8 ms·
National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces of land (
by anbop 7y ago
National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces of land (Gaza, Falklands, Northern Ireland)... we do not need to look to a crystal ball to see why Denmark holds onto a gigantic landmass like Greenland.
- paxys 7y agoBuying and selling of large territories between countries has been very common throughout history, so a blanket statement like this doesn't hold much weight. Much of the United States was bought rather than conquered, and China is doing the same today.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoChina is doing the same today? How so?
- paxys 7y agoWhile there aren't any borders officially being redrawn, China is rapidly buying exclusive rights to territorial waters, ports and agricultural land from countries across SE Asia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Australia, Africa, Argentina and more, where they operate semi-autonomously.
- elliotec 7y agoAgreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.
- EGreg 7y agoWhy sell it?
- xchaotic 7y agoagreed. A long term lease would be acceptable to both sides, but at this point there's no such offer as US already has a presence there, much cheaper.
- macspoofing 7y agoThe issue is that if Greenland was valuable, Denmark wouldn't be able to hold it.
- ec109685 7y agoSome country would invade it? That seems unlikely these days…
- anbop 7y agoNobody stopped Russia from invading Crimea... I doubt anyone is going to stop them from invading Greenland.
- hnzix 7y agoDenmark is part of NATO. Very different scenario. Invading Greenland would be declaring war with 29 countries.
- DuskStar 7y agoThat works against non-NATO countries. If the US decided to turn its military basing agreements into ownership, there's not much anyone could really do to stop them. (If I had to do it, I'd follow the general pattern of greatly expanding those bases and the surrounding communities and eventually holding a referendum on whether the island should remain Danish or join the US - a referendum in which all the island's residents could vote, including US military)
- vijayr02 7y agoWhy would the US do this? They are the incumbents and there's no advantage (and possibly only disadvantage) to owning this territory. My personal view is that the current geographical extent of the United States is static; there is no political will to change this - and why would you, when you can get all the benefits without the problems?
- 7y ago
- jopsen 7y agoDenmark did sell the Virgin islands to the US in 1917, so it's not unheard of. I think that back in the day, Denmark was keen to have a US base on Danish soil, hehe :) (Also selling land and citizens probably became tabu, as is today) I would suspect that later it became the reminder of former glory... But in future, we'll likely have to give it up, if it ever becomes profitable on it's own. (Unless, Greenland somehow becomes profitable by using it's ties to Denmark, for trade, etc..)
- Sharlin 7y agoYeah. As much as I respect gwern, I think here they’re underestimating the importance of the human aspects like national pride.
- jopsen 7y agoEspecially following WWII, in which Denmark offered no resistance.
- daniel_iversen 7y agoMaybe that statement is a bit ambiguous and probably by a lot of views incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement
- jopsen 7y agoOkay, fair point, we can then say little resistance. My point was that few Danes we're proud of this, and had something to prove. Thus, selling Greenland was off the table.
- brighter2morrow 7y agoWhy should Danes have resisted in WW2?
- Sharlin 7y agoBecause they were occupied by Nazi Germany?
- brighter2morrow 7y agoWas that bad for Danes?
- jonnycomputer 7y ago
- Moru 7y ago> Greenland is believed by some geologists to have some of the world’s largest remaining oil resources. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the_Arctic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the...
- Tepix 7y agoGood thing Denmark owns it then. Less likely to exploit it
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoThe Greenlandics decide not the Danish.
- goto11 7y agoDenmark does not own Greenland though, haven't for half a century.
- Fre_d 7y agoPerhaps, but we are already drilling oil out of the north sea.
- m3at 7y agoLandmass is sometimes valued much lower than we might expect. In the eighteen century, France perceived Guadeloupe (an island in the carribean) as more valuable than Canada [1] and chose to keep the former over the later. Voltaire is often quoted to have dismissed Canada as "Quelques arpents de neige" (a few acres of snow). Granted, France lost a war and had limited saying in what to keep, but the difference in perceived value is interesting. [1] https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/chr.91.4.637 https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/chr.91.4.637
- ThrustVectoring 7y agoI'd honestly agree with that assessment given the situation at the time. Canada is more valuable than Guadeloupe in a vacuum, sure, but in the context of geographic and naval concerns Guadeloupe was likely more of a net positive to France. The primary output of sugar was much more economically important, and the relative size just adds defense costs for Canada. Also, while the main port in Guadeloupe is relatively unsheltered and poor, it is well-situated strategically in the Carribean against their main rivals (English and Dutch).
- anbop 7y agoVery very interesting link. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention.