3 ms·

Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and

Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow. The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.

AlotOfReading 9mo ago
By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow. Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.
- adventured 9mo ago
  > So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada. And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection. It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was). Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that? Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports. The logistical value is extremely obvious. And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
  - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
    This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada. If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here. Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports. With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both. The logistical value is extremely obvious. It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits. An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
    - nozzlegear 9mo ago
      > Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here. I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no? > With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
      - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
        I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no? If your enemy is China, Greenland is in the wrong direction. If your enemy is Russia, you can probably put them in Ukraine or Poland for free. If you want less detectable missiles, then you fund that directly. If you just want missiles as close as possible, there are subs. There's a million different strategies with different tradeoffs here. I'm asking what set of plausible reasons point to Greenland as a local optimum. re: ships, the two leading countries for arctic ship design (excluding Russia) are Finland and Canada.

AlotOfReading 9mo ago

By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow. Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.

adventured 9mo ago
> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada. And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection. It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was). Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that? Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports. The logistical value is extremely obvious. And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
- AlotOfReading 9mo ago
  This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada. If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here. Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports. With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both. The logistical value is extremely obvious. It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits. An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
  - nozzlegear 9mo ago
    > Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here. I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no? > With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
    - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
      I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no? If your enemy is China, Greenland is in the wrong direction. If your enemy is Russia, you can probably put them in Ukraine or Poland for free. If you want less detectable missiles, then you fund that directly. If you just want missiles as close as possible, there are subs. There's a million different strategies with different tradeoffs here. I'm asking what set of plausible reasons point to Greenland as a local optimum. re: ships, the two leading countries for arctic ship design (excluding Russia) are Finland and Canada.