US thoughts on Greenland

[Creaky]

Just reading some local news (Aussie) and it seemingly suggesting Dons thoughts on attaining Greenland is something the average US citizen/ Trump supporter is down on, why? 
Is the media lying or does the average Trump supporter think acquiring Greenland is a bad idea?
 
Not really chasing personal opinion, more the average man on the streets opinion

Cant see why it’s not a good idea to be honest

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer...517a17cde0


I did research but found nothing relatable

[Byrd]

Beats me -- but I'm not a Trump supporter and I think the whole notion is nuts.  I have no idea why he thinks he'd want it.  We've pretty much neglected our other territories.

[schuyler]

I am a Trump supporter, but I don't take this seriously. There is no good reason to plant the American flag on Greenland. We already defend it anyway, just like the US effectively defends Canada. There are already US bases in Greenland and Iceland (and literally dozens in the EU). If Trump feels compelled to increase US military presence in that area all it would take is a couple of Arleigh Burkes cruising around. We have 74 and are headed to 100. If he REALLY wanted to get the tongues wagging, just sail a CVN Strike Group once around Greenland and head back to Norfolk to warm up. Trump is just asserting himself with some saber rattling. He has a much better case for taking back the Panama Canal than he does "buying" Greenland, tthough with a population of 57,000 that is actually feasible. Still not a good idea unless the ice melts.

[Creaky]

I am a Trump supporter, but I don't take this seriously. There is no good reason to plant the American flag on Greenland. We already defend it anyway, just like the US effectively defends Canada. There are already US bases in Greenland and Iceland (and literally dozens in the EU). If Trump feels compelled to increase US military presence in that area all it would take is a couple of Arleigh Burkes cruising around. We have 74 and are headed to 100. If he REALLY wanted to get the tongues wagging, just sail a CVN Strike Group once around Greenland and head back to Norfolk to warm up. Trump is just asserting himself with some saber rattling. He has a much better case for taking back the Panama Canal than he does "buying" Greenland, tthough with a population of 57,000 that is actually feasible. Still not a good idea unless the ice melts.

They say the ice is definitely melting and a new northern passage will be available above Canada through Greenland for shipping, and oil gas deposits around there, some rare earth minerals?
Sounds like a wise investment. 

not sure on the veracity of the linked article I posted

[EXETER]

They say the ice is definitely melting and a new northern passage will be available above Canada through Greenland for shipping, and oil gas deposits around there, some rare earth minerals?
Sounds like a wise investment. 

not sure on the veracity of the linked article I posted

 The Northwest Passage isn't going to be strategically important until it is ice-free year-round, and that won't happen until probably the end of the century if global warming continues at the present rate.  

And by the way, let's pause here for a moment and recognize that the premise that the Northwest Passage is going to become ice-free contains within it the premise that anthropogenic global warming is real. 

Be that as it may, there is no urgency to this issue.  There is no particular reason this issue has to be decided now.  For one thing, both Russia and China are in very serious demographic decline.  Their birth rate fell below the replacement level many years ago, and they don't really care very much for immigration, so that means that they are very unlikely to be major global powers in about 10 years or so. All we have to do is wait a little bit and they will no longer be much of a factor.  That assumes that we can avoid a similar fate.

And then you have to consider the cost-benefit ratio of trying to take over Greenland militarily.  Greenland is a member of NATO through Denmark.  If we attempted a hostile takeover of Greenland, we would basically shatter NATO.  We would be isolated diplomatically, economically, and militarily. That would be costly and there is really no need for that.  

We actually faced a similar situation at the end of WWII.  The large oil fields of Saudi Arabia had just been discovered and we realized that all that petroleum would be necessary for the rebuilding of Europe and that we could make a buck in that process.  So we partnered with Saudi Arabia through ARAMCO--the ARab AMerican Oil Company. We provided the capital and expertise to put in a petroleum infrastructure and the Arabs gave us an exclusive business arrangement  to sell the oil internationally. We didn't have to take over and own Saudi Arabia.  

If we want access to the resources of Greenland, why don't we just enter into a business agreement to develop them?

[Creaky]

 The Northwest Passage isn't going to be strategically important until it is ice-free year-round, and that won't happen until probably the end of the century if global warming continues at the present rate.  

And by the way, let's pause here for a moment and recognize that the premise that the Northwest Passage is going to become ice-free contains within it the premise that anthropogenic global warming is real. 

Be that as it may, there is no urgency to this issue.  There is no particular reason this issue has to be decided now.  For one thing, both Russia and China are in very serious demographic decline.  Their birth rate fell below the replacement level many years ago, and they don't really care very much for immigration, so that means that they are very unlikely to be major global powers in about 10 years or so. All we have to do is wait a little bit and they will no longer be much of a factor.  That assumes that we can avoid a similar fate.

And then you have to consider the cost-benefit ratio of trying to take over Greenland militarily.  Greenland is a member of NATO through Denmark.  If we attempted a hostile takeover of Greenland, we would basically shatter NATO.  We would be isolated diplomatically, economically, and militarily. That would be costly and there is really no need for that.  

We actually faced a similar situation at the end of WWII.  The large oil fields of Saudi Arabia had just been discovered and we realized that all that petroleum would be necessary for the rebuilding of Europe and that we could make a buck in that process.  So we partnered with Saudi Arabia through ARAMCO--the ARab AMerican Oil Company. We provided the capital and expertise to put in a petroleum infrastructure and the Arabs gave us an exclusive business arrangement  to sell the oil internationally. We didn't have to take over and own Saudi Arabia.  

If we want access to the resources of Greenland, why don't we just enter into a business agreement to develop them?

Why does it have to be ice free year round 
Trump said buy it, not invade…..
and pretty sure that Denmark won’t give exclusive deals 

irrespective, my question was re what the general US population thought of Trumps plans

[quintessentone]

It looks like the general US population already gave their position. What the international community thinks is what I think is more important with this issue.

Tensions over Greenland escalated after French Foreign Minister Jean Noel Barrot suggested sending troops to the region, following a heated exchange between US President Trump and Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen. Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland sparked the conflict, with France’s intervention potentially challenging American foreign policy. Although unlikely, military action could disrupt NATO, weakening US influence in Europe and leading to a major shift in transatlantic relations, with significant geopolitical consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vn8doIdvro