5 ms·

Honestly I’m starting to wonder if all the bluster around acquiring Greenland and annexing Canada is all focused on having land available for the United States

Honestly I’m starting to wonder if all the bluster around acquiring Greenland and annexing Canada is all focused on having land available for the United States when the southern and central states become uninhabitable.

micromacrofoot 2y ago
bold of you to assume the people running the United States care about what happens to the people living there
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  The serfs have to till fields somewhere.
croisillon 2y ago
that would imply some kind of guided long-term planning on their part
quesera 2y ago
I think any smart strategist would have to consider that value, yes. Also Arctic mineral rights / maritime boundaries. The current administration definitely has some smart strategists inside it. This is not new or unique of course, but the willingness to consider such ideas publicly is unusual. And in a different expansionist colonial age, both Greenland and Canada would be easy and valuable wins, justified by Manifest Destiny or American Exceptionalist Prosperity Gospel or somesuch garbage mythology. Going back to that age would have winners and losers. I cringe to say this, but there's a defensible argument that in a time of shrinking resources, it is logical and appropriate to go back to that kind of world order. It's even net-beneficial, as a really strong argument can be made that Canada and Greenland and the Arctic zones are not being utilized to their current or future potentials. The minor problems of sovereignty etc, are very minor problems if the stakes are high enough to accept global trade disruption. The only reason the US hasn't rolled over Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and all the Central American countries including Panama and the Canal Zone already is, well, the politeness of our age. And the corresponding stability advantages of preferential trade over conquest. The US is bursting at the seams of economic dominance in the North American zone. The age of politeness and free-ish trade might be ending. I'm personally opposed to living in that kind of new (old) age, but certain ground truths feel uncomfortably obvious.
- axus 2y ago
  I like politeness. If the USA were going to be uninhabitable anyways, might as well drop nukes on us to keep what they've got?
  - quesera 2y ago
    I'm not sure who "us" is here, but I would suspect that the US could occupy Canada, Greenland, or Mexico with only small regional skirmishes. No nukes (detonated) at all. I hope I'm very wrong -- or that if I'm right, the US public too polite to tolerate it.
- bognition 2y ago
  Exactly. For all their bluster the Trump Admin is making novel moves that wouldn’t be tolerated if they were in their own. They are hidden by the outcry around USAID.
GeoAtreides 2y ago
how inhabitable do you expect literal bare rocks to be?

micromacrofoot 2y ago

bold of you to assume the people running the United States care about what happens to the people living there

actionfromafar 2y ago
The serfs have to till fields somewhere.

croisillon 2y ago

that would imply some kind of guided long-term planning on their part

quesera 2y ago

I think any smart strategist would have to consider that value, yes. Also Arctic mineral rights / maritime boundaries. The current administration definitely has some smart strategists inside it. This is not new or unique of course, but the willingness to consider such ideas publicly is unusual. And in a different expansionist colonial age, both Greenland and Canada would be easy and valuable wins, justified by Manifest Destiny or American Exceptionalist Prosperity Gospel or somesuch garbage mythology. Going back to that age would have winners and losers. I cringe to say this, but there's a defensible argument that in a time of shrinking resources, it is logical and appropriate to go back to that kind of world order. It's even net-beneficial, as a really strong argument can be made that Canada and Greenland and the Arctic zones are not being utilized to their current or future potentials. The minor problems of sovereignty etc, are very minor problems if the stakes are high enough to accept global trade disruption. The only reason the US hasn't rolled over Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and all the Central American countries including Panama and the Canal Zone already is, well, the politeness of our age. And the corresponding stability advantages of preferential trade over conquest. The US is bursting at the seams of economic dominance in the North American zone. The age of politeness and free-ish trade might be ending. I'm personally opposed to living in that kind of new (old) age, but certain ground truths feel uncomfortably obvious.

axus 2y ago
I like politeness. If the USA were going to be uninhabitable anyways, might as well drop nukes on us to keep what they've got?
- quesera 2y ago
  I'm not sure who "us" is here, but I would suspect that the US could occupy Canada, Greenland, or Mexico with only small regional skirmishes. No nukes (detonated) at all. I hope I'm very wrong -- or that if I'm right, the US public too polite to tolerate it.
bognition 2y ago
Exactly. For all their bluster the Trump Admin is making novel moves that wouldn’t be tolerated if they were in their own. They are hidden by the outcry around USAID.

GeoAtreides 2y ago

how inhabitable do you expect literal bare rocks to be?