>The person described the question less as a serious inquiry and more as a joke meant to indicate “I’m so powerful I could buy a country,” noting that since Mr. Trump hadn’t floated the idea at a campaign rally yet, he probably isn’t seriously considering it.
With past Presidents, you would have to rely on the press and insider leaks to figure out what the President was really thinking. Between his campaign rallies, and Twitter, we get a pretty unfiltered day by day view of what is on the President's mind. That can be both good and bad.
"In meetings, at dinners and in passing conversations, Mr. Trump has asked advisers whether the U.S. can acquire Greenland"
"It is also unclear how the U.S. would go about acquiring Greenland even if the effort were serious. "
"It unleashed a cascade of questions among his advisers, such as whether the U.S. could use Greenland to establish a stronger military presence in the Arctic, and what kind of research opportunities it might present."
Ooooh, come on, how fun would it be to have DT ask the CIA to stage a coup in Greenland "with penguins or something" ?
Also, just wait until someone tells him Greenland is not really bigger than Africa, and then starts explaining Mercator projection... I want to see that moment !
You might be confusing Trump for Obama. He liked to use the CIA to violently overthrow governments (Libya), and did not have a firm grasp of geography (once claimed there were 57 states).
No one will be buying it - there will be a war to take it over and mine its resources.
Our glorious future, in which climate change turns into an opportunity for resources companies to dig stuff out of the earth.
Watch carefully for the expansion of research bases in Antarctica to be expanded and militarised.
From here there will be a large set of public opinion that comes to see the ice covering Greenland and Antarctica as simply an obstacle to commercial opportunity, who see global heating as being a strong positive.
I understand where you're coming from with this, and empathize with your perspective to a degree - but I have a lot more faith in humanity and free enterprise than you seem to.
Yes, if climate change models are remotely accurate, Greenland will become much more valuable and will attract commercial interests. I see this as a good thing, though - humanity will adapt to changing conditions. Individuals and communities will be impacted, some in positive and some in negative ways.
In short, I wouldn't see this as "now people get an opportunity to fuck up this place, too" - I see it as "the loss of natural resources in some places is offset by their gain in others".
I feel like this is one of those stories like "Condoleeza Rice on short-list for Browns HC" that's just trying to flush out someone leaking information to the press.
> The U.S. has sought to derail Chinese efforts to gain an economic foothold in Greenland. The Pentagon worked successfully in 2018 to block China from financing three airports on the island.
This is where the story takes a dark turn.
Global warming and the reduction of arctic sea ice is making this marginally interesting place more interesting all the time. In 10-20 years Greenland could become the center of a power struggle among countries seeking to obtain it.
Would the US allow China or Russia, for example to buy it? No need to sell the whole thing, either - how about a few tens of thousands of square miles? What if countries started pressuring Denmark to part with some or all of Greenland through various channels?
How would such advances be perceived by the US and how far would the US go to prevent it?
Of all the crazy ways for WWIII to start, a land grab over Greenland would be one of the strangest - at least from today's vantage point. But in just a few years, Greenland could become a flashpoint in world politics.
I'd recommend sending a short email making your case to 'hn@ycombinator.com'. You're more likely to get a response while the story is still young. "Paging" comments are hit or miss, while incoming email is better monitored.
Does Russia really need it? Other than have a foothold close to the U.S mainland ? By most predictions, Russia is going to do well with it's Siberian region due to climate change. plus it already has easy access to the artic.
> Of all the crazy ways for WWIII to start, a land grab over Greenland would be one of the strangest - at least from today's vantage point. But in just a few years, Greenland could become a flashpoint in world politics.
Greenland and Iceland have been strategically important for US/NATO since at least WW2. Keflavik is and was an essential base for ASW (anti-submarine) patrols in the North Atlantic, a waystation for ferrying aircraft from the Americas to Europe, and a variety of other uses.
Russia establishing a military presence on Greenland would be something akin to their attempt to base ballistic missiles in Cuba in terms of US national security.
If the Danes are amenable to transferring ownership to the US, then I think it would probably make total sense from a national security perspective. It seems to me that it would be a mistake to try to include it as a state, but allowing it to continue functioning as an autonomous possession would make far more sense than even trying to make it a territory (a'la Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands), especially given its low population and longstanding cultural ties to Europe. The current annual subsidy from Denmark is "only" about a half billion US Dollars. The US federal budget for FY2018 was $4.094 trillion, so that would be a whopping 0.125% increase.
