I think any smart strategist would have to consider that value, yes. Also Arctic mineral rights / maritime boundaries. The current administration definitely ha

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.