President Trump Is Reportedly Considering Buying Greenland (wsj.com) 344
According to The Wall Street Journal, President Trump has -- with varying degrees of seriousness -- floated the idea of the U.S. buying the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland. From the report: In meetings, at dinners and in passing conversations, Mr. Trump has asked advisers whether the U.S. can acquire Greenland, listened with interest when they discuss its abundant resources and geopolitical importance and, according to two of the people, has asked his White House counsel to look into the idea. Some of his advisers have supported the concept, saying it was a good economic play, two of the people said, while others dismissed it as a fleeting fascination that will never come to fruition. It is also unclear how the U.S. would go about acquiring Greenland even if the effort were serious.
U.S. officials view Greenland as important to American national-security interests. A decades-old defense treaty between Denmark and the U.S. gives the U.S. military virtually unlimited rights in Greenland at America's northernmost base, Thule Air Base. Located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it includes a radar station that is part of a U.S. ballistic missile early-warning system. The base is also used by the U.S. Air Force Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. People outside the White House have described purchasing Greenland as an Alaska-type acquisition for Mr. Trump's legacy, advisers said. The few current and former White House officials who had heard of the notion described it with a mix of anticipation and apprehension, since it remains unknown how far the president might push the idea. It generated a cascade of questions among his advisers, such as whether the U.S. could use Greenland to establish a stronger military presence in the Arctic, and what kind of research opportunities it might present. The report says that Trump told associates he had been advised to look into buying Greenland because Denmark faced financial trouble from supporting the territory. The person who told the Journal about Trump's comments said they seemed like more of a joke about his power than a serious inquiry.
According to U.S. and Danish government statistics, Greenland relies on $591 million of subsidies from Denmark annually, which make up about 60% of its annual budget.
U.S. officials view Greenland as important to American national-security interests. A decades-old defense treaty between Denmark and the U.S. gives the U.S. military virtually unlimited rights in Greenland at America's northernmost base, Thule Air Base. Located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it includes a radar station that is part of a U.S. ballistic missile early-warning system. The base is also used by the U.S. Air Force Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. People outside the White House have described purchasing Greenland as an Alaska-type acquisition for Mr. Trump's legacy, advisers said. The few current and former White House officials who had heard of the notion described it with a mix of anticipation and apprehension, since it remains unknown how far the president might push the idea. It generated a cascade of questions among his advisers, such as whether the U.S. could use Greenland to establish a stronger military presence in the Arctic, and what kind of research opportunities it might present. The report says that Trump told associates he had been advised to look into buying Greenland because Denmark faced financial trouble from supporting the territory. The person who told the Journal about Trump's comments said they seemed like more of a joke about his power than a serious inquiry.
According to U.S. and Danish government statistics, Greenland relies on $591 million of subsidies from Denmark annually, which make up about 60% of its annual budget.
Erik the Red (Score:5, Funny)
It is somehow ironic that Erik the Red duped people into moving to the frozen wasteland by naming it "Greenland" and thanks (?) to global warming it looks like it will be primarily "green" one day soon after all.
Trump's environmental policies are "helping" Greenland live up to its name.
How do I leave this timeline? I've been stuck here for a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is somehow ironic that Erik the Red duped people into moving to the frozen wasteland by naming it "Greenland" and thanks (?) to global warming it looks like it will be primarily "green" one day soon after all.
This is just another facet of the "New Green Deal" that has been all the rage these days.
Re:Erik the Red (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Erik the Red (Score:5, Funny)
It actually all just started with a spelling error.
Trump wanted to acquire more Nuuks.
Re:Erik the Red (Score:5, Funny)
I do seem to have this reputation ;-)
Re:Erik the Red (Score:5, Informative)
The "Iceland is green, Greenland is icy, both names were chosen to trick people" thing is rather misleading.
