his military threat to seize Greenland through force.

此後，川普似乎收回了一些威脅，儘管他在達沃斯世界經濟論壇上發言時，川普首次表示他將放棄通過武力奪取格陵蘭的軍事威脅。

Nonetheless, he said that he was still committed to acquiring Greenland through a purchase and complained that it had been a historical mistake for the United States to have returned Greenland back to Denmark after the Second World War, when the US Occupied the island for a few years during the Nazi occupation of Denmark.

儘管如此，他說他仍然致力於通過購買獲得格陵蘭，並抱怨美國在第二次世界大戰後將格陵蘭歸還給丹麥是一個歷史錯誤，當時美國在納粹佔領丹麥期間佔領了該島幾年。

Most recently, Trump has claimed that he has reached a compromise deal with NATO in which smaller pockets of territory in Greenland around U.S.

最近，川普聲稱他已經與北約達成了一項妥協協議，其中格陵蘭美國軍事基地附近的較小區域將實際上被割讓並轉讓給美國主權，這項協議據說是以塞普勒斯的《主權基地協議》為藍本，英國在該協議中於1960年在島上圍繞其軍事基地劃出了兩個領土，這些領土被承認為塞普勒斯政府權威之外的主權英國領土。

military based sites will effectively be ceded and transferred over to American sovereignty, an agreement that is supposedly being modeled on the Sovereign Base Agreement in Cyprus, where the UK carved out two territories around their own military bases on the island in 1960 that are recognized sovereign British territories beyond the authority of the government in Cyprus.

然而，丹麥表示他們已經拒絕了這項協議，並且他們的立場仍然是，在任何情況下都不會割讓格陵蘭的任何領土。

Denmark, however, has stated that they have rejected this agreement and that their position remains that no territory in Greenland will be ceded under any circumstances.

川普總是難以預測，將來可能會再次帶著他的壓力策略和威脅回到格陵蘭。

Trump, ever unpredictable, may always return back to Greenland with his pressure tactics and threats again in the future.

所以，以前一個不可思議的問題，現在實際上必須是，如果美國真的發動入侵並佔領格陵蘭，到底會發生什麼？

So what was previously an unthinkable question now actually has to be what would actually happen if the United States really did launch an invasion and occupied Greenland?

Allow me to do my best to explain and speculate to the best of my abilities.

讓我們盡我所能來解釋和推測。

First of all, if the US actually did launch an invasion of Greenland, the operation to occupy and control it would be fairly simple and straightforward.

首先，如果美國真的入侵格陵蘭，佔領和控制的行動會相對簡單直接。

Denmark, who controls Greenland as a self governing autonomous territory, has very few actual defenses on the island.

丹麥是格陵蘭的自治領土，但島上實際的防禦力量非常少。

There are usually only about 150 Danish military and civilian personnel who work across six small military facilities on the island, although Denmark has recently announced that they will be deploying 1,000 combat ready troops to the island in light of America's threats.

通常島上只有大約150名丹麥軍事和文職人員，分佈在六個小型軍事設施，不過丹麥最近宣佈，鑑於美國的威脅，他們將向島上部署1,000名戰備部隊。

Nonetheless, Denmark has placed no fighter aircraft, missile defenses or heavy ground forces on Greenland of any kind that could offer up any sort of meaningful resistance to a committed American invasion force.

不過，丹麥在格陵蘭沒有部署任何戰鬥機、飛彈防禦系統或重型地面部隊，無法對認真的美國入侵部隊提供任何有意義的抵抗。

Denmark's tiny military presence on the island usually consists only of small patrol units and limited surveillance assets, which ironically, is because Denmark has historically relied on the much more powerful United States to defend Greenland instead.

丹麥在島上的微小軍事存在通常只包括小型巡邏隊和有限的監控資產，諷刺的是，這是因為丹麥歷來都依賴更強大的美國來保衛格陵蘭。

Greenland is a geographically massive territory, roughly the same size as the entire eastern time zone of the United States.

格陵蘭的地理面積非常廣闊，大約和美國整個東部時區一樣大。

But it's also incredibly sparsely populated, home to fewer than 57,000 people, most of whom are Greenlandic Inuits by ethnicity.