Thinking about it in those terms, it would make sense for the US to buy it and increase investment into their economy purely as a hedge against potential drastic climate change and to guarantee a base of military operations in the North Atlantic.
I should probably just let Gwern post it, but since he hasn't shown up yet, here's a link to his wonderful post on the previous US attempt to buy Greenland:
"After WWII, the Cold War motivated the USA to offer $100m for ownership of Greenland, which was declined. The USA got the benefit of using Greenland anyway. I discuss how the island otherwise remained a drain since, the dim prospect it will ever be useful to Denmark, and the forgone benefits of that offer. I speculate on the real reasons for the refusal."
30 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 87.3 ms ] threadStep 1) Buy large swaths of mostly uninhabited, mostly useless arctic land.
Step 2) Ensure global warning continues unchecked, possibly even accelerate it so that the land you just bought becomes super valuable
Step 3) profit
With past Presidents, you would have to rely on the press and insider leaks to figure out what the President was really thinking. Between his campaign rallies, and Twitter, we get a pretty unfiltered day by day view of what is on the President's mind. That can be both good and bad.
"In meetings, at dinners and in passing conversations, Mr. Trump has asked advisers whether the U.S. can acquire Greenland"
"It is also unclear how the U.S. would go about acquiring Greenland even if the effort were serious. "
"It unleashed a cascade of questions among his advisers, such as whether the U.S. could use Greenland to establish a stronger military presence in the Arctic, and what kind of research opportunities it might present."
etc etc.
Also, just wait until someone tells him Greenland is not really bigger than Africa, and then starts explaining Mercator projection... I want to see that moment !
Just wow.
Our glorious future, in which climate change turns into an opportunity for resources companies to dig stuff out of the earth.
Watch carefully for the expansion of research bases in Antarctica to be expanded and militarised.
From here there will be a large set of public opinion that comes to see the ice covering Greenland and Antarctica as simply an obstacle to commercial opportunity, who see global heating as being a strong positive.
This is the beginning of that narrative.
Depressing.
Yes, if climate change models are remotely accurate, Greenland will become much more valuable and will attract commercial interests. I see this as a good thing, though - humanity will adapt to changing conditions. Individuals and communities will be impacted, some in positive and some in negative ways.
In short, I wouldn't see this as "now people get an opportunity to fuck up this place, too" - I see it as "the loss of natural resources in some places is offset by their gain in others".
This is where the story takes a dark turn.
Global warming and the reduction of arctic sea ice is making this marginally interesting place more interesting all the time. In 10-20 years Greenland could become the center of a power struggle among countries seeking to obtain it.
Would the US allow China or Russia, for example to buy it? No need to sell the whole thing, either - how about a few tens of thousands of square miles? What if countries started pressuring Denmark to part with some or all of Greenland through various channels?
How would such advances be perceived by the US and how far would the US go to prevent it?
Of all the crazy ways for WWIII to start, a land grab over Greenland would be one of the strangest - at least from today's vantage point. But in just a few years, Greenland could become a flashpoint in world politics.
Also, why was this story flagged?
Lord if I know... it seems like it fits all guidelines, and I've seen no comments that object to the story itself.
Paging dang... unflag please?
Greenland and Iceland have been strategically important for US/NATO since at least WW2. Keflavik is and was an essential base for ASW (anti-submarine) patrols in the North Atlantic, a waystation for ferrying aircraft from the Americas to Europe, and a variety of other uses.
Russia establishing a military presence on Greenland would be something akin to their attempt to base ballistic missiles in Cuba in terms of US national security.
If the Danes are amenable to transferring ownership to the US, then I think it would probably make total sense from a national security perspective. It seems to me that it would be a mistake to try to include it as a state, but allowing it to continue functioning as an autonomous possession would make far more sense than even trying to make it a territory (a'la Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands), especially given its low population and longstanding cultural ties to Europe. The current annual subsidy from Denmark is "only" about a half billion US Dollars. The US federal budget for FY2018 was $4.094 trillion, so that would be a whopping 0.125% increase.
Thinking about it in those terms, it would make sense for the US to buy it and increase investment into their economy purely as a hedge against potential drastic climate change and to guarantee a base of military operations in the North Atlantic.
"After WWII, the Cold War motivated the USA to offer $100m for ownership of Greenland, which was declined. The USA got the benefit of using Greenland anyway. I discuss how the island otherwise remained a drain since, the dim prospect it will ever be useful to Denmark, and the forgone benefits of that offer. I speculate on the real reasons for the refusal."
https://www.gwern.net/Greenland