Greenland USA

[EXETER]

So, how does Trump sell this. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo

Billions of dollars in minerals just East of the continent, screw a countries sovereignty, it’s people, it has oodles of minerals inc gold and oil and needs milking. 
Blame drugs, not this time, it’s security
Trump wants a Nobel but looks like he wants more
So soon after suffering in military expenditure in Ukraine, military supplies must be a bit shallow, juggle Ukraine and now Venezuela and what may or may not happen there 


So, who has a good reason for USA to invade?
Make me believe

#edit# 
Didnt take long for Trump to action Venezuela 

“Its rich deposits of natural resources, including oil, gas and rare earth minerals, make it even more strategically important, especially as China has leveraged its domination of the rare earth industry to exert pressure on the US. These rare earth minerals are increasingly crucial to the global economy since they are required to manufacture everything from electric cars and wind turbines to military equipment”

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/europ...tance-intl

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.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I think this mulling of action acquiring Greenland calls to be overly-melodramatic and anthropomorphize my relationship with America in a break-up song. 

I guess 250 years is the Yttrium, Gallium, and Germanium Anniversary, where you try to buy or just steal a massive glacier-covered mining outpost to grift to yourself. 




I think we need to separate until you go to counseling, America. Before you go and end NATO against the wishes of 70% of your citizens.  And care what they say again..

Like, "Screw Danish soveirgnty we need a bunch of ice and fjords for urgent national security reasons rare earth elements.

I think you've been brainwashed by a dictatorship if you think it's about "strategic arctic presence to counter China and Russia." 

Denmark needs to call his freaking bluff, like now.

They need to offer Trump a large swath of land away from mineral deposits that is massive enough for all the military infrastructure we need, and that would allow for everything he says we need for National Security. 

It would be like offering to fill the tank of the drug addict asking you for gas money because "they need to the next town over."

[Thetruth]

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

[putnam6]

Stuff what the Greenlanders might want, eh?  

The US already has a small military presence and nothing to stop them increasing it, but making Greenland part of the US?

"Paranoidly wrong as usual"?

Get over yourself.

Other opinions than yours are available.

We were discussing the likelihood of the "invasion with troops." 

It's an incredible waste of time believing that's a serious option here.

FFS invasion, annexation, and occupation after 100 days WOULD require Congressional approval.

Shit if this is the level of concern here, it's worse than Reddit

[Oldcarpy2]

We were discussing the likelihood of the "invasion with troops." 

It's an incredible waste of time believing that's a serious option here.

FFS invasion, annexation, and occupation after 100 days WOULD require Congressional approval.

Shit if this is the level of concern here, it's worse than Reddit

I think we were actually discussing:

'of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal,” she said. 

But you do you.

[Oldcarpy2]

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

Errrm, I see....

[RazorV66]

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

What country are you from?

Simple Land?

[RazorV66]

Shit if this is the level of concern here, it's worse than Reddit

Yeah no shit.

[Oldcarpy2]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...479445.gif]

Yeah no shit.

And that was just as bad and tedious than what ATS turned into
 
Anything on topic to add?

[RazorV66]

And that was just as bad and tedious than what ATS turned into
 
Anything on topic to add?

Carp the Thread Cop.

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