Going after Greenland

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 474
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:

Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.​

Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.

www.nytimes.com

Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.

Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… Under a little-known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland. Right now, the United States has one base in a very remote corner of the island. But the agreement allows it to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland, “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.”

… But buying Greenland — something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers on Tuesday was Mr. Trump’s latest plan — is a different question.

Greenland does not want to be bought by anyone — especially not the United States. And Denmark does not have the authority to sell it, Dr. Olesen said.

“It is impossible,” he said.

In the past, Denmark would have been the decider. In 1946, it refused the Truman administration’s offer of $100 million in gold.…”
Click to expand...
Amazing this little known agreement gives the US more than enough latitude to do what we need in Greenland for national security. But that’s not enough let’s just steal what we want because they can’t stop us. Fuck every one of these people and FUCK YOU if you support this horseshit. Just schoolyard bully madness. Sickening.
 
sringwal said:
Here's my answer. NATO, for better and for worse, is more vital for American security than anything else. No matter what route we take to obtain Greenland, getting it would damage our relationship with both NATO specifically, and Western Europe in general, significantly. If NATO falls, then the odds of another world war rise exponentially. Nothing we gain from Greenland being "ours" rather than Denmark's makes that worthwhile.

The fact of the matter is that our allies are important. It's not just about building a global infrastructure that allows us to trade goods, but it is also about avoiding the cost of large-scale war by any means necessary. Every international move our presidents make either moves us further from risking that kind of war, or moves us closer to experiencing it. We have, by and large, forgotten the "cost" of real war in the United States. My hope, up until recently, was that our taste for it was lessening. The world can work together to make life better for everyone, or we can fight and claw over resources. One of those options, I believe, is better for everyone's long term health, as well as for the planet itself. It seems, though, that each generation may have to figure out the lessons of history for themselves, though.
Click to expand...
I 100% share your sentiment about the world working together. I just don't think when it comes down to it the world will work that way. In no way do I think the US should undertake a military takeover of Greenland. I do think Greenland is vital for our long term national security. We can't continue to be dependent on china for rare earths. I think the end result is that we will take Greenland in one form or another. By "take" I mean control the resources, not necessarily invade and occupy and bring it under the US flag. I do think we will also temporarily strain our NATO alliance but not to the point it won't be repaired. When all is said and done, Europe needs us more than we need it and it can't afford to walk away.

If I was a european country I wouldn't like the US very much right now. However, we are the only ones outside of China that can really extract / process / refine the resources. Europe isn't so much geared to do that. My hope is that we are able to reach some type of deal where we agree to fund / defend / develop the infrastructure needed to secure our national security in a manner that benefits the US and the people of Greenland / Denmark. I think trump will wind up doing something. I just hope its the right thing.
 
Callatoroy said:
I 100% share your sentiment about the world working together. I just don't think when it comes down to it the world will work that way. In no way do I think the US should undertake a military takeover of Greenland. I do think Greenland is vital for our long term national security. We can't continue to be dependent on china for rare earths. I think the end result is that we will take Greenland in one form or another. By "take" I mean control the resources, not necessarily invade and occupy and bring it under the US flag. I do think we will also temporarily strain our NATO alliance but not to the point it won't be repaired. When all is said and done, Europe needs us more than we need it and it can't afford to walk away.

If I was a European country I wouldn't like the US very much right now. However, we are the only ones outside of China that can really extract / process / refine the resources. Europe isn't so much geared to do that. My hope is that we are able to reach some type of deal where we agree to fund / defend / develop the infrastructure needed to secure our national security in a manner that benefits the US and the people of Greenland / Denmark. I think trump will wind up doing something. I just hope its the right thing.
Click to expand...
Would it be cost effective to do so?
What are your numbers?
 
Paine said:
I think that Calla’s argument here isn’t really about Trump’s tone. Strip that away and the claim is pretty straightforward: if Greenland is vital to U.S. national security, then the U.S. should have it, one way or another.

