I read your source. It stated that Greenland controlled a potential shipping lane, if the ice ever melts and it needs help developing its infrastructure.
Nowhere in that document did it make the case that Greenland was vital for US National Security.
Kudos on using "ichthyological importance" instead of seafood provider.
I think one disconnect we have is you probably don't consider anything of vital importance to US security. Do you think Alaska is of vital importance to US security, or do you just consider it a low GDP burden like Vermont? If you do this Alaska is important, list the reasons and then apply those factors/reasons to Greenland.
Anyway, I don't think you read the document too closely. Page 6, pages 7-8, Figure 3 on page 9 (should be enough for anyone to see the strategic importance of Greenland to the US), page 13, page 15.
But like I said, this is common sense for any adult with a general understanding of world affairs. The Arctic region is critical going forward. Natural resources, shipping, missiles, space, territory, location, fish, etc. We need Greenland for national defense and security, as well as economic prosperity and security. You would be in a small minority of people who can't see any military, economic or security value in Greenland. Russia, China, Denmark, UK, Norway, and many other sure place a HIGH value on it.
It’s not vital to our security. You keep saying it’s vital to our security. We have never been threatened by any entity that would require defense from Greenland.
I think one disconnect we have is you probably don't consider anything of vital importance to US security. Do you think Alaska is of vital importance to US security, or do you just consider it a low GDP burden like Vermont? If you do this Alaska is important, list the reasons and then apply those factors/reasons to Greenland.
Anyway, I don't think you read the document too closely. Page 6, pages 7-8, Figure 3 on page 9 (should be enough for anyone to see the strategic importance of Greenland to the US), page 13, page 15.
But like I said, this is common sense for any adult with a general understanding of world affairs. The Arctic region is critical going forward. Natural resources, shipping, missiles, space, territory, location, fish, etc. We need Greenland for national defense and security, as well as economic prosperity and security. You would be in a small minority of people who can't see any military, economic or security value in Greenland. Russia, China, Denmark, UK, Norway, and many other sure place a HIGH value on it.
It’s not vital to our security. You keep saying it’s vital to our security. We have never been threatened by any entity that would require defense from Greenland.
Trump says it, someone will justify it. Don’t you pay attention to the California wildfire? If we can ship all the ice from Iceland to California, Iceland will become warmer, and Cali will no longer worry about drought or wildfire. A win-win. Trump is always right.
Trump and Elon Musk just want to get their greedy colonial paws on Greenland's rare earth minerals so they can exploit them at the expense of the people of Greenland. This is how America has impoverished nations all over the world especially in the Americas
Nigeria recently discovered large deposits of lithium, an essential component for building batteries for electric cars, laptops and mobile devices. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, showed interest in signing a trade partnership with the Federal Government of Nigeria for the mining of lithium but Nigeria's Minister of Mines and Steel Development, Olamilekan Adegbite, rejected the offer. The minister stated that Nigeria would only deal with Tesla if the company agreed to build its battery-making factories in Nigeria.
I tend to agree with you that it's somewhat more likely to be about resources than anything else. Other arguments can be used but in terms of what the key driver is, it's essentially going to come down to money. They want what is there.
Unless we discover that something like Project Iceworm was never abandoned:
Project Iceworm was a top secret United States Army program of the Cold War, which aimed to build a network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the Greenland ice sheet. The goal was to install a vast network of nucle...
(2500 miles of tunnels below Greenland. Who knows how far it got? This is completely disturbing, aside from anything else, because of this - "A 2016 study found that the portion of the ice sheet covering Camp Century will start to melt by 2100, if current trends continue. When the ice melts, the camp's infrastructure, as well as remaining biological, chemical and radioactive waste, will re-enter the environment and potentially disrupt nearby ecosystems. This includes 200,000 litres of diesel, PCBs and radioactive waste".)
You can't just invade a country and take it by force because you want it against the will of its people. There's a word for that kind of action. Greenland only has a population of around 60K and would never be able to defend itself, but the difference here is (ironically) with regard to the role of Denmark. It would be a direct violation of NATO policy - the US, a NATO member, invading a(n autonomous) territory within Denmark which is also a founding member of the alliance/NATO member (I hate calling Greenland a territory, but that's the sticking point and if Greenland was a completely independent country it would be a different situation). I mean it's outrageous when you think about it.
The interesting thing is that since Greenland has self-rule for some areas, they took responsibility for their natural resources, but Denmark still has responsibility for defence.
The US signed the Greenland Defence Agreement where they literally and specifically agreed not to interfere with Danish sovereignty.
In terms of (mainly) various other countries in Europe, Trump also said: "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want" regarding countries that did not meet the targets for % of GDP spending on defence. That is in relation to countries such as Spain, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Norway and many others. That includes Canada as well if we're looking outside of Europe. So essentially he would encourage invasions of US allies.
The last word on Greenland for me is I think it's obscene that someone would even say "I think we'll have it".
Have we learnt nothing from history? They don't want this. Leave them alone.
Trump isn't very good at selling at lot of his ideas to the public. But the public should be able to see that acquiring Greenland would be great for America, in addition to being vital for national security. Some of you guys just seem incredibly confused and ignorant on this issue. You seriously don't see any value in Greenland?
Maybe we use it as the new Gitmo North. Instead of a tropical prison, we have a cold wasteland one.
STFU! You sound like a limp-wristed cheerleader. And what is this “we” nonsense. You ain’t doing nothing.
"We" as in America. It's common to use "we" when referencing the US. Is that really all you had to quibble about?
"We" refers to oneself and a referent group, pair, or organization. The size or name is of little value. You could be referring to any of a large number of "we"s. Or you coud just have a mouse in your pocket.🐱
Anyone who thinks the $3.59 billion NATO budget is a meaningful metric at all is a moron.
It doesn't matter how much Germany is paying to have the lawn mowed at NATO HQ.
The actual combat expenses are paid by the United States.
The US only contributes $567 million a year to NATO!
Meanwhile 1 F-22 costs $122 million and there's at least 12 of them parked in Eastern Europe right now. Not to mention maintenance and fuel and all the other expenses.
The start of U.S.-Russia talks on a possible agreement to end the war in Ukraine has spurred discussion about whether U.S. military forces in Europe will be reduced—a decision that would signal a sig…
This is a list of military installations owned or used by the United States Armed Forces both in the United States and around the world. This list details only current or recently closed facilities; some defunct facilities ar...
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