但它的人口也極其稀少，不到57,000人，其中大部分是格陵蘭因紐特人。

Because of that, there are very few population centers across the island to be concerned with taking over during an invasion scenario.

是以，在入侵情境中，島上需要佔領的人口中心非常少。

Greenland's capital and largest city, Nook, is home to only around 20,000 people, which is already more than a third of the entire island's population, all concentrated right there, while everywhere else are basically small settlements.

格陵蘭的首府和最大城市努克，人口約20,000人，這已經佔了全島人口的三分之一以上，都集中在那裡，而其他地方基本上都是小型聚落。

An American invasion of Greenland wouldn't look anything at all like other modern invasions in Ukraine or Iraq, or even like the US military raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

美國入侵格陵蘭不會像烏克蘭或伊拉克的現代入侵，甚至不像美軍抓捕委內瑞拉總統馬杜羅的突襲行動。

There would not be any contested beach landings or large scale kinetic combat operations.

不會有任何爭奪灘頭登陸或大規模的實質戰鬥行動。

Instead, American invasion forces would be focused on securing control over Greenland's principal infrastructure and access points as rapidly as possible, US military transport planes would land at the already existing US military base in Greenland at Petufik, while others would land at Greenland's handful of major settlements.

相反地，美軍的入侵部隊會盡快聚焦於控制格陵蘭的主要基礎設施和進出點，美軍運輸機將降落在格陵蘭現有的美國軍事基地 Petufik，而其他部隊則會降落在格陵蘭少數幾個主要聚落。

Fighter aircraft would secure Greenland's airspace, while the navy would secure the possible maritime approaches.

戰鬥機將確保格陵蘭的空域，海軍則會確保可能的海上進路。

The troops on the ground would deploy to quickly capture and secure the island's port ports, airfields, and

地面的部隊將部署以快速佔領並確保島上的港口、機場和

communications systems to deny access to Greenland from reinforcements coming from Europe in an operation that would kind of resemble Russia's capture of Crimea in 2014, and

通訊系統，以阻止來自歐洲的增援部隊進入，這項行動有點類似俄羅斯在2014年佔領克里米亞，而且

doing so wouldn't require a large invasion force like what was recently deployed to Venezuela.

這樣做不需要像最近部署到委內瑞拉那樣的大規模入侵部隊。

Most military theorists argue that in order to successfully occupy and hold a territory and combat the insurgency from the local population in the territory, you need a ratio of about 20 to 25 occupying soldiers per 1000 residents to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

大多數軍事理論家認為，為了成功佔領並控制一個領土，並與當地居民的叛亂作鬥爭，你需要大約每1000名居民有20到25名佔領阿兵哥來執行反叛亂行動。

That implies that in order to occupy and hold Greenland and suppress an insurgency from the local population, the American invasion force would realistically only need to consist of between 1,140 and 1,425 soldiers, which is only a fraction of the armed force that the US assembled off the coast of Venezuela before the operation was launched that seized Maduro.

這意味著，為了佔領和控制格陵蘭並鎮壓當地居民的叛亂，美軍入侵部隊實際上只需要由1,140到1,425名阿兵哥組成，這僅僅是美國在發動抓捕馬杜羅的行動前，在委內瑞拉海岸集結的武裝力量的一小部分。

Realistically, when considering that Denmark might have up to 1,000 soldiers present in Greenland for defense like, the US would probably not need to commit any more than 10,000 of their own soldiers to the initial invasion and occupation of Greenland.

實際上，考慮到丹麥可能會有高達1,000名阿兵哥駐守格陵蘭進行防禦，美國在入侵和佔領格陵蘭的初期，可能只需要派遣不超過10,000名自己的阿兵哥。

With no air defenses, no fighter aircraft, and

沒有防空系統，沒有戰鬥機，而且

no heavy ground forces to worry about in Greenland, a lightning and determined US operation to seize control over the island would likely be successful, and

在格陵蘭不需要擔心重裝地面部隊，美國閃電般且堅決的行動來奪取島嶼的控制權很可能會成功，而且

it would probably also involve minimal bloodshed, even with Denmark's recent but still modest and under equipped deployments.

即使有丹麥近期但仍顯 modest 且裝備不足的部署，流血衝突可能也會降到最低。

Indeed, the local Greenlandic opposition would no doubt vehemently resist the whole operation.

