Well, howdy there, internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about five of your questions about Greenland.

Obviously, with everything going on, with Trump looking at Greenland, there's been some questions, and we're going to run through the most frequent.

Just jumping right in.

Are the rumors that the Joint Chiefs won't draw up plans to take Greenland true?

There is definitely resistance, but it's also worth noting that those plans already exist.

The U.S. has plans to invade pretty much everywhere.

They would just need to be refined.

How effective the resistance to refining those plans will be is anybody's guess.

Would the U.S. military follow through with an order to take Greenland? And if so, why wouldn't this count as an unlawful order?

There is still a misunderstanding about what the duty to disobey means.

It doesn't mean that Private Smith questions strategic level decisions.

It means that if Trump orders him to L.A. or Portland, he shows.

Even if he knows it's probably unlawful.

Probably doesn't cut it.

It has to be manifestly unlawful.

So it means once a judge blocks his deployment, he doesn't set foot outside of the lines established. That's exactly what happened. Now, the much higher up brass could make the

argument that on July 21st, 1949 Congress, by ratifying the treaty, already said not to attack them. I'm not sure that

argument would hold, or if the current brass would be willing to make it. I was talking to a

friend who started talking about two-tier operations and all kinds of cool stuff, saying that the exercise is a front,

but then we got hit with the don't talk about politics thing. I didn't get to hear the end.

What's a two-tier exercise? If the U.S. was worried that Allied country X was going to be

...