The official history for the naming of Iceland (Ísland (EES-lawnd) - literally, "Ice Land" - although today "ís" is mainly used to mean ice cream ;) ) traces back to Flóki Vilgerðarsson (also known as Hrafna-Flóki, or "Raven Flóki"), who set sail with caged ravens. He'd release them, and - being land birds with good eyesight - they'd immediately gain as much altitude as they could to try to find land. If they were unable to, they'd return to the boat, but if they beelined in one direction, they could be followed to land. Flóki's first winter was at Barðaströnd, where he saw pack ice floating in the water. While this is actually rare in Iceland, he dubbed the country Ísland as a response. While most of Iceland is unglaciated (~11% glacier coverage today, more back then), there are extensive glaciers that approach close to the sea - particularly the terminal glaciers of Vatnajökull in the southeast, the very direction that most settlers were coming from. So most of them probably didn't question the name much - nor would they have during our long winters.
Greenland, the island, was known about before Eiríkr "Hinn Rauði" (TH)orvaldsson (thorn replaced by TH due to Slashdot) - a land of ice beyond some skerries (the identity of which are now disputed, and are said to have collapsed into the sea). There had been attempts to settle the skerries and the small rocky coastal bands not covered by glaciers, but none of them lasted long. Eiríkr was banned for a period for "some killings" - what said banishment basically meant is not that some government would punish him, but rather anyone else was free to kill him if they saw him, without them being punished in return. He sailed along the (known) icy land to the west further than anyone else had gone, until he found... wait for it... green lands, entirely unglaciated. These parts of Greenland are still green and support towns today. He named the place he found "Grænland" (GRINE-lahnd / Green Land). While he stated that he did so in order to have an appealing name to attract settlers, it wasn't some sort of trick to get people to settle on a glacier - the area wasn't that different from his home in Vestfirðir.
As for this whole "Trump buying Greenland" thing - the US actually once tried to buy Iceland, too. It fell apart because the US had just controversially bought Alaska, and there was a lot of negative PR about that, so when the potential of an Iceland deal came out, there was a lot of pressure in the US to abandon the effort. I imagine that Greenlanders' response would be pretty much the same as that of the Icelandic independence movement at the time - basically, "We won't accept it and just peacefully become part of the US, of course - but this is *great* PR to use in our struggle, showing how Denmark would be willing to sell us away for a bit of cash - putting the lie to their claims of caring about us."
(The US not only tried to buy Iceland once, but it also occupied the country once as well. You weren't bad overlords, though - Iceland made a lot of money off of that, used it as an excuse to tell Denmark to pound sand, and you didn't try to keep the country afterwards ;) )
a stronger military presence in the Arctic (Score:5, Interesting)
We might want to invest in some more icebreakers first.
Meet the neglected 43-year-old stepchild of the U.S. military-industrial complex [latimes.com]
But they're not as sexy as other military hardware I guess.
The United States spends $2 billion a day on the most advanced military ever assembled, with more aircraft carriers, fighter planes and nuclear submarines than any other nation. The Pentagon intends to develop a space fleet of orbiting lasers, missile sensors and satellites.
Then there is the Polar Star.
The only U.S. ship capable of bludgeoning through heavy ice, it is the neglected 43-year-old stepchild of the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting story thanks for the link!
Re: (Score:2)
Is that article available from a source where I don't first of all have to circumvent an adblocker?
Re: a stronger military presence in the Arctic (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't... Militarizing the poles is a bad idea, much like militarizing space is.
The goal should be to de-escalate, not ramping up the tensions. If this happens you can be sure Russia will respond.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Militarizing the poles is a bad idea, ...If this happens you can be sure Russia will respond.
Yeah, it didn't work [wikipedia.org] well the last time someone "militariz[ed] the poles".
Re: a stronger military presence in the Arctic (Score:3)
Funny, they don't seem to have needed an excuse thusfar.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017... [foreignpolicy.com]
Re:a stronger military presence in the Arctic (Score:5, Funny)
You should probably go see a doctor.
You're lecturing us on hyperbole? (Score:3, Informative)
So I gather that Trump believes and accepts the idea that people are for sale. So the new USA global take over plan, buy countries and their slave populations ..
Yeah I mean it's not like anyone was living in Africa or Louisiana when we bought them.
