7 ms·
The issue is that if Greenland was valuable, Denmark wouldn't be able to hold it.
by macspoofing 7y ago
The 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?
- fit2rule 7y agoHow about American citizens consider removing their heinously destabilising military bases from other sovereign states, and instead using those resources to make the lives of their own citizens better? The world is tired of the USA bully thug politics involved in its placement of military bases around the world, and the arrogance of those who support these imperialist actions is very telling. These bases are not making the world more stable - they are, however, making the 1% of America's lifted military-industrial-pharmaceutical classes more wealthy.
- toasterlovin 7y agoAmerica is the worst. Except for all the world powers that came before. Be careful what you wish for.
- fit2rule 7y agoThings can get a lot, lot better than what America has to offer the world. Don't lose hope.
- macspoofing 7y agoIn what way. The way I see it if America pulls back, the alternative is either China picking up the mantle of a superpower and enforcing its world view ... or anarchy where local despots enforce a regional order as they see fit. Did you ever wonder why there was/is a proliferation of democracies and the lack of regional wars between local despots? I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order.
- fit2rule 7y ago>I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order. The present American world order requires: a) utter ignorance of its war crimes by its people, b) endless debt to pay for war and war machines, c) invalidation of sovereignty of foreign nations according to American political expediency, d) the pretence of a society governed by systems of democracy while factually being run by a cabal of oligarchs, e) more spent on war per week than on health care for its citizens per year, f) the continued degradation of cultures deemed inferior by the ruling cabal. I'd be happier if the major world power was actually democratic and used its powers to increase peoples health and well-being rather than the wholesale destruction of, and mass interference with, states not towing the American line ..
- hnzix 7y ago> there's not much anyone could really do to stop them I would suggest that significant % of the remaining 28 members of NATO (including the nuclear armed Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey) would come up with a few ideas.
- alexhutcheson 7y agoI don’t think any of those countries have their own nuclear weapons, unless you’re referring to US weapons controlled by US troops in those countries.
- petronio 7y agoThe UK and France are both NATO members and have their own nuclear stockpiles.
- macspoofing 7y agoWhy would it be unlikely? And invasion is too strong a word. Nations could simply ignore Denmark, the way they ignore Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage. Like Canada, Denmark is too weak and inconsequential to do anything about it.
- Svip 7y agoDenmark itself is a pretty valuable strategic asset. What with controlling the seaways into the Baltic. If Greenland is valuable, then Denmark would likely be guaranteed to own it. In the same way, that Denmark has remained independent. During the Second Schleswig War in 1864, the King of Denmark offered Otto von Bismarck thrice that Denmark - instead of relinquishing Schleswig - would join the German Confederation - which Bismarck would later turn into the German Empire. All three times, Bismarck rejected the offer for two primary reasons: 1) He did not believe Danes would join a pan-German state and 2) (more importantly) the other great powers would have a big problem with Denmark being German. In the same fashion, the fight over Greenland would lead to the compromise solution that Greenland remain none of the great/super powers. The US would never accept it falling into Russian hands, but they could accept Denmark keeping it.
- goto11 7y agoDenmark is a member of Nato, so the question is if Nato would be able to hold it.
- macspoofing 7y agoCanada is a member of NATO and yet it cannot assert its sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.
- goto11 7y agoBecause it is water, not land. The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims. I don't think Nato would go to war to prevent anybody sailing past Greenland in international waters either.
- macspoofing 7y ago> The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims Or to out it another way, NATO partners don't respect Canada's sovereignty claims because the Northwest Passage is too valuable and Canada can't enforce its claim. Contrast that to Taiwan, a nation that should be independent, (and is not 'international waters') but no major country is willing to recognize it as such. Greenland would be the same way. And by the way, Alaska and Louisiana purchases were executed because Russia and France respectively knew they were never going to be able to hold those territories and ceded it for cash.
- goto11 7y ago> Greenland would be the same way. No, because Greenland is part of NATO and none of the member states disputes that.
- macspoofing 7y agoWe're going in circles now.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]