Greenland
I note with interest the recent discussions in re: America acquiring Greenland.
Of course, this isn't something that hasn't been raised before. There have been previous attempts.
But let's be clear about this. The acquisition of the mineral - rich Greenland is not about defending the free world. It's about the financial benefit of owning somewhere with very lucrative mining opportunities.
Denmark doesn't want to give it up. Of course it doesn't. Pretending that Denmark is therefore standing in the way of some vital defence plan which will be totally foiled if the mighty defence capital of the universe isn't really fooling anybody. Threatening to invade Greenland and forcibly take it for the good of the free world isn't either.
There's no harm in asking to buy a prime bit of real estate. There's every harm in making this out to be some altruistic gesture of defence, not only of America, but of the entire free world.
Funnily enough, I am reminded of a much smaller takeover bid, closer to my own heart. The Barclay brothers wanted to buy Sark from the UK Crown, largely because at the time, it looked like Monaco might lose it's monarchy and it's status as a tax haven, and the brothers wanted another wealthy playground for themselves and their rich mates to offload their taxable cash.
When the Crown refused to sell, the brothers set about buying the island piecemeal. Something Trump might consider, there will always be locals wanting to cash in. However, he might want to consider a few other things.
Greenland, like Sark, isn't an empty house. When people talk about buying entire islands, they do have to factor in the population, who aren't all going to be bought off. There will be people who care about their home. People who don't wan't it to become yet another casualty of the greed which has sucked dry other parts of the world. Who don't want to see their land destroyed by mining, etc.
I will watch the development of this with interest, whilst being firmly on the 'side' of those who live and work there.
RE: Greenland
Thanks Scarbrems. Here are some fun stats:
Population of Denmark: 6 million
GDP of Denmark: 400 billion
Population of Greenland: 57,000
GDP of Greenland: <3.5 billion
Population of Alaska: 733,000
GDP of Alaska: 66 billion
So Greenland is 25% larger than Alaska by land mass but providing less than a tenth of the economic value, and it’s like one percent of Denmark's population and GDP. So should Denmark sell it? Probably yes. Or at least lease parts of it. Probably no one lives in the parts where there are minerals would be extracted. Greenland's population is shrinking. It's not exactly prime baby making real estate.
You can buy real estate in Greenland, but you are buying the asset on the land. No one owns the land. For now. Maybe that will change when the good people of Greenland realize how much their standard of living could be improved through selling or leasing mineral rights. But there are probably a whole bunch of areas more profitable to mine now than Greenland.
The biggest reasons to own Greenland right now are national security and its disproportionate importance in offsetting global warming. If the US owns it, we can reverse the loss of ice up there very quickly.
What's more important to liberals: 57,000 squatters, or stopping climate change?
RE: Greenland
How is America going to stop the ice caps melting by owning Greenland? What is it going to do there that's going to achieve this? Donal Trump has repeatedly called climate change a 'hoax', but you expect me to belief this is in any way a primary reason for him to advocate buying it?
The melting ice caps are actually one of the reasons Greenland's treasures are now being eyed up as rich pickings, since they have made more valuable minerals accessible.
The race is on to access these minerals, not finding out how to cover them up again.
The EFFECT of climate change is more notable in Greenland, yes. It is therefore an important area for research purposes, but it is not as though we can simply go there and rebuild the ice caps, because Greenland is the symptom, not the cause of the problem.
The 'threat to national security' is simply the fear of someone else getting to these minerals first and controlling valuable resources. If America owns it, it's going to increase tensions between powerful nations way more than leaving it in the hands of a nation that isn't a major player in the pissing contest. Denmark's ownership of Greenland in no way prevents America from assisting in protecting it, should the need arise.
'liberal' has nothing to do with it. At this moment in time, with the political situation as it is, acquiring this island has more risk than benefit from a security point of view.
RE: Greenland
Oh, and I should add, if I genuinely believed America owning Greenland would actually stop climate change, of course that would be more important than 57,000 people.
But even if I did believe that had anything to do with the desire to buy it, I know full well, as I am sure you do, that there is nothing we can do on Greenland that will 'stop' climate change.