God damn but the anti-Trump brigade (of which I consider myself a part) just will not stop making asses of themselves. The man has given you plenty of ammunition. Even here, in this case, you can probably easily ridicule the idea as unrealistic without bitching about him wanting to buy and sell human beings, etc. I'm pretty sure that if this happened (rather doubtful), Denmark would give the people of Greenland a vote
Re: (Score:3)
It's the fact that Trump seems to see this as a way to make money off of climate change
As GP said, you people with Trump Derangement Syndrome are "off the walls bonkers". Remember - the first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem.
Re:a stronger military presence in the Arctic (Score:4, Insightful)
Like it or not, territory exchanges are a thing that happens.
Sometimes it's minor. EG, the county I live in just settled a 100+ year border dispute with a neighboring county and 150 parcels transferred from one county to another. Going from one county to another within the US might seem minor, but it entails changing to a different school district, different emergency services are now responsible for responding to calls there, and the taxing entity (and hence tax rates) change.
Sometimes it's more major. EG, we bought Alaska from Russia, and Louisiana from France. We gained a huge huge portion of western territory from Mexico after they lost the Mexican-American War.
You're not "buying" the people there - the territory just switches from the control of one power to another. If the people want they're typically free to stay where they're at and become citizens of the new country, or if they'd prefer they can remain citizens of their original country and either stay put (as a foreign national) or move back to somewhere their original government still controls.
Now, do I think we'll end up buying Greenland? Probably not, but stranger things have happened. Plus the reality is that Greenland is VERY sparsely populated and there's not a lot of people there anyways. The entire island (which is really more like a miniature continent) has a population about the size of a small town.
Re:a stronger military presence in the Arctic (Score:4)
Holy crap, I can't believe people are taking this seriously. For the love of the gods its on the front page of CNN. Trump is NOT going to buy Greenland. He is trolling you people. The very thought is so ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Offhand I think the idea is less ridiculous than replicating the Great Wall of China on the US/Mexico border.
Hold on, lets not completely throw this ideal out. It's true the Great Wall of China didn't do what it was intended to do. But you know in 2,000 years the Great Wall of Trump might become a great tourist trap. Sell some orange colored Trump bobble heads, maybe some golf clubs where you can wack golf balls across the boarder. The possibles are endless.
Re: (Score:3)
Current melt is roughly tracking that [nsidc.org] of the extreme melt event of 2012. Not that any year in the past decade has been even remotely close to the historic average.
Or were you expecting ice to incrementally decline by some fixed amount every year without any noise?
How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA is not exactly awash with cash. If I were the Danish Prime Minister (Mette Frederiksen) I would not accept anything other than cash - and not in USA dollars.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenland is a self governing part of Denmark. I think the residents of Greenland, who receive quite a few benefits from Denmark might not be thrilled with becoming the Puerto Rico of the Arctic Circle.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Interesting)
They would more likely want to join Canada... Which would also end the dispute over Hans Island, the world's most friendly territorial dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland is a self governing part of Denmark. I think the residents of Greenland, who receive quite a few benefits from Denmark might not be thrilled with becoming the Puerto Rico of the Arctic Circle.
They might not be thrilled with it, but unless they can cough up the money to buy the land from Denmark, they may not have much choice in the matter.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Greenland is a self governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark. A treaty has been drawn that at any point, the Greenlanders can hold a referendum and leave the Kingdom of Denmark. At which point they would also forfeit the subsidies. Denmark is not in a position to "sell" Greenland. Greenland would simply vote to leave.
With a sufficiently good offer you may incite the Greenlanders to leave Denmark and join some other country. Given their independent minded nature and the way US treats it's other poor territories (see: Puerto Rico) I believe the offer must be exorbitant along with guarantees of self-governing, environmental guarantees, guarantees against resource exploitation etc. Really, it's a non-starter.
Somebody played a cruel joke on Trump. Now he runs around embarrassing himself and US. Greenland is not for sale. Trump is just blinded by the prospect of having his name on another piece of real-estate.