I don’t accept that premise. No country gets to decide that another people’s land is too strategically important for them to control themselves. Once you grant that, the logic shifts from security to entitlement. If that logic applies to us, it applies to everyone else too, which most people only realize once it’s flipped around.

Pointing to China or Russia in the Arctic doesn’t resolve that. Rival presence ≠ imminent threat. Just because there is competition, that doesn’t justify imperial possession. Redefining “national security” to mean exclusive control, or preventing others from having influence anywhere we care about, turns it into a blank check. We’ve seen that movie before.

Moreover, the term “national security” has really just become a catch-all that no longer explains much. It’s been invoked for decades to justify coups, occupations, sanctions, and proxy wars. None of that has made Americans meaningfully safer. What it has reliably produced is instability abroad and blowback at home.

Greenland being strategically useful doesn’t mean the U.S. is entitled to it. National security can’t function as a permission slip to override sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Interesting comments because the two parameters are ultimately to take it or concede it and be dependent on another country for the resources needed to meet our economies technological needs. There are options in the middle or various ways to achieve securing the natural resources through workable agreements. Your take is there is no scenario where the US is justified in taking the island, regardless of the effect of being completely dependent on china or russia. Is that correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
 
Batt Boy said:
611244786_1428498465951362_7559381459659249978_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Perfect encapsulation of this poster. He posts some dumbass picture that a) he doesn't understand and b) if he did, he couldn't explain. He doesn't say what it's for, or what point it is trying to prove. Not anything about where it comes from or what it is depicting.

But he posts it because he thinks it makes him look smart. He throws around acronyms for the same reason; name-drops obscure people in order to pretend as if he's in the know, and in reality he's just some wanna be LARPer with a Stratfor subscription.
 


MIKE JOHNSON: Look, it is an America first priority to look to our strategic and national defense initiatives. Did Macro [sic] say something like that? I think he did. I took it as a joke.
 
finesse said:
There is nothing in that article that demands we take it. There are multiple ways to achieve what we need without promoting a doctrine that "Might makes right." It's a heinous and totally unamerican idea to anyone but a Manifest Destiny ( a failed and hypocritical doctrine) revanchist.
Click to expand...
Correct. There is nothing in the article that demands we take it. Is there any scenario as it relates to the natural resources necessary to maintain our economy where "might makes right"?
 
Callatoroy said:
Interesting comments because the two parameters are ultimately to take it or concede it and be dependent on another country for the resources needed to meet our economies technological needs. There are options in the middle or various ways to achieve securing the natural resources through workable agreements. Your take is there is no scenario where the US is justified in taking the island, regardless of the effect of being completely dependent on china or russia. Is that correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Click to expand...
You have my position correct. There is no scenario where the U.S. is justified in taking territory or overriding sovereignty simply because dependence feels strategically uncomfortable, even when that dependence is described as “vital” to long term security.

Every great power defines its interests as vital. That word has never functioned as a limiting principle, only as a justification. Once avoiding “dependency” becomes sufficient grounds for coercion, sovereignty stops meaning anything at all. At that point, the rule is not law or security but relative power. Again: if that logic works for the U.S., it works equally for China and Russia.

Resource security does matter, but the alternative to unilateral control is not helpless dependence. That’s a false binary. The real alternative is negotiated interdependence, shared rules, and constraints that still apply when outcomes are inconvenient. Those arrangements are imperfect, but they are the only ones that do not collapse into might makes right when power shifts, which it inevitably will.

It bears repeating: the moment national security is interpreted to mean exclusive control rather than collective restraint, it stops being defensive and becomes entitlement. That is the logic of imperial domination. If that’s what you’re defending, just say so. It’s a lot easier.
 
Callatoroy said:
Correct. There is nothing in the article that demands we take it. Is there any scenario as it relates to the natural resources necessary to maintain our economy where "might makes right"?
Click to expand...
Maybe. This isn't it, though. The bottom line is that rare earths aren't so rare, they are just expensive, destructive and hazardous to mine. This is more about getting it cheaper at somebody else's expense which makes it about greed and not security. If security was the issue, we wouldn't outsource so much.
 
