3 ms·
That sounds reasonable but it's not IMHO. What kind of control is that? The US had military bases in Greenland when Soviet nukes had to be delivered with bombe
by actionfromafar 10mo ago
That sounds reasonable but it's not IMHO. What kind of control is that?
The US had military bases in Greenland when Soviet nukes had to be delivered with bombers flying over Greenland.
When ICBMs became a thing, those bases weren't as important anymore.
- mindcrash 10mo agoI'm not talking about military strength, I am talking about shipping lanes. Something you can already see in Venezuela as we speak: The Trump Administration has essentially blocked countries like Russia and Iran to ship oil from Venezuela. If they capture Greenland and can build a big Naval presence there they are in a great position to confiscate every cargo ship destined to Russian harbors in the north, and close off China's trading route in the Arctic aswell.
- actionfromafar 10mo agoRight. A phone call to Denmark => big Naval presence. What's the problem? Denmark would have welcomed a big Naval presence in Greenland. It benefits them too. It should have been: America: can we have a big Naval base in Greenland? Denmark: sure. 100 year agreement? It could have been: America: give us big Naval base in Greenland or we will annex you! Denmark: Eh... sure, are you alright? We got: America: we will annex you.