Trump is set to visit Denmark september 2nd. He will meet with the Queen. Greenland and Greenlanders hold a HUGE place in her heart. She will be very, very offended if he enquires about buying Greenland. Danes will be offended.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody played a cruel joke on Trump.
IMO, that joke probably involves the Mercator projection.
"Look at how huge Greenland is!!"
Re: (Score:2)
What if Putin decides that the sale of Alaska was a mistake and wants to buy it back? No problem there either?
I mean, the budget could use a few extra billions.
Re: How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing arrogance in his whole story and the concept that Greenland is just some commodity that can be traded or the that people put money first. The people of Greenland have already demonstrated how independently minded they are by their withdrawal from the EU. Why on earth would they want to join the US? Look at the way the US treats it's other poorer constituent nations and territories like Puerto Rico and the Navajo. The people of Greenland would be better off voting to rejoin the EU and benefitting from the EU's development funds.
Re: How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Informative)
This had nothing to do with being independently minded and everything with 90% of Greenland's exports being fish they've caught. EU means common fisheries policy, which includes quotas and open access.
Re: How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The main reason for leaving is disagreements about the Common Fisheries Policy and to regain control of Greenlandic fish resources to subsequently remain outside EU waters. Citizens of Greenland are, nonetheless, EU citizens within the meaning of EU treaties and Danish nationality law.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway, Iceland and Faroer aren't EU members for mostly the same reason. It's all about the little fishies that swim in the sea.
Re: (Score:2)
The United Kingdom is soon not to be an EU member for what is for at least a significant number of people the same reason. However the absurd thing is their current policy is to leave regardless if it means breaking up the union, the latter of which involves losing fishing rights in Scottish waters, by far the vast majority of fishing waters currently in the UK.
There must be a lot of heavy metals in those fish for the topic to make people so stupid.
Oh please, how naive are you? (Score:5, Informative)
"the concept that Greenland is just some commodity that can be traded"
Land has always been traded between countries. Go find out who the USA acquired Alaska from or who used to own what is now New York.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Now countries just take what they want without paying. Ask Ukraine how much Russia paid for Crimea a few years back.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you're Russian or one of their shills since that referendum was held AFTER russia invaded and we all know how genuine poll results are under putins rule.
I'm neither Russian nor any fan of Russia. I am a fan of truth, however, and there's no evidence that I've seen that the 2014 Crimean parliamentary election, or the 2016 Crimean participation in the Russian parliamentary election, or the 2018 Crimean participation in the presidential election were rigged, and all produced strongly pro-Russian results. I've also seen no evidence that Putin rigs elections elsewhere in Russia. To me it's baffling that Russians like Putin so much, but all of the independent r
Re: How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Denmark's annual federal budget is approx. 100 billion Euro, so no, the support for Greenland is not a "huge" part of that.
2. Denmark is a European democracy and will not sell out part of it's constituency to the highest bidder against their will. I can't even understand where you get the idea that this would be remotely possible
Re: How would he pay for it ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, since politicians are routinely bought and sold in the US, Trump probably thinks citizens of foreign countries can be bought and sold as well.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't cost Denmark that. Denmark gives Greenland that annually.
Re: (Score:3)
Non sociopaths don't condense everything down to the financial balance sheet.
There's the human cost, the responsibility to the people, the quality of life changes to consider. As Denmark is a nation that cares for it's citizens, it's unlikely they would willingly sell off a territory where said citizens would see a significant quality of life decrease.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenland is a self governing part of Denmark. I think the residents of Greenland, who receive quite a few benefits from Denmark might not be thrilled with becoming the Puerto Rico of the Arctic Circle.
And Puerto Rico is a largely self governing part of the United States.
It has been ruled by leftists for decades. It kicked out the US Naval base (with celebrity activism, etc.), and then a few years later had massive help poured in - as best it could be, sure would have been a lot easier with that naval base still there - after the hurricane.
Leftist poverty and mismanagement is the cause of Puerto Rico's problems, not being part of the US.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Trump, he probably honestly thinks that this would reduce the national debt and trade deficit simultaneously, and then give everyone a tax break to celebrate.