確實，當地格陵蘭人的反對勢必會強烈抵制整個行動。

According to a poll in 2025 that was conducted by a Danish paper, nearly 85% of Greenland's population reject the idea of joining the United States.

根據2025年一家丹麥報紙的民意調查，近85%的格陵蘭人口拒絕加入美國的想法。

There would be virtually universal protest and resistance and probably even initial insurgent activities against the invasion.

幾乎會出現普遍的抗議和抵抗，甚至可能會有初期的叛亂活動來對抗入侵。

But they are so few in number and so lightly armed that that any substantial resistance couldn't possibly last for very long.

但他們人數太少且裝備太輕，任何實質性的抵抗都不可能持續太久。

Take the example of Argentina's invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1982 in what I believe would be the most similar modern historical comparison to this.

以阿根廷在1982年入侵並佔領福克蘭群島的例子來說，我相信這是現代歷史上最類似的比較。

Back then, Argentina invaded and occupied the British controlled Falkland Islands with an initial force of about 2,000 soldiers and marines who were able to rapidly overpower the tiny British population on the islands, who only numbered around 2,000 themselves.

當時，阿根廷以約2,000名阿兵哥和海軍陸戰隊的初期部隊入侵並佔領了英國控制的福克蘭群島，他們能夠迅速壓制島上僅約2,000人的微薄英國人口。

Themselves, only 68 Royal Marines were present on the islands to resist the initial 2000 strong Argentine invasion force, and

島上只有68名皇家海軍陸戰隊員來抵抗最初2,000名阿根廷入侵部隊，

so their capability to resist them was very limited.

所以他們抵抗的能力非常有限。

They initially fought back and killed one of the invading Argentine soldiers, but

他們一開始有反擊並殺死了一名入侵的阿根廷阿兵哥，但

other than that, they were ordered to avoid heavy casualties and quickly surrendered within hours.

除此之外，他們被命令避免重大傷亡，並在幾小時內迅速投降。

A similar course of events would almost certainly take place during a hypothetical U.S. invasion of Greenland today.

在今天美國假設入侵格陵蘭的事件中，幾乎肯定會發生類似的過程。

The initial military takeover of the island would be fairly easy and well within the capabilities of the United States.

該島的初步軍事接管將相對容易，完全在美國的能力範圍內。

But what would come afterwards would be absolutely catastrophic from an economic, geopolitical, and political perspective.

但接下來的發展，無論從經濟、地緣政治還是政治角度來看，都將是絕對災難性的。

During an interview with CNN in early January, Stephen Miller exclaimed that nobody would fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.

在一月份的一次CNN採訪中，Stephen Miller 曾斷言，沒有人會為了格陵蘭的未來而與美國在軍事上開戰。

Indeed, this was the exact same belief that drove Argentina to invade and occupy the Falkland Islands in 1982.

的確，這正是驅使阿根廷在1982年入侵並佔領福克蘭群島的相同信念。

The assumption that the Falkland Islands weren't actually important enough to the British to really start a war over.

當時的假設是，福克蘭群島對英國來說根本不夠重要，不至於引發一場戰爭。

In their case, Argentina grossly miscalculated Britain's willingness to defend their own territory, no matter how far away from the mainland and sparsely populated, which triggered a ferocious British counteroffensive that drove them out of the islands, killed hundreds of soldiers, and

在他們的情況下，阿根廷嚴重誤判了英國保衛自己領土的意願，無論領土離本土多遠、人口多稀少，這引發了英國猛烈的反攻，將他們趕出了島嶼，殺死了數百名阿兵哥，

even resulted in the collapse of their government.

In that case, however, British Britain's military capabilities far exceeded those of Argentina, which of course influenced their decision to counterattack.

在這種情況下，英國的軍事能力遠遠超過阿根廷，這當然影響了他們反攻的決定。

During a US invasion of Greenland scenario, though, the opposite situation would be in place.

不過，在美國入侵格陵蘭的設想中，情況正好相反。

Because America's military capabilities utterly dwarf those of Denmark and indeed even the whole of Europe combined, the budget of the US military is nearly 100 times larger than the Danish military's budget is.

