4 ms·
>But you’re talking about two massive land masses with relatively little population right next to the US, both in places that will become strategically importan
by smegger001 2y ago
>But you’re talking about two massive land masses with relatively little population right next to the US, both in places that will become strategically important as the climate shifts
Canada has a higher population density than that of Alaska which is right next to it should they take it over for their protection after all the US is engaging with their enemy Russia? no? why not same logic you just gave
Second greenland isn't massive it only looks that way due to mercator projection map and the icesheet.
>The US will (if forced to) invade Canada for the same reason Russia invaded Ukraine or China is invading the Philippines and ASEAN Sea: no major power will tolerate a large border controlled by adversarial states.
Canada isn't a adversarial power they are one of our greatest alies, and everyone is openly engaging China and the CCP including Us, they are the largest industrial power on the planet with the 17% the worlds population it would be bizarre if Canada weren't.
- zmgsabst 2y ago> Canada has a higher population density than that of Alaska which is right next to it should they take it over for their protection after all the US is engaging with their enemy Russia? Do you think they wouldn’t if the population and military strength of the two countries were reversed? They won’t because they’re a tenth the population of the US, and less than that militarily. > Second greenland isn't massive it only looks that way due to mercator projection map and the icesheet. You’re factually wrong: US is 9.9M km2; Canada is 10.0M km2; but Greenland is a hefty 2.2M km2; and for comparison, Alaska is 1.7M km2. If Greenland were an independent country, it would be the 13th largest. Acquiring Greenland would be a gain of about 20%, and a larger contribution than Alaska.