Re:How would he pay for it ? - Swap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that the US economy is especially vulnerable and the US government on the brink of bankruptcy is a political boogie man used to frighten voters who think of the wealth of nations as if it were currency stuffed in a mattress somewhere (or gold in a vault, which conceptually is the same thing).
That's not to say that US government finances can't be mismanaged, or that the US economy can't be damaged. But running out of cash is not a realistic problem. It's not like we're going to dig into the mattr
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure? Buying something that is not for sale is rarely cheap. Good luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything has a price. According to the summary its a money pit for Denmark.
Re:How would he pay for it ? (Score:4, Interesting)
One, Greenland is not full of Native Americans, so people would pay attention if the citizens are treated poorly.
Two, Greenland costs Denmark $591 Million in subsidies, why wouldn't it cost the US that as well?
Three, Greenland is full of socialists who expect a level of Government care that would give a Republican the vapors.
Four, Greenland would NOT vote Republican, why dilute what few voters they have?
Five, if Denmark isn't exploiting Greenland's natural resources profitably how would the US do so in a way that wouldn't require keeping it's citizens at gun point?
Re: (Score:3)
Most of your points hinge on how Greenland would be integrated into the United States as well as the nature of the deal between the US and Denmark. It's unlikely that it would be brought in as a state. It would be brought in as an unincorporated territory unless there is companion legislation that brings it in as an incorporated territory. Greenland has about a tenth of the population of the lower population US state. Its' current population (56,171) is less than 1k more than either of the two smallest US t
Oil (Score:5, Interesting)
Greenland is believed by some geologists to have some of the world's largest remaining oil resources. ... U.S. Geological Survey found in 2001 that the waters off north-eastern Greenland, in the Greenland Sea north and south of the Arctic Circle, could contain up to 110 billion barrels (17Ã--109 m3) of oil. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Oil (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we ran out? Who'd have guessed that freedom wasn't a renewable resource.
Re: (Score:2)
We only bring freedom to brown people.
Then again... the Kalaallit there look kinda ... at least they don't look like proper whites, that should do.
Re: Oil (Score:2)
And Denmark can not afford to keep it with 100 bn barrels of oil? Makes no sense. Purely about national security methinks, and Long term investment with climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"We have plenty of oil" is not the world's greatest piece of strategic thinking.
"Who will have plenty of oil in fifty years time?" is a far more interesting and useful question, especially if small cheap activities now can assure that the answer is "us".
Would the US actually support Greenland? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much like Puerto Rico could have/should done with the support the US gov sent.
What a gov of Puerto Rico does with help sent is a matter for the gov of Puerto Rico.
The USA got the support in place. The Puerto Rico gov was the gov to do something with that US help and support...
US support for Greenland would be much like its support for Alaska as it would be part of the USA.
Not another "Puerto Ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Support?
You didn't quite understand the idea behind neo-colonialism.
Re: (Score:3)
Puerto Rico is exploiting its territorial status to fleece the U.S. treasury. As a territory, its citizens are U.S. citizens and enjoy the benefits and services the U.S. government provides. But they do not have to pay Federal income tax [wikipedia.org]. In a nutshell, status as a U.S. territory is only intended to be temporary. The territory should ASAP either vote to become a full-fledged U.S. st
Re: Would the US actually support Greenland? (Score:3)
Re:Would the US actually support Greenland? (Score:4, Informative)
And, in point of fact, Trump/the USA did not fail to support Puerto Rico after the hurricane. The Governor went on a rant on TV about lack of support from the Trump administration with a backdrop of piles upon piles of aid shipments sitting on the wharf, and not being distributed. So aside from every part of the GP being misleading or outright false, it was a great comment.
Asking for trouble (Score:5, Informative)
There's an island off Greenland that is the subject of a border dispute between Denmark and Canada. If Trump gets involved there's no telling how far that border dispute could escalate.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the cutest border dispute in the world! I'd hate to see that go.
