Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenland Crisis

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Greenland Crisis

#61

Post by adventured »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #57
adventured wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion…

By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to M…

> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?

This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.

And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.

It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).

Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?

Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.

The logistical value is extremely obvious.

And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#62

Post by _zagj »

watersb wrote: post #54
TMWNN wrote: post #45

[flagged]

NATO is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

I disagree with the person you responded to, but I also don't see any practical reason why the US should remain in NATO going forward. It's essentially the defense equivalent of a welfare program, but one that primarily benefits wealthy nations that 1) have citizens who openly gloat about what they spend their money on instead of their own defense (e.g., months of paid vacations, generous parental leave, free college), 2) can't help us in the Asia-Pacific region (our primary concern) since they lack any ability to project force, and probably wouldn't help us even if they could, and 3) judging by opinion polls, do not like us, and haven't for some time, even when we do what they demand of us (support Ukraine).

Re: Greenland Crisis

#63

Post by AlotOfReading »

adventured wrote: post #61
AlotOfReading wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to M…

> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada. And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of…

    This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow.

    I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.

    Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both.

    The logistical value is extremely obvious.
It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits.

An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#64

Post by 0928374082 »

TMWNN wrote: post #45

[flagged]

> ...there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government.

If you can't trust foreign governments any more than they can trust you (you are the foreigner to them, after all), why not just divvy up the world into a bunch of "hunger games" districts and use gunboat diplomacy to keep them in line?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unified_Command_map_...

Re: Greenland Crisis

#67

Post by mrkeen »

adventured wrote: post #43
mrkeen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...

The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia. Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conf…

> The US doesn't need oil

> Since the US military strikes on Venezuela and seizure of its president Nicolás Maduro this month, Trump has said he plans to tap into the country's huge oil reserves.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4qdnj5vl9o] 4 day ago

Re: Greenland Crisis

#68

Post by palmotea »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #53
adventured wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia. Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conf…

What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.

> What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?

Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#69

Post by TMWNN »

_zagj wrote: post #62
watersb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

I disagree with the person you responded to, but I also don't see any practical reason why the US should remain in NATO going forward. It's essentially the defense equivalent of a welfare program, but one that primarily benefits wealthy nations that 1) have citizens who openly gloat about what they spend their money on instead of their own defense (e.g., months of paid vacations, generous parental leave, free college…

Agreed on all counts.

I've thought more and more as time passes, that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was right when she said after the Cold War that the US should declare victory and exit NATO.

More from me on this: https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1b50qf5/the_uns...> and https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1ax0sx5/consequ...>

Re: Greenland Crisis

#70

Post by dsfdsfsdfdsf »

michaelhoney wrote: post #44

soon he will be dead and the slow, painful, halting recovery will begin

There are 30 million Americans who cheer on bombing Nuuk and killing Danish citizens... I think this is over! If you have any hopes of reestablishing any kind of relationship, you are delusional..
Post reply on HN