Provocative is a stretch. A year ago a Danish soldier who responded to an ambiguous situation involving US bases that might be real or might be an exercise would have been court martialed and probably not able to justify their actions with this law despite it being on the books. The reminder is an emphasis that the US can be presumed to be such an invading force.

[delayed]

You know this how?

The only NATO-NATO exchange of fire where it wasn't deemed a friendly fire incident or an AMOK that I am aware of are between Greece and Turkey. But feel free to enlighten me on cases where a European country has had soldiers fire on the US and decided this wasn't an internal discipline issue.

The headline explicitly mentions an invasion, and the whole debate is within the context of potential US invasion of Greenland, so I dont see what makes this headline "provocative".

Because it’s not like they were given new orders to “shoot first and ask questions later.” It’s just a normal standing defense directive that has always been there. In normal times, no one wild describe standing defense orders as “shoot first, ask questions later.”

The news is that they were explicitly told those orders apply to the US.

The article says no such thing, it just makes sensationalist implications.

The actual meat is: Danish newspaper approaches government and asks if the 1952 order is still in effect-- government replies "yes".

Which is a complete non-story because it's the same unchanged, expected outcome since 1952.