This is all moot anyway since the Trump admin lacks the intelligence and diplomatic chops to acquire Greenland, even by force. All he’s doing is driving away our allies.
What prompted the member of the press to ask him about this obscure topic in the first place? No one was talking about this, and then a guy at a press conference asked the right question to get him to run his mouth. Now the whole world is talking about it. Who and why?
Yes I know, but no one has really brought it up in years and it wasn’t being actively discussed before this. I would therefore like know why the guy at the press conference chose to ask him this question with a known inflammatory answer, seemingly out of nowhere.
Well in Canada we've got a click-bait crazy, manipulative media desperate to keep this going and drive angst, fear and anger. It makes me pretty upset to see even the CBC (our national broadcaster) playing these stupid games, getting sound bites from everybody and their dog. Nobody actually covers the original story anymore, it's all about the reaction to the reaction.
One striking omission in this piece: that in the Cold War, Denmark always refused[0] the US permission to base nuclear weapons in Greenland. The article puts a heavy emphasis on it being an "ideal springboard for launching U.S. nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union" (in the 1950's), but elides over *why* that did not become a thing.
I don't fully agree with their thesis. I think the "nuclear war" aspect is a lot *less* strategic now then it was in the 1950-60's: "over the Arctic" is no longer the primary missile path, like it was in the early technology era. Many of them are deployed on submarines, which can launch at their target from any direction; and there are (now or soon) larger[1] land-based missiles that have enough range to go around the planet the long way, e.g. attacking the US from the south. This is, in part, strategic response to the early focus on the Arctic—both to the detection radars, and to active anti-missile defenses.
edit: And moreover, there's now satellite-based infrared sensors[2] that see rocket launches anywhere on Earth, instantly—something the early Cold War did not have. Radar is no longer the exclusive, or first, way to detect a first-strike.
It'd be a mistake to interpret 'strategic' as 'nuclear' in this instance. If anything this is probably more about influence and economic control of the Arctic. Depending on what the modeling says about future thawing, Russia might be about to gain consistent and hard-to-restrict access to the Atlantic.
I doubt the US likes that. Although they don't exactly need official control to station military assets there Trump/someone in the bureaucracy might think that official control is a better long term plan. Especially since NATO is under a little pressure right now.
EDIT Also, a classic Simpsons moment [0] springs to mind as Denmark expresses outrage at the idea of selling Greenland.
Trump also wanted to rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. This is all about vanity, not about minerals, economy, security etc.
In his press conference Trump mentioned the world map multiple times. Trump may well be forming his annexation ambitions based on what the map would look like after the annexation. Well, the world map looks very different based on what kind of projection you use. In the Mercator projection Greenland looks big. Bigger than the US, in fact. This may be what is attracting Trump, as it looks like a lot of real estate. Tobler hyperelliptical projection on the other hand makes Greenland look small. Someone should show Trump this projection and it may very well cause him to lose interest, and we can sidestep a dispute with Denmark and Europe.
Huh? What strategic significance? Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) is mostly a radar station now. It once housed B-52 bombers for the Strategic Air Command, but those are long gone.
ICBMs are not meant to go East or West, they go over the pole. A nuke passing from Russia over the North Pole toward D.C. or NYC would be detectable from Greenland. This is why there’s a radar station there. The island would also be a good spot for a naval base from which one could send ships on patrol between Greenland and Iceland or even the UK. This is useful in attempts to maintain control of the North Atlantic as Russia and China have increased their activity in the arctic and North Atlantic. Personally, I find all of the hostility between nations stupid. War drains wealth while trade increases it. However, politicians and governments become institutionally stupid as they attempt to hold on to power and their duties in government make them see enemies in every foreign government.
Greenland doesn't have "growing strategic significance", except insofar as Trump has imperialist designs on it and the geopolitical consequences that flow from that.
I think people overthink this. The reality is far more simple, just ask yourself: what would be in the best interest of Putin?
Trump threatening to take military action against Greenland due to its strategic military importance legitimizes Russia's invasion of Ukraine "for strategic military importance". Whether Trump follows through or not, suddenly Russia has a defensible position because: look America the land of the free wants to do the same thing.