Paine said:
You have my position correct. There is no scenario where the U.S. is justified in taking territory or overriding sovereignty simply because dependence feels strategically uncomfortable, even when that dependence is described as “vital” to long term security.

Every great power defines its interests as vital. That word has never functioned as a limiting principle, only as a justification. Once avoiding “dependency” becomes sufficient grounds for coercion, sovereignty stops meaning anything at all. At that point, the rule is not law or security but relative power. Again: if that logic works for the U.S., it works equally for China and Russia.

Resource security does matter, but the alternative to unilateral control is not helpless dependence. That’s a false binary. The real alternative is negotiated interdependence, shared rules, and constraints that still apply when outcomes are inconvenient. Those arrangements are imperfect, but they are the only ones that do not collapse into might makes right when power shifts, which it inevitably will.

It bears repeating: the moment national security is interpreted to mean exclusive control rather than collective restraint, it stops being defensive and becomes entitlement. That is the logic of imperial domination. If that’s what you’re defending, just say so. It’s a lot easier.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending that at all. I feel pretty much as you do but I could envision a situation where it becomes one or the other. I don't think we get there, at least I hope not, but I could see it. I don't need to tell you that our economic might is just as big of a part of our superpower status as our military. When you lose that double edged sword, you are left to solely rely on the military component. You become russia.
 
finesse said:
Maybe. This isn't it, though. The bottom line is that rare earths aren't so rare, they are just expensive, destructive and hazardous to mine. This is more about getting it cheaper at somebody else's expense which makes it about greed and not security. If security was the issue, we wouldn't outsource so much.
Click to expand...
Agree in the short term, disagree in the long term.
 
Callatoroy said:
I'm not defending that at all. I feel pretty much as you do but I could envision a situation where it becomes one or the other. I don't think we get there, at least I hope not, but I could see it. I don't need to tell you that our economic might is just as big of a part of our superpower status as our military. When you lose that double edged sword, you are left to solely rely on the military component. You become russia.
Click to expand...
There is no plausible scenario where the United States loses its economic power because it does not control Greenland. We became an economic superpower without it, and we could remain one through industrial policy, planning, and negotiated supply chains rather than coercion.

Treating resource dependence as an existential threat turns political choices into false necessities. Once that move is made, domination stops being a last resort, as you seem to understand it, and becomes a standing justification. That’s the line I’m pushing back on because that is where your original argument implicitly led.
 
Curious as to whether the board takes trump / miller literally when they say we have to have Greenland. Is that interpreted to mean that they would take it militarily?
 
Callatoroy said:
I 100% share your sentiment about the world working together. I just don't think when it comes down to it the world will work that way. In no way do I think the US should undertake a military takeover of Greenland. I do think Greenland is vital for our long term national security. We can't continue to be dependent on china for rare earths. I think the end result is that we will take Greenland in one form or another. By "take" I mean control the resources, not necessarily invade and occupy and bring it under the US flag. I do think we will also temporarily strain our NATO alliance but not to the point it won't be repaired. When all is said and done, Europe needs us more than we need it and it can't afford to walk away.

If I was a european country I wouldn't like the US very much right now. However, we are the only ones outside of China that can really extract / process / refine the resources. Europe isn't so much geared to do that. My hope is that we are able to reach some type of deal where we agree to fund / defend / develop the infrastructure needed to secure our national security in a manner that benefits the US and the people of Greenland / Denmark. I think trump will wind up doing something. I just hope its the right thing.
Click to expand...
Most of this is wrong.

S

Politics Thread 'Rare Earth elements'

There are a lot of misconceptions about the rare earth elements we supposedly need so badly. Let's go through the science:

1. Rare earth elements are not actually rare. There's plenty of them, and what's more, they are everywhere. I mean, not every acre of rock, but there are plenty of rare earth deposits all over the globe. Greenland's rare earth elements are small compared to the global supply.

2. The problem with rare earths is separating them from other elements in the rock. That's a refining issue, not a mining issue. And no matter where the stuff is located, the refining...
  • Like
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top