What are the economic advantages of Greenland to the USA, or more specifically, to the industrial/military complex that Eisenhower warned about:
“We do need Greenland, absolutely,” the US president told The Atlantic magazine, adding that the Danish territory was “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships”.
He said officials in his administration would decide what happened to Greenland, which Mr Trump has claimed the US must annex for its security.
Greenland is almost entirely deserted except for a thin sliver of coastline to the south. That makes it ripe for plunder, and it seems every time the US adds territory we get something good out of it. From the Louisiana Purchase to the annexation of Mexico’s territories (now California, Arizona, etc). Even Hawaii gives us a forward base for power projection, not to mention Alaska with its enormous oil bonanza…
Greenland has rare earths, lots of potential for oil (both inland and shoreline) and more. Better, there’s almost no one to object. Denmark? Seriously? I would not be surprised that at the passing of those millions of dollars in “campaign contributions” some ol exec wandered up and whispered “Greenland” into an orange ear.
Is this the stuff that the USA has to buy from China?
Yes, seriously. They are NATO. They will object. Are we REALLY going to attack a NATO attached country? Now you know why Trump has tried, over and over again, to weaken Europe, to weaken NATO.
I don’t really think he cares. I don’t really think most of his advisors care. I’d argue that only some of those in Congress with an R next to their name would say something.
So yeah, different world.
I know the Roman Empire was built one territory at a time, I don’t know if there was internal dissent or not. I know how Adolph built his, and once he had a victory or two under his belt nobody internally objected. Stalin got most of his in one fell swoop at the end of WWII.
I would suppose most empires were built one brick at a time, so once you have the politics and momentum on your side, there’s no telling what can happen. Greenland would be an easy target. No defense, not much objection, blah blah blah. Is Europe going to go to war to stop us from taking it (in whatever sense that might mean)?
Also, the experts claim Greenland would be a great place for military bases to control Arctic trade routes and missile pathways, and access to subsea minerals under the ice.
Alaska to the West, Greenland to the East. Canada if they are willing?
N “we” would control a large part of the Arctic.
ralph
I’m going to say no. China has the ability to separate them from the raw mineral and purify them. That’s the difficult part. Requires investment and the ability to deal with waste streams. They are not so rare but always go to China for final processing.
A couple of old acquaintances from the White Mountains….Don Smith and Dennnis McAllister if I remember their names correctly…wanted to do something unusual and new, so they did a pretty sizable traverse across Greenland…it was many years ago. I met up with Dennis later in life in Kodiak, it was quite an excursion they had, good that they survived it. I have no idea if they ever wrote about it or not.
Denmark and Greenland’s leaders appeared cautiously optimistic…Denmark and the U.S. already have a long-standing security agreement that has allowed the U.S. to deploy forces in Greenland, and it was not immediately clear how this deal was different…
Greenland’s government leader, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said he was happy about the deal, which he said “benefits not only our collective security, but also the continued development here in the country.”…
A State Department official told CBS News the U.S. was guaranteed permanent access to the island and overflight rights, allowing the military to potentially increase the number of bases. The deal also blocks non-NATO members from establishing military bases, and restricts American adversaries from making sensitive investments in Greenland, the official said.
DB2
I wonder if we could work out some kind of mutual defense alliance that would deter Russia and China but without us taking having to over the place?
Seems like it could creep towards ownership, with increased bases and a restriction on others’ investing.
Not sure what the added benefits would be, and not taking ownership avoids the $0.6 billion that Denmark spends each year to support the Greenland economy.
DB2
My understanding is that all that existed before, and ever since we signed a defense treaty with them in 1951.
1. Defense Agreement: Following World War II and the creation of NATO, a [1951 defense treaty] gave the U.S. extensive overflight, basing, and operational rights in Greenland (which remains an autonomous terri
- Facilities: This framework allowed the U.S. to operate installations like the [Pituffik Space Base] (formerly Thule Air Base) and establish new defense areas if deemed necessary by NATO. .
It is all a moot point.
We have discovered heavy RRE in two places in Wyoming. It is in their coal. Just one-third of one of those places is enough heavy RRE for 100 years. We thought we had zip, nada, nothing. The two companies with the government are figuring out how to get RRE out of coal. The process of getting into production could be anywhere from 3 years to 10 years.
The differences with the new treaty:
DB2
Is Greenland gonna do anything to help with global warming, or just sit there and melt?
Probably just sit there. Greenland stands to benefit economically from global warming – a longer growing season, smaller glaciers, increased fishing yields, more access to mineral sites. That sort of thing.
Glaciers are rivers of death. You don’t want them expanding.
DB2
I believe this is what is called a true judo move.
If no non-NATO countries are allowed to have bases, then the US can’t leave NATO and have any bases. Not the one we have now, or the 16 others we used to have and closed down because they were so expensive.
So we have just negotiated away our right to leave NATO? Good. Maybe not so good for the guy who keeps threatening to do it.
(And if Greenland should someday decide to be independent, we are still bound to this treaty. Nothing like giving up your options. Master negotiation at work!)
In principle. In reality, this administration does whatever it wants. By the time anything works the way through the courts, the damage is mostly already done.
Which, IMO, is why other nations aren’t really eager to enter any deals with us. They know this administration is mercurial, and any “deal” isn’t worth the paper it’s written upon. Probably part of the reason that Canada just walked away from the table recently.
This is the dumbest deal I’ve ever heard of. We agree to expand our defense umbrella over a foreign country and get literally nothing of value in return.
This is idiotic. There is some risk to Denmark though. They might laugh themselves to death at how badly they fleeced the Americans. I suppose we need to rebuild our Middle East bases somewhere. At least if they are in Greenland Iran won’t be able to destroy them in the opening minutes of a conflict.