Greenland Crisis
109 points by belter 16 hours ago | 62 comments
  • kelseyfrog 14 hours ago |
    It would be the largest welfare state in the union.
    • telotortium 14 hours ago |
      Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
      • nozzlegear 12 hours ago |
        Not sure about the US citizens versus non-citizen nationals (I had always thought American Samoans were citizens), but you're spot on that it would certainly not be a state. The people living in Greenland would almost certainly lean blue, and the republicans would never allow the Dems to gain more de facto seats in the house and senate.
      • gherkinnn 12 hours ago |
        I don't think any of the Trump crowd thought as far as these legal ramifications. Send in the Little Green Men, annex, and figure things out as they happen.
    • mrkeen 13 hours ago |
      > The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons

      https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...

      • adventured 10 hours ago |
        The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia.

        Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.

        • AlotOfReading 9 hours ago |
          What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
          • adventured 9 hours ago |
            Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.

            The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.

            • AlotOfReading 8 hours ago |

                  By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
              So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.

                  Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
              Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.
              • adventured 7 hours ago |
                > So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?

                This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.

                And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.

                It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).

                Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?

                Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.

                The logistical value is extremely obvious.

                And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.

                • AlotOfReading 5 hours ago |

                      This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
                  If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow.

                      I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
                  Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.

                      Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
                  With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both.

                      The logistical value is extremely obvious.
                  It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits.

                  An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.

          • palmotea 4 hours ago |
            > What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?

            Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.

        • mrkeen 4 hours ago |
          > The US doesn't need oil

          > Since the US military strikes on Venezuela and seizure of its president Nicolás Maduro this month, Trump has said he plans to tap into the country's huge oil reserves.

          [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4qdnj5vl9o] 4 day ago

  • michaelhoney 10 hours ago |
    soon he will be dead and the slow, painful, halting recovery will begin
    • kevmauer 9 hours ago |
      His mother lived to 88
      • bravetraveler 4 hours ago |
        Did she eat as much McDonald's? Anyway, the cat is out of the bag. Problem goes far beyond the man.
    • cthe 4 hours ago |
      People already thought once that Trumpism would disappear some years ago. They were wrong.
    • dsfdsfsdfdsf 2 hours ago |
      There are 30 million Americans who cheer on bombing Nuuk and killing Danish citizens... I think this is over! If you have any hopes of reestablishing any kind of relationship, you are delusional..
  • tim333 10 hours ago |
    It's strange how Trump wants to be pally with Russia but attack America's closest allies like Canada and Denmark.
  • SaaSasaurus 9 hours ago |
    Today I had some fun digging into the Greenland tech startup ecosystem, or lack thereof https://www.siliconsnark.com/the-first-ever-deep-dive-into-g...