Going after Greenland

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 474
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. What needs to happen is Greenland's rare earths be mined and sold on a market. Full stop. It doesn't matter who mines it. The idea that we have to control it is poppycock. Should we be part of a treaty? Yes. Should American firms be part of the investment consortium? Sure. But we don't need to control it. Not at all.

What Trump wants to do is unrelated to national security. National security is, let's get this onto the market. Trump wants to just steal. Just like he is stealing Venezuela's oil.

And you are also right that resource dependence is never a justification for invasion or aggression. I mean, I thought that was a question settled long ago but apparently not.
 
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...
Cool story. I'm also curious your thoughts on the Epstein Files, and what the holdup is with their full release as demanded by Congress. What say ye about these Epstein Files?
 
Callatoroy said:
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?
Click to expand...
They have been asked numerous times whether they would use the military, and every single time they have made a point of specifically saying that military options are not off the table. In Trump land, that means they are planning on using the military.

So far in his second term, Trump has basically done nothing without the military. He wants to put the military to use in the hopes of bending it to his will. I'd say it's 80-90% that any move to control Greenland will involve military conquest -- in part because there is no other way of getting it.
 
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...
This is correct. I would only quibble at the idea that the arrangements are imperfect. I mean, I'm not saying they are perfect, but the word imperfect concedes too much. International development treaties work. That's the important thing. They work well, which is why so many American companies (or formerly American companies) do so much mineral extraction around the world.

It's not as if mining arrangements in the US are any better. The "imperfections" are usually things like, "rules to avoid contaminating drinking water." The only value to the US re: rare earths in Greenland is that Greenland has no political power in the US, so the US can dump as much waste as it wants with no pushback.
 
Callatoroy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes because that's what Miller wants and Trump is too much of a simpleton to do anything other than speak literally.
 
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.
Click to expand...
It already does work that way. We have dozens of economic treaties with other countries that work just fine. There is absolutely no reason a "Greenland Mineral Extraction Treaty" would be difficult.

The only barrier to the world working that way is MAGA. So if you are being genuine in your comments, you'd stop supporting these MAGA fuckface idiots who are lying to you with every breath. Somehow I doubt you are being genuine, though. I think the idea of conquest thrills you.
 
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...
The logic here is crazy. We don't want to become Russia and have to rely on the use of our military to get what we want, so we should be open to using our military preemptively to get what we want. So in order to avoid becoming like Russia, we should act like Russia.
 
Enigma94 said:
The logic here is crazy. We don't want to become Russia and have to rely on the use of our military to get what we want, so we should be open to using our military preemptively to get what we want. So in order to avoid becoming like Russia, we should act like Russia.
Click to expand...
At some point, if you aren't willing to do what's necessary to protect your economic power, you do become like russia. It's not what I'm advocating, but some have said might never equals right.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Totally off topic, but I've missed you being here. Welcome back.
 
Callatoroy said:
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?
Click to expand...
We had this conversation regarding Venezuela. Whether or not you feel like it was a "war," (I agree that it probably was not), or an attack (I believe it was), or an invasion, or something more benign, there is no doubt that American military force was used on Venezuela. I still doubt that we would use force with regards to Greenland, but the choices made in Venezuela, followed immediately by Trump pivoting to Greenland, is a cause for concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top