因為美國的軍事能力遠遠勝過丹麥，甚至勝過整個歐洲加起來的總和，美國軍方的預算幾乎是丹麥軍方預算的100倍。

While the US military spending alone makes up around 2/3 of all of NATO's collective military spending put together, meaning that the US spends roughly twice as much on its military as every single other country in NATO does combined.

美國單獨的軍事開支就佔了北約所有集體軍事開支的約三分之二，這意味著美國在軍事上的花費大約是北約其他所有國家加起來的兩倍。

Unlike during the Argentine invasion of the Falkland scenario, when Britain realistically could consider a military response to retake the islands, Denmark and even the rest of Europe would simply not have the same option to work with.

與阿根廷入侵福克蘭群島的情況不同，當時英國實際上可以考慮軍事回應來奪回島嶼，而丹麥甚至歐洲其他國家根本沒有相同的選項可以合作。

almost certainly would, immediately take every possible political avenue available to protest against America's invasion and occupation.

幾乎肯定會，立即採取所有可能的政治途徑來抗議美國的入侵和佔領。

Politically, while Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it is not itself a member of the EU or considered EU territory.

在政治上，雖然格陵蘭是丹麥王國的一部分，但它本身並不是歐盟成員，也不被視為歐盟領土。

Because of that legal distinction, it's ambiguous and unclear if the EU's mutual defense clause would actually be able to be triggered over a Greenland invasion.

由於這個法律上的區別，歐盟的共同防禦條款是否能因格陵蘭被入侵而觸發，這點是模糊不清的。

But since Greenland is actually a part of NATO, NATO's mutual defense clause would be much more legally concrete than the EU's would be.

但由於格陵蘭實際上是北約的一部分，北約的共同防禦條款在法律上會比歐盟的更加確鑿。

So right away, Denmark would argue that America's invasion of its sovereign territory in Greenland directly violated Article 5 of NATO's founding treaties, which asserts that an armed attack against the territory of one NATO member shall be considered an armed attack against all of the other members as well.

所以丹麥會立刻主張，美國入侵其主權領土格陵蘭，直接違反了北約創始條約的第五條，該條款規定，對一個北約成員領土的武裝攻擊，應被視為對所有其他成員的武裝攻擊。

The problem with this direction is that NATO as an organization was never founded with the belief that one of the alliance's members would blatantly attack another one.

這個方向的問題在於，北約這個組織的成立，並不是基於聯盟成員會公然攻擊另一個成員的信念。

And so there's no internal mechanism within NATO that's built to handle a situation like this.

所以北約內部並沒有建立任何機制來處理這種情況。

It's important to state that NATO has experienced significant internal military tensions between its members in the past.

值得注意的是，北約過去曾發生過成員國之間重大的內部軍事緊張。

Between the 1950s and 70s, the UK and Iceland engaged in the so called cod wars over fishing rights in the North Atlantic that culminated with Icelandic ships actually opening fire on British ships in 1975 and Iceland's threat that it would even withdraw from NATO entirely before the crisis was diffused diplomatically in the 1990s and 2000s.

在 1950 年代到 70 年代，英國和冰島之間為了北大西洋的漁業權，爆發了所謂的「鱈魚戰爭」，最終導致冰島船隻在 1975 年向英國船隻開火，冰島甚至威脅退出北約，直到危機在 1990 年代和 2000 年代透過外交途徑化解。

During NATO's expansion east, there were significant concerns at the time about the renewal of border disputes concerning Hungary and the large Hungarian majority territories in neighboring Romania and Slovakia.

在北約東擴期間，當時對於匈牙利與鄰國羅馬尼亞和斯洛伐克境內的大量匈牙利人口地區的邊界爭議重燃，引起了相當大的擔憂。

And most critically of all, there has been the long running military confrontation between Greece and Turkey, who until recently were considered the most likely two NATO countries to go to war with each other.

而最關鍵的是，希臘和土耳其之間長期存在的軍事對峙，直到最近，這兩個北約國家還被認為是最有可能互相開戰的國家。

Turkey and Greece both joined NATO in the 1950s, but

土耳其和希臘都在 1950 年代加入了北約，但

in 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus and entered into direct conflict with Greek troops who were present there, after which Greece withdrew from NATO's Integrated Military Command.

在 1974 年，土耳其入侵塞普勒斯，並與當時駐紮在那裡的希臘軍隊發生直接衝突，之後希臘退出了北約的統合軍事指揮部。

For the next six, six years in protest, both sides maintained extensive and bitter maritime disputes against each other in the aegean Sea.

