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

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Greenland Crisis

#91

Post by nozzlegear »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #63
adventured wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?

> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.

I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#92

Post by roryirvine »

weirdmantis69 wrote: post #88
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #80

I kind of hope that part of Europe's response it to start selling off its large amount of U.S. bonds. >Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8…

What do you think selling US bonds will do? Because selling US bonds is good for the US actually.

"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I'd want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."

Sure, maybe Trump's peculiar mix of ego and ignorance might mean he's one of the few exceptions to that rule - but if he were to actually try claiming that a bond rout is somehow good news in the middle of a market panic, the reaction from distressed would be investors would be hard even for him to ignore.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#93

Post by lumost »

incomingpain wrote: post #85
lumost wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the USA forced to invade Canada?

>Why is the USA forced to invade Canada? If it can get federal control over greenland it doesnt need to take Canada. The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.

>The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.

How does this follow? The US/Canada have previously made numerous mutual defense and land concession deals for joint infrastructure projects and defensive purposes. It's been USA policy for 150 years not to allow foreign interference in the Americas, and potential for Mexican or Canada to be used as grounds for continental attacks on the USA has been the cause of several pre-emptive wars.

If the US desired a military port in the arctic, such a deal could assuredly be negotiated again. As Canada's #1 trading partner, we also have significant leverage on negotiating mineral access and equitable property rights.

What does inheriting Canada's internal challenges including Quebec Succession discussions grant the USA? What makes the US "need" to own Canada?

Re: Greenland Crisis

#94

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

weirdmantis69 wrote: post #88
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #80

I kind of hope that part of Europe's response it to start selling off its large amount of U.S. bonds. >Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8…

What do you think selling US bonds will do? Because selling US bonds is good for the US actually.

Drive up inflation

Re: Greenland Crisis

#95

Post by eudamoniac »

mindslight wrote: post #28
_fs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the latest manosphere talking point. Pretty much a repeat of saying all protestors are paid by George Soros and the Clintons.

It seems more like the little-boy-o-sphere. Who over the age of 15 is following these performative preeners who spend all day at the gym? Tough men lift steel, not iron.

What does this mean? Barbells are made of steel

Re: Greenland Crisis

#96

Post by mindslight »

eudamoniac wrote: post #95
mindslight wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more like the little-boy-o-sphere. Who over the age of 15 is following these performative preeners who spend all day at the gym? Tough men lift steel, not iron.

What does this mean? Barbells are made of steel

The bar is made of steel, the weights are made of cast iron. Steel is stronger, hence its use for the bar that must withstand deflection. Tools and equipment that are used to get things done are mostly made of steel, as the primary thing they need is strength.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#97

Post by AlotOfReading »

nozzlegear wrote: post #91
AlotOfReading wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no? > With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. I'm a big propo…

    I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
If your enemy is China, Greenland is in the wrong direction. If your enemy is Russia, you can probably put them in Ukraine or Poland for free. If you want less detectable missiles, then you fund that directly. If you just want missiles as close as possible, there are subs.

There's a million different strategies with different tradeoffs here. I'm asking what set of plausible reasons point to Greenland as a local optimum.

re: ships, the two leading countries for arctic ship design (excluding Russia) are Finland and Canada.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#98

Post by eudamoniac »

mindslight wrote: post #96
eudamoniac wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this mean? Barbells are made of steel

The bar is made of steel, the weights are made of cast iron. Steel is stronger, hence its use for the bar that must withstand deflection. Tools and equipment that are used to get things done are mostly made of steel, as the primary thing they need is strength.

I thought you were wrong, but it turns out a lot of cheaper plates are indeed iron. Bumper plates used in weightlifting, the kind I normally use, are steel though, which explains my confusion.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#99

Post by mindslight »

eudamoniac wrote: post #98
mindslight wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar is made of steel, the weights are made of cast iron. Steel is stronger, hence its use for the bar that must withstand deflection. Tools and equipment that are used to get things done are mostly made of steel, as the primary thing they need is strength.

I thought you were wrong, but it turns out a lot of cheaper plates are indeed iron. Bumper plates used in weightlifting, the kind I normally use, are steel though, which explains my confusion.

Well then, it sounds like you can adopt my slogan even within the context of weightlifting.

The way I see it, I only need to be able to deadlift things like jacks, chains, SSQA fork frames, etc.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#100

Post by threecheese »

UncleMeat wrote: post #76
threecheese wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrinking of the ice caps is opening up a whole new theatre for trade, natural resource extraction, and more importantly conflict.

"New spaces for trade and natural resource extraction" doesn't sound like "unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security" to me. As for conflict, what? The US already has military bases there and the only threat to continued military access to the area is that the US is acting like a fucking two year old and pissing off all of its allies. And imagine the worst case scenario. The US loses access to the land and s…

You and I are most definitely aligned wrt reality, I was just saying expanding on the OPs argument. I believe diplomacy (plus a healthy dose of hegemony, and Alaska) is plenty for the US to be safe here. In that reality Canada/US relations are critical.
Post reply on HN