As I recall, it's just a barren rock, and folks from the two countries occasionally sail over to it, take the other country's flag and the bottle of booze the other country left for them, leave their own flag and booze, and sail off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd love to know what lead to your brain breaking
Re: (Score:3)
Meth and Trump rallies are the usual culprits that cause someone to reach that level of insanity
Trump Country Club: North Atlantic (Score:4, Insightful)
He thinks "Greenland" refers to the number of putting greens available there.
For once Trump is actually thinking ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
We're going to need a place like Greenland to move most of his supporters once the southern USA ends up under water and/or becomes too hot to support human habitation.
Re:For once Trump is actually thinking ahead (Score:5, Funny)
We're going to need a place like Greenland to move most of his supporters once the southern USA ends up under water and/or becomes too hot to support human habitation.
No way will his supporters move - they’ll be too worried about falling off the edge of the earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was never a criminal mastermind. He's so incompetent he couldn't collude properly.
Not for sale... (Score:3)
A: "Hey, Trump wants to buy Greenland for the United States"
B: "What? Seriously?"
A: "Apparently"
A&B look at each other
A & B simultaneously: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re: Not for sale... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Louisiana purchase? Hello? Does NO ONE know anything about American history? Whether or not buying Greenland is a serious possibility, the idea absolutely has HUGE precedent in US history. Laughing at the concept without consideration of the real possibility is more revealing of the lack of imagination of some posters here than the administration.
Since Trump goes shopping, he should also buy France, and since he's at it, buy the whole Europe. "Laughing at the concept": no. But we're not in an "infinite" world territory anymore, where leaders would give up precious parcels of Earth, like Napoleon did. What is funny is that you really think Denmark would sell Greenland...
Trump wants to tell you, Global Warming is a hoax (Score:2, Insightful)
Bunker or Camp? (Score:2)
I was thinking that moving all the "Uninvited foreign guests" to one place would save a lot of money. /s?
And once the ice is all gone, it would probably be a nice place with vast untapped resources.
Not happening, but (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US "bought" Greenland, it would be buying sovereignty, not necessarily ownership. There's nothing that says Denmark couldn't retain fee-simple ownership of Danish-owned land (including mineral rights) while selling the right for Greenland to join the US, if that's what it votes for.
Its residents would probably get a good deal... dual Danish/EU + US citizenship (though their future kids would be only US citizens), and quite probably cash payments of their own. Going forward, if the US wanted outright ownership of land, it would have to go through the usual eminent-domain proceedings & pay a fair price (though the treaty would probably provide a special, expedited process for the US to buy land owned by Denmark or its royal family). If Greenland entered as a state, I'm sure the new state government would end up as the legal owner of infrastructure & public buildings presently owned by "Greenland".
For Denmark itself, it could be a great investment... selling sovereignty, while retaining fee-simple ownership & mineral rights in a vast area Denmark itself lacks the resources to fully exploit and develop on its own. If Denmark invested the money in its own infrastructure, it could expedite the construction of 3 or 4 more bridges/tunnels (say, Fehmarn, Rostok, and Helsingborg) & make itself the unquestioned commercial crossroads of Scandinavia. Yeah, it already has one route from Germany to Malmo... but it's badly choked with traffic & somewhat out of the way. More bridges/tunnels would free up capacity along the current road for Danes *themselves* to take advantage of & sprawl along.
Even if the US agreed to give original Greenland residents $25k/year for the rest of their lives to mitigate the loss of social welfare from Denmark, with only ~55,000 eligible residents, it would barely be a rounding error in the federal budget.
Anyway, the point is that "buying Greenland" wouldn't necessarily change OWNERSHIP of Greenland's real estate or mineral rights, just ultimate federal sovereignty.
It would be a long shot, but ultimately could be profitable for everyone... Greenlanders, Danes, *and* Americans. Especially if it resulted in a short-term immigration boom (and explosive real estate surge) by Danes eager to slide under the wire & walk away with free dual-citizenship that continued with new American investment. If the population of the entire *country* (ok, autonomous land, or whatever) is 55k to start with, it wouldn't take much immigration at all to double, triple, or quadruple its population almost overnight (or at least, the population of the Nuuk metro area).