接下來的六年，雙方為了抗議，在愛琴海持續進行了大規模且激烈的海上爭端。

In 1996, a great fighter aircraft even shot down a Turkish fighter over the Aegean Sea and killed its Turkish pilot.

1996 年，一架戰鬥機甚至在愛琴海上空擊落了一架土耳其戰機，並殺死了土耳其飛行員。

And as recently as 2020, a Turkish warship locked its fire control radar system onto a French frigate in the Eastern Mediterranean during boiling tensions over the civil war in Libya.

就連 2020 年，在利比亞內戰引發的緊張局勢下，一艘土耳其軍艦在地中海東部將其火控雷達系統鎖定在一艘法國巡防艦上。

Ultimately, none of these incidents between NATO members caused any long lasting impact.

最終，北約成員國之間的這些事件都沒有造成任何長期的影響。

But a full on invasion by the United States into the sovereign territory of another NATO member would make all of these previous incidents seem like child's play by comparison.

但美國全面入侵另一個北約成員國的主權領土，將會讓之前所有事件相形見絀，如同小巫見大巫。

Denmark would argue to the North Atlantic Council, NATO's decision making body, that the United States had directly violated Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

丹麥將會向北約的決策機構北大西洋理事會爭辯，認為美國直接違反了《北約條約》第五條。

The problem is that in order for the North Atlantic Council to actually activate Article 5, it requires the universal consensus of all 32 of the NATO allied members.

問題在於，北大西洋理事會要實際啟動第五條，需要所有 32 個北約盟國達成一致同意。

If any one of the NATO allies refuses to give its approval to the Council for an Article 5 violation, then there won't be a consensus and Article 5 won't be formally triggered.

如果任何一個北約盟國拒絕向理事會準許第五條的違約行為，那麼就無法達成共識，第五條也不會被正式觸發。

This essentially gives any NATO member a de facto veto power over the triggering of Article 5 by the Council by simply refusing to give its approval.

這實際上賦予了任何一個北約成員國對理事會觸發第五條的實際否決權，只需拒絕準許即可。

And in this scenario, the United States would almost certainly do this and block the Article 5 clause from being formally activated in response to its own invasion.

在這種情況下，美國幾乎肯定會這麼做，並阻止第五條條款被正式啟動以回應其自身的入侵。

Even if every single other NATO member approved of it.

即使其他所有北約成員國都準許了。

NATO in effect would become paralyzed and trapped by the invasion and would not be capable of formally responding to it as a collective organization.

北約實際上會因為這場入侵而癱瘓和受困，無法作為一個集體組織來正式回應。

This is why many analysts and politicians say that a U.S.

這就是為什麼許多分析人士和政治人物都說，美國

invasion of Greenland would immediately spell the death of NATO as an organization, including Denmark's own Prime Minister Mehdi Frederiksen.

入侵格陵蘭將立即宣告北約組織的終結，連丹麥首相梅特·佛瑞德里克森也這麼說。

The United States is the fundamental core of NATO as an organization.

Not only does the US alone make up 2/3 of NATO's collective military spending, but

美國不僅獨自承擔了北約集體軍事開支的 2/3，而且

for more than 3/4 of a century now, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the second highest ranking position within the alliance, has always been held by an American general, including today.

在過去的 3/4 個世紀裡，歐洲盟軍最高司令，也就是聯盟內的第二高職位，一直由美國將軍擔任，至今亦然。

This commander is responsible for drafting up NATO's defense plans for Europe, including Greenland.

這位司令負責起草北約在歐洲（包括格陵蘭）的防禦計劃。

And they've consequently always assumed a high degree of U.S. military involvement.

是以，他們一直假定美國軍隊會高度介入。

military officers are deeply interconnected throughout every major NATO command, responding through NATO, an organization that is dominated by the US against armed US Aggression, will simply not be possible.

軍官遍佈所有主要的北約指揮部，但回應由美國主導、對抗美國武裝侵略的北約組織，將根本不可能。

字幕列表影片播放

美國入侵格陵蘭的真實樣貌會是什麼樣？！ (What a US Invasion of Greenland Would Actually Look Like)

ultimately

significant

scenario

access