What happens if one NATO nation attacks another?

You know what specific scenario I'm referring to. Greenland, though largely autonomous, is Danish sovereign territory. Per the NATO charter, an attack on one is an attack on all.

Putin must be dancing and laughing. His goal for years has been to split up the allies. The NATO nations might not be able to stop him from slowly devouring Europe without US assistance. And if they were at war with us??

I'm hoping that this is all just Trump barf to distract and deflect from his other ongoing crimes and toss red meat to the base.

I really don't want to find out if I'm right or wrong about this speculation: 

If the U.S. were to launch a military takeover of Greenland I think it would cause the U.S to be removed from NATO, or cause all other members to leave and form a different organization. I don't think it would trigger a full scale war. I think Denmark and NATO would weight their options and ultimately decide that sacrificing Greenland would be worth avoiding a war with the U.S. while simultaneously trying to prevent Russian expansion. 

 I'm unsure why they keep making the claim we need Greenland for national security purposes. Any military advantage to Greenland is already in place. It is our ally (for now) and we have a military base there. I hear the latest claim is we must prevent China or Russia from taking it. But the NATO alliance and the presence of our military base already accomplishes that. 

It is about the $$$. Trump wants rare earth minerals, Greenland has them, so Trump is going to take them just like he is doing with Venezuela's oil.

People shouldn't be surprised Trump has raped at least one women and probably several 13 -15 year old teenaged girls.  Why woulden't he simply rape another country if they have something he wants and he believes he can get away with it? Fascism never turns out well. 

It is kinda  starting to look like at some point we had a "The Business Plot 2.0" but this time there was no Smedly Butler around to interfere. This time they used one of their own (Trump) to take the roll of president rather than tap an outsider. 

Unilaterally says we will run Venezeula

Unilaterally says we will use military in Iran

Unilaterally says we will take Greenland the easy way or hard way.

At what point does Congress say enough and put a leash on this mental patient?   Do we honestly have to wait for the midterms next year?  He might invade England by then.

The military option to acquire Greenland is ridiculous; Trump would be ostracized by NATO and likely even most members of his own cabinet. This action would completely undermine NATO and toss it into upheaval and wide distrust. Any action like this would likely ultimately lead to a NATO impasse followed by conditions that nobody would want to see thereafter.  Many senior Republicans don't support any such military incursion. Rubio certainly doesn't support any military action and stresses diplomacy/ purchase as  reasonable approaches. I'll speculate that this is all just another episode of Trump macho bluster/taunting and that there's some internal or external ally of his that will intervene and interject some improved sense and judgement regarding his vocalized approaches to some issues. This dice roll is absurd.

Bluster or no....it has very real consequences.     How many years will go by before Canada, Greenland, and Denmark will have good faith relations with the United States again?   Never mind the billions it costs in tourism.   What about general international assistance from these countries in any cooperative effort?    

kicking dirt into the face of your friends isn't something they shrug off.

Here's something else disturbing I found after doing some more research. Article 5 of the NATO treaty does indeed say that an attack on one nation is an attack on all. BUT...big fat BUT...military action against the attacker has to be approved by every NATO member. So the US could veto any military action against itself!

This current nightmare scenario has never been seriously considered by European NATO members. Article 5 has never made a distinction between an attack from "outside" and an attack by another NATO member. There have been some instances where that came quite close to happening, like Greece vs. Turkey in 1999, which was ultimately mediated and resulted in the partition of Cyprus.

PJ is quite correct. The primary consequence of this latest Trump shit is to completely piss off one of our closest allies. It wasn't enough to alienate Canada. Now, he's working on the rest of the world.

I don't know if we will ever repair relations with our former allies. We might think they'll say, "Oh, we know it was just Trump," but we RE-elected him. It could be said, with some truth, that we didn't know what we were getting in 2016. But in 2024, we knew. And we eagerly reached for it.

That's it in a nutshell. Those folks know we elected Trump twice. At this point it is not Trump they don't trust to do the right thing, it is the American people they don't trust to do the right thing.

That's what much of Europe decided about Czechoslovakia in 1938.  But not about Poland in 1939; war was inevitable by then.