6 ms·
Thule/Pituffik is why the whole "buying Greenland" thing never made sense to me, no matter how you try to look at it or steelman it... Before they were threaten
by ipdashc 1y ago
Thule/Pituffik is why the whole "buying Greenland" thing never made sense to me, no matter how you try to look at it or steelman it... Before they were threatened with being purchased and invaded, Greenland and Denmark were our allies, and it's not like Greenland had a shortage of (non-green) land. If it was about military access, we could have just asked to build another base.
- 20after4 1y agoAre there mineral/energy resources there to extract? That's the only thing that would make sense to me.
- seniorThrowaway 1y agoyes, significant amounts
- ngangaga 1y agohttps://www.mining.com/web/factbox-greenlands-rich-but-largely-untapped-mineral-resources/ https://www.mining.com/web/factbox-greenlands-rich-but-large...
- perihelions 1y agoIt's the wrong question though! The US is sitting on piles of rare earth deposits—it still doesn't mine them. It can't compete on pure cost with the mining industry in China. It's discussed extensively (e.g. here[0]) that the mining, and particularly chemical processing of ores, is labor/resource-intensive, expensive, and hazardous to ecology and to humans. It has nothing to do with the raw availability—these are super abundant ores, not rare at all, despite the name. Jack Lifton in [0] adds the perspective that rare earth processing involves a large amount of institutional knowledge, that would take time for the US to reacquire, since we forget everything when we stopped mining many decades ago. While in the interim, China has spent its time as the world's rare earth monopoly optimizing the chemical processes, widening their moat. It's like the manufacturing question, where's it about institutional knowledge and industrial ecosystems—nothing at all like oil/gas where it's solely about where the minerals are. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43953272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43953272
- stubish 1y ago> labor/resource-intensive, expensive, and hazardous to ecology and to humans This is exactly why Greenland could be needed to compete with Chinese production. With Greenland an offshore legal gray area like Guantanamo, you just need to add work camps stuffed with "Illegal Immigrants" and other Enemies of the State. In fact, why have prisoners on shore at all when it is more profitable to have them work offshore? With foreign news sources banned because of False News, the huddled masses will be educated that this is a good thing.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoFishing rights and control of the northwest passage are up there.
- AlotOfReading 1y agoGreenland controls half of one end of the northwest passage. The other end is controlled by the US via Alaska and the Bering strait. Doesn't seem like there's much additional benefit to justify burning a bunch of international goodwill on the matter.
- chollida1 1y agoThe northwest passage can be done by going through the Canadian archipelago. Greenland doesn't really factor into the northwest passage. You can do it all via Canadian waters and you can't do it at all without using Canadian waters so no need to even consider greenland as they don't have any waters that would speed up the transit.
- paul7986 1y agoMy wild guess is to make our adversaries and the world think we are capable of being a nation that attempts to conquer other lands. More so make our adversaries like Russia know we are not weak and we can conquer too and or we are now unhinged too don't even think about messing with us. Whether my assumption is right or wrong its a different vibe then the peacemaker image/vibe previous administrations have followed.
- lottamus 1y agoInteresting assumption. Could be the administration is attempting to seem “relatable” before negotiating with Russia and China.
- GoldenMonkey 1y agoA Different take. Greenland is strategic to the security of North America. And had been severely neglected by Denmark. Just like all Nato countries, not contributing financially to security as required. This saber rattling had the desired effect and result. More military investment in Greenland. But, using other ppl's money... Denmark. And in Canada's case with becoming a 51'st state... they too are now committed to meeting NATO $ obligations.
- exe34 1y agoYes, and hopefully investment will be predominantly in European/Canadian companies.
- MaxHoppersGhost 1y agoAgreed. Europe has been mooching off US military spend for decades. I also wouldn’t expect Denmark has the military capability to hold Greenland in a war.
- ChocolateGod 1y agoThe US has been one of the biggest pushers for European nations to rely on NATO.
- karaterobot 1y agoNo need to ask. As mentioned in the article, the U.S. has the right, by treaty, to build military bases in Greenland already.
- pajko 1y agoExcept when they want to build secret nuclear vaults. Not sure about how Greenland compares to Alaska, but it also could be a perfect home for a private doomsday seed vault (like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault which is controlled by Norway)
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y agoGreenland has been under intense pressure from China and Russia trying to gobble up anything they can. Just one example. There are others of China and/or Russian interests buying up British, Dutch, Australian, etc companies that have existing contracts and then switching it over to their control. https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/23/greenland-mining-china https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/23/greenland-mining-ch...
- DennisP 1y agoCommercial mining has little to do with Denmark withdrawing from treaties in favor of military partnership with our adversaries. And your link is about Greenland expelling a Chinese mining firm, so it seems like things were going reasonably well for the US on that front too.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoThat the firm was allowed in and then needed to be expelled is the issue. How many operators are still there but undetected, or so embedded that they cannot be easily expelled?
- DennisP 1y agoSo are you saying that the US should make military threats against any ally where a Chinese-controlled firm sets up a mine, even temporarily? Or where it might have happened without being detected?
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y agoAll Chinese or Russian firms should be considered, at least at first glance, as military or intelligence apparatus.
- DennisP 1y agoYeah but I'm wondering whether we should make it that easy for China and Russia to ruin our relationships with our allies.