Re: (Score:2)
Russia would have an epileptic wargasm if it could control Greenland. Why hasn't Russia bought Greenland? Is it because Denmark is a NATO country, and would never sell to Russia? Ok.
If Greenland were part of a country where Russia had more influence, Russia's agenda could be advanced more realistically.
(conspiracy hat off)
Re: (Score:3)
(borrows conspiracy hat and puts it on)
Which is why Russia is going to have Trump buy it for them. Then wait a year, finally say, "Global Warming is Real, I was misinformed and fired the people who misled me. Oil is bad. Therefore we will be selling the oil rights to these conglomerates."
Conglomerates = Company within company within company ultimately owned by Russian oligarchs.
Russia will, of course, send troops to protect such a vital and strategic area. Then the next year Trump will say it is a burden on
Re: (Score:2)
Well, instead of bridges and cars I rather go to Denmark viking style: with a boat!
Re:Not happening, but (Score:5, Informative)
How would that be a good deal? Only a US American might think such absurdity. What parent would sell out the future of their children?
Compared to the USA, Denmark is a paradise. Far more freedom and security for all, and full access to Europe. EU citizenship is worth more than US citizenship - just check which countries EU citizens can access visa free, and which US citizens can (https://www.atlasandboots.com/best-passport-to-have/).
Also check what rights and entitlements EU citizens have, and how few US citizens have in comparison.
Not everybody is willing to sell their future and freedom for a little short term luxury.
Re: Not happening, but (Score:2)
Denmark might very well be a paradise... but Greenland is more like Denmark's bastard child that's not quite unloved, but isn't the equal of its half-brothers & knows it painfully well.
Right now, Greenland's economy is going nowhere. It's a distant outpost with little to attract outside investment or induce others to move there. Becoming part of the US might or might not matter long-term, but it almost certainly would attract new outside investment for a decade or two just from investor exuberance.
As ot
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian ... (Score:2)
Manifest destiny would look more plausible when Canada is surrounded by Alaska, US-owned-Greenland, and the contiguous states.
Re:As a Canadian ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You’re falling into the First Nations’ trap!
Once you’re preoccupied with your western, eastern, and southern borders - the Great Army of the North will come thundering down from the Northwest Territories! Their vast armada will fill the Hudson’s Bay!
Hope you’ve brushed up on your Inuktitut... you’re gonna need it!
The Master Plan (Score:2)
Does Trump know (Score:2, Funny)
Uh oh (Score:2)
Denmark should be worried: the US has a history of taking the land it wants by force if it can't acquire it another way.
Thankfully, it merely seems a temporary whim from His Orangeness...
Re: (Score:2)
See: Virgin Islands (previously known as the Danish West Indies). [wikipedia.org]
"financial trouble" (Score:5, Informative)
That's Because He's Out of His F'N Gourd (Score:2)
Who's selling (Score:2)
Is Denmark actually willing to sell it in the first place.
I know Trumps grasp of economics isn't great (to put it mildly), but surely even he understands that you cannot buy something that isn't for sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Denmark actually willing to sell it in the first place.
In one word: No.
I don't know who, but somebody has played a joke on Trump and now he is embarrassing himself and the US.
Greenland is *not* for sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is a winner
Except the American people. Apparently we have plenty of money to buy and support a frozen wasteland forever, but not enough to do healthcare.
Re:Why not go full Alaska? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of which, the residents of Greenland would lose their single payer healthcare system.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland itself isn't a member of the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
The relation between Greenland and the EU is indeed quite complex: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Risk full EU rules.
Like not being bankrupted because you got sick.
Enjoy US freedoms and rights.
Like paying $3,000 for an ambulance ride.
Tough choice.
Re: (Score:3)
It has a population a fraction of that of Alaska. Are you seriously offering a jurisdiction with 57,000 people statehood? That's one tenth the population of Wyoming.
Re:Why not go full Alaska? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would he have to offer statehood? Greenland could be a territory.