Greenland USA

[UltraBudgie]

What about Puerto Rico -- aren't they inline to be the next state?

Oh - wait!  They don't have oil.

No, but they do have pharmaceutical manufacturing and suspicious tax-dodge status. Hmm, maybe Greenland could have resource production and suspicious tax-dodge status. That would be a good case for them remaining a territory.

Assuming of course that's what the residents choose.

[Oldcarpy2]

Carp the Thread Cop.

I already added my opinions to the thread about you nutters hyperventilating over Trump and Greenland.

"You nutters"?

"Hyperventilating"?

I see that you do not do reasoned discussion, sadly.

Just personal insults.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

If Americans  invade I hope they rebel and send as many of you Nazi Americans  home in body bags as possible.

I prefer to hope our servicemembers are never put in a position to invade the soveirgn territory of a NATO ally in the first place.  

PLEASE LET ME BE OVERREACTING. 

But he says what he says, and you believe assholes when they say they're assholes.  

A war against Denmark would be too heartbreaking as it is, so i can only HOPE some multinationational resolution where EVERYONE can "monitor the Arctic shipping lanes" together (in a DENMARK controlled Greenland) comes from this.  

If it is REALLY about stategic American (and also NATO) defense, then he can do it from a joint NATO base or bases, with others.  *If* he doesn't give a f*** about NATO, and it's all a surreptitious dog and pony show for control of territory and natural resources, he wont be able to accept anything less. 

[putnam6]

So far, there seem to be two main arguments put forward for seizing Greenland: Rare Earth Elements (REEs), and increasing our military presence in the Arctic.

There are several problems with the REEs argument.  The first is that REEs are in extremely low concentration in the Greenland deposits, compared to other major world deposits in China, Australia, and the US.  That means that you would have to excavate, crush, and process up to 10 times as much volume of ore to get the same amount of REEs that we are getting now, from the existing sources.  And you would have to do it in extreme conditions from underneath ice and snow.  Second, the type of REEs in the Greenland deposits are not the high value ones, so it is far from clear that that would be economically viable.

Third, The strategic issue with respect to REEs is not access to the ores, but access to the refining facilities.  REE ores are basically crushed, and placed in big piles in waterproof basins, and then sprayed with acid solutions that percolate down through the ore and slowly dissolve the REEs out.  The process is called heap-leaching. It's a slow, dirty process that most nations were happy to let China do at cut-rate prices, in the past.  Today, about 90% of all REE ore processing is done in China, so even if we got control over all the REE ore in Greenland, we would still have to ship it to China for processing.  If the idea is to eliminate China's monopoly on access to REEs, then the obvious solution would be to find a way to put in REE processing capability in North America and Australia. If we did that, access to Greenland REE deposits would probably become pointless.

The argument for increasing our military presence in Greenland is based on the idea that as Arctic ice cover disappears, polar sea lanes from Russia and China are becoming seasonally ice-free most years, which allows quicker access to the North Atlantic and Europe by avoiding traditional routes through the Suez Canal.  A couple of Chinese shipping companies now offer routine shipping on this route, which they call the "Polar Silk Road".  Of course, this could also offer more access to military warships from China and Russia, as well.  I can understand the US national security argument for having an increased presence in that part of the world to monitor this activity and intervene militarily, if necessary.  What I can't understand is why this can't be done better inside the charter of NATO.  All the nearby nations, including Iceland, Canada, Norway, the UK, etc. are all members of NATO, all have an interest in increased security there, and all are already cooperating with us in exactly this kind of activity.  All we have to do is add some more resources to it. If we did it cooperatively, the economic burden on the US would actually be lower than if we did it unilaterally. Denmark has recently proposed to do this cooperatively with the US, but for some reason Trump can't take yes for an answer.  He always seems to prefer a solution that drops a turd in the punch bowl, even when it would actually be more economical and efficient to be cooperative.  

Neither the REE argument nor the national security argument for taking over Greenland seem to make sense to me.

Great post... 

As for doing so under NATO, Trump can't stand our NATO agreements as they are. Right or wrong, he believes the US is getting taken advantage of by our NATO agreements

Trump prefers negotiating with a country one-on-one

[RazorV66]

"You nutters"?

"Hyperventilating"?

I see that you do not do reasoned discussion, sadly.

Just personal insults.

It's been proven that you can't reason with you guys.

I've saw it for years on ATS and now here.

[IgnorantGod]

Carp the Thread Cop.

I already added my opinions to the thread about you nutters hyperventilating over Trump and Greenland.

For what its worth, the thread isn't about "nutters", but rather about some comment said by some 'higher up'. And quite frankly, I can hardly blame anyone to find what that 'higher up' said to be unsettling a few days after the bombing of Caracas.

So, why is it that surprising that some will discuss such comments, especially in a conspiracy forum. I think it is revelant to question the China and/or Russia in artic narrative. In fact, every narrative purveyed by any politician or oligarch should always be questioned and scrutinized. Furthermore, it is the population's job to do so, or else corruption ends up creeping in the higher sphere of the hierarchy, no matter the governance system.

[Oldcarpy2]

It's been proven that you can't reason with you guys.

I've saw it for years on ATS and now here.

Carry on derailing.

And labelling.

And insulting.

Sad.

[Moon68]

It's been proven that you can't reason with you guys.

I've saw it for years on ATS and now here.

[UltraBudgie]

a DENMARK controlled Greenland

#NoKingsExceptForFrederikTheKingOfDenmark

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?

Oh well, it's the thought that counts.

[Oldcarpy2]

For what its worth, the thread isn't about "nutters", but rather about some comment said by some 'higher up'. And quite frankly, I can hardly blame anyone to find what that 'higher up' said to be unsettling a few days after the bombing of Caracas.

So, why is it that surprising that some will discuss such comments, especially in a conspiracy forum. I think it is revelant to question the China and/or Russia in artic narrative. In fact, every narrative purveyed by any politician or oligarch should always be questioned and scrutinized. Furthermore, it is the population's job to do so, or else corruption ends up creeping in the higher sphere of the hierarchy, no matter the governance system.

Apparently trying to discuss and critique the actions and threats to the World Order of a Leader of the Free World makes you a "nutter".