> Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security. And the US has had full access to it for defense purposes since 1951: https://avalon.law.ya

> Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security. And the US has had full access to it for defense purposes since 1951: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp At the end of WWII, the US had 17 military facilities on Greenland. By its own choice, it is now down to 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_in_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_in_Greenland > As of 2020 Denmark's Arctic Command has one aircraft, four helicopters, four ships, and six dog sleds to patrol the entire island Maybe you didn't notice, but it's 2026 now. Here's an update for you: https://nordicdefencesector.com/en/article/denmark-invests-274-billion-in-the-arctic-and-north-atlantic https://nordicdefencesector.com/en/article/denmark-invests-2... > Greenland can declare independence on its own at any time And wants to keep it that way. Considering what happened the last time secession was attempted in the US, and the legal aftermath which ruled it unconstitutional, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinio... that alone is enough to make joining the US a non-starter for them: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo > there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government So "uncertainty" is now a valid reason to invade allies? Because maybe some day they might no longer want to be allied? Put it that way and it seems more like a "psychological need". Oh, wait... https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-psychologically-important-11883940 https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-ps... > Annexation would also simplify US access to Greenland's natural resources Implied in that statement is that it would allow mining companies to ignore what the natives want. We've seen that movie before (and so have the Greenlanders): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act#Legacy > it leeches €600 million from Copenhagen annually And this is a problem for the US? > with Denmark and the US paying for everything What is this "everything" that the US is supposedly paying for, other than the upkeep of the single military base it's kept there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base Personnel: 150. That is the measure of how important the US actually thinks Greenland is for its security. Needless to say, those 150 Americans are not there to defend Greenland; they are there to operate a US Space Force remote tracking station which provides early warning if something bad heads toward the continental US over the North Pole. You want the Greenlanders to pay for that? > Greenland a) is inevitably going to gain independence—every single poll for decades has shown this What the polls show is that the Greenlanders would like to become independent. They've had the option to do so since 2009, and they have not, because they know that Greenland > b) is completely unable to function on its own as a bona fide independent country Exactly. Now explain how you reconcile your (a) with your (b). Don't forget to explain why they would want to do so if they have "the best of all worlds now", which you claimed just before enunciating (a). > I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it Which part of "no" don't you understand? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c338rm41y88o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c338rm41y88o https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW556309012026RP1/ https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW556309012026RP1/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-considering-buying-greenland https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-consider... > But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves. Thus ending the security architecture which has kept Europe from blowing up the world a third time for nearly eight decades. In place of which you propose to put what? > It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe? Quite obviously not. Let's say the US takes Greenland by force. First, this will happen: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/19/politics/video/donald-trump-greenland-european-union-rasmus-jarlov-jim-sciutto-international https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/19/politics/video/donald-tru... Second, Russia would immediately follow the example and seize Svalbard while the West is busy tearing itself apart. And of course create a security zone around Murmansk; as you surely know, the Russian Northern Fleet's main base is less than 30 miles from the (current) Norwegian border: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapadnaya_Litsa_(naval_base) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapadnaya_Litsa_(naval_base) Another little thing which would be taken care of quickly would be that corridor to Kaliningrad which they've been wanting since their latest imperial collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap The Baltics would then be easy pickings. At this point you have Denmark in a shooting war with the US; and Norway, Poland, the three Baltic states and most likely Finland + Sweden in a shooting war with Russia; the perfect moment for China to make its move on Taiwan, and for North Korea to "help" by attacking South Korea (incidentally seizing or destroying 90% of the world's compute production capacity). Congratulations, you just started WW III. And all because of a "psychological need" which could only be satisfied by turning half a billion friends into enemies who will never forget, let alone forgive, your betrayal. Brilliant strategy.