Anyone trying to spin in knots trying to come up with an alternative justification will do just that, because there is no sane reason otherwise. Denmark is an ally, and all indications are they will remain an ally as long as a democratically elected government is running the US that upholds western ideals.
I'm pretty sure there are exactly two reasons for Trump going on about Greenland:
1. Putin suggested it to him at some point, because he knew it would cause chaos among the Western alliance bloc.
2. Mercator projection. It looks big on a map, therefore he wants it.
The second one is along the same lines as his obvious confusion about the word "asylum" - if you watch how he talks about refugees, he obviously doesn't know the difference between "mental asylum" and "political asylum", and thinks that people seeking refuge in the United States are all nuts. The man is really, really, really evil, but he's also really, really, really dumb.
That may be the political side of things but I disagree on a technical level. Many systems (sigint) are run remotely. It's not hard to send a technician up there either, just takes a little time. Heck send me. I'll go every now and then if it's not permanent but personnel only goes so far for protection.
When you start running logistics is when you need boots on the snow.
Interesting ideas. Alaska seems west coast to me culturally, kind of an extended Oregon, at least Pacific Northwest in character. Greenland doesn't seem "east coast" in character to me. You could imagine a Seattle guy moving to Anchorage but I can't imagine a New York guy moving to Greenland.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-consider...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash... ("Thulegate" political scandal" (1968))
I don't fully agree with their thesis. I think the "nuclear war" aspect is a lot *less* strategic now then it was in the 1950-60's: "over the Arctic" is no longer the primary missile path, like it was in the early technology era. Many of them are deployed on submarines, which can launch at their target from any direction; and there are (now or soon) larger[1] land-based missiles that have enough range to go around the planet the long way, e.g. attacking the US from the south. This is, in part, strategic response to the early focus on the Arctic—both to the detection radars, and to active anti-missile defenses.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment... ("Fractional Orbital Bombardment System")
edit: And moreover, there's now satellite-based infrared sensors[2] that see rocket launches anywhere on Earth, instantly—something the early Cold War did not have. Radar is no longer the exclusive, or first, way to detect a first-strike.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_satellite
I doubt the US likes that. Although they don't exactly need official control to station military assets there Trump/someone in the bureaucracy might think that official control is a better long term plan. Especially since NATO is under a little pressure right now.
EDIT Also, a classic Simpsons moment [0] springs to mind as Denmark expresses outrage at the idea of selling Greenland.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1llSuZfAK3c
In his press conference Trump mentioned the world map multiple times. Trump may well be forming his annexation ambitions based on what the map would look like after the annexation. Well, the world map looks very different based on what kind of projection you use. In the Mercator projection Greenland looks big. Bigger than the US, in fact. This may be what is attracting Trump, as it looks like a lot of real estate. Tobler hyperelliptical projection on the other hand makes Greenland look small. Someone should show Trump this projection and it may very well cause him to lose interest, and we can sidestep a dispute with Denmark and Europe.
Control of the Northwest Passage, maybe?
He wants to control/profit from all East/West trade.
Following the news feels more and more like watching a very entertaining tv show, especially with all the plot twists.
Trump threatening to take military action against Greenland due to its strategic military importance legitimizes Russia's invasion of Ukraine "for strategic military importance". Whether Trump follows through or not, suddenly Russia has a defensible position because: look America the land of the free wants to do the same thing.
Anyone trying to spin in knots trying to come up with an alternative justification will do just that, because there is no sane reason otherwise. Denmark is an ally, and all indications are they will remain an ally as long as a democratically elected government is running the US that upholds western ideals.
1. Putin suggested it to him at some point, because he knew it would cause chaos among the Western alliance bloc.
2. Mercator projection. It looks big on a map, therefore he wants it.
The second one is along the same lines as his obvious confusion about the word "asylum" - if you watch how he talks about refugees, he obviously doesn't know the difference between "mental asylum" and "political asylum", and thinks that people seeking refuge in the United States are all nuts. The man is really, really, really evil, but he's also really, really, really dumb.
You could imagine someone from the biggest city in washington moving to the biggest city in alaska? Amazing.
> I can't imagine a New York guy moving to Greenland.
Sure. But someone from new york would fit in better in anchorage since it actually snows and gets cold in new york during the winter. Unlike seattle.