RE: Greenland
Actually, because of the movement of submarines under the ice as well as satellite orbits, Greenland has a very significant value to national security. Its strategic value in nuclear or satellite warfare could consist of: improved first strike capability, shorter range for interceptors, protection of trade routes, and yes, perhaps in the future access to minerals, but I think that is the least of the concerns. Most of Greenland is just ice anyway. which leads to my main point. Forget about Trump. He is only going to be around for four years. He might not even make it that long, because he is old and lots of people want to kill him. And there are plenty of people in the GOP who think that climate change is a problem, and that we are responsible to make sure humanity survives. Exhibit A: Elon Musk.
Ice melt is not merely a symptom - - it is an amplifier. The more it melts, the less sunlight is reflected back, the more oceans rise, the more jellyfish replace phytoplankton, the less CO2 is absorbed, and so on. But there's a solution: make more sea ice.
It's actually pretty easy. This is not managing a symptom, but a critical piece in a multi-pronged solution to mitigate global warming.
Even if the whole of the GOP was evil and didn't believe in climate change, remember that political tides change pretty rapidly in America and within 12 years the Dems will be back at the helm. In reality, the parties will likely agree to address this together if we have more rights to Greenland's territory.
Russia and China on the other hand do not give two craps about global warming. If they get their filthy little hands on Greenland, then all your worst nightmares will actually happen.
RE: Greenland
This just dropped minutes ago:
Denmark spoke with Trump team about increasing U.S. military presence on Greenland, says report.
The Danish government spoke privately with members of President-elect Donald Trump’s team about security in Greenland, signaling they are willing to work with the U.S. after Trump said he wanted to buy the country.
In recent days, representatives of the Danish government spoke with the incoming administration broadly about security measures in Greenland – and more specifically about potentially increasing U.S. military presence there, according to Axios
It's called Chess or for business people: The Art of Negotiations.
RE: Greenland
or for sane people, it's called BULLSHIT.
Greenland is not an independent country; it can't sell itself and I'm pretty sure the Orange rapist and fraudster is not about to trade in mar a lago for a house in Greenland. for a start the bathroom would be too small to house his stash of Top Secret documents.
And what is this nonsense about stopping climate change. Harambe, if you really possess the key to that - make more ice, it's easy - just let me know and I'll be your manager as we make a squillion, million dollars in next to no time - enough to buy Canada and build a bigger, better canal - how about one cutting straight across Florida?
Trump is a clown going on about these shiny objects to distract the idiots from his real agenda at home. Once the quibbling about Greenland dies down it will be on to the next thing. the Romans had a good phrase for it 'panem et circenses.' Let's see him get his clownshow cabinet confirmed yet before we credit him with the Art of the Deal to pull off this crap that Europe will never allow him to do.
RE: Greenland
The above response seems to be venting at Trump's personality and other irrelevant crap. I'm completely uninterested in getting into that. Trump wasn't the first President interested in acquiring its use and he will not be the last. Our country has been talking about it since the Civil War. Read the sea ice article I linked and respond to that instead. It is probably not currently economically feasible to do this at scale, but check back in 10 years and with improvements in autonomous robotic fabrication, it might well be viable.
RE: Greenland
America doesn't need to own Greenland to do something about the ice caps melting. Denmark, not being China or Russia, does give a crap about Climate change. Greenland is already the subject of much research.
Scientists from all over the world are working on plans to manage climate change, to buy us more time. But I repeat, preventing the ice caps melting further won't stop climate change because it won't address the reason they are melting in the first place. It will buy a bit of time, possibly, IF, and it's a big if at this stage, it could be done. You've mentioned the cost. It won't be one nation doing this on its own (it isn't one nation working on the project now) and there's no need for it to be. It will be a resources pool.
Or are you telling me that if America doesn't own Greenland, it will not put any resources into this? Surely not. Surely the 'liberals' and 'non liberals' alike aren't going to put possession above resolving the Climate change problem?
If you've got the answer and the money, go ahead. Denmark isn't going to stop you.
That still isn't what this land grab is about. I am fully aware that America has made a few attempts over the years to buy this Island. It wasn't about climate change and Russian submarines during the civil war, was it?
Harry Truman attempted to buy the Island in 1946 (Trump has said that's where he got the idea from) and that WAS for defence reasons, as cold war tensions ramped up. The Danes didn't sell then, but found other ways to allow the US to bolster security.
Lancelott, you spoke of the chess game of business. There was no need whatsoever to offer to buy the Island, and certainly no need to threaten to take it by force. If attention had really been paid to what happened with Truman in 1946, it might have been understood that it wasn't necessary to own the island. All that was necessary was to discuss security with the owners..
