Hacker News Reader

Comment by consumer451 | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone articulate any rational reason for the threat of the US invading and annexing Greenland? Aside from economics, there is nothing preventing US or international mining interests from mining there today, is there? What are the other possible reasons?

View on HN

There is no rational reason. The US can put as many military resources as it likes there, and the fact that they haven't probably points to it not being a great place to station a larger force because of the climate. US companies can mine there if they're able - it's not currently economic to do so due to the climate and glacier.

So I guess we have to look to irrational reasons.

>US companies can mine there if they're able

You can't just go mine there. For one no-one can own land. A permit is also not something you just get and the laws protecting the environment are much harsher than US laws.

I think it's about the Northern Sea Route (NSR) which is opening up cause of climate change.

A Chinese Panamax ship recently completed the NSR transit in just five days, showing that it's a viable alternative to the Suez Canal route.

The NSR is basically a conveyor belt for Russian-Chinese trade, most of it passing in or near Russian waters. However for that traffic to reach the global markets of the Atlantic, it has to pass through the GIUK Gap (between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK).

Right now Russia is so dependent on China they're transferring valuable military tech. So that just leaves Greenland if you want to isolate China (and Russia).

The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is nowhere near Greenland. Here is a map:

https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2018/09...

Feel free to try again.

It doesn't have to be touching, it just has to be significantly closer than Maine, so it's much easier to monitor everything or set up a chokepoint if necessary.

And if I know anything about Trump, he'll start talking about Iceland next. Give him an inch he'll take a mile.

"It doesn't have to be touching"

It's on the other side of the north pole. Several thousands of kilometers away.

Edit: I see now why Europe must own and control Alaska.

Why don't they use land transport? After all, China and Russia share a long land border.

isnt transporting stuff by boat way, waay, waaaaay cheaper than by land?

They already do, a lot. The point is to reach the Atlantic (Europe).

> I think it's about the Northern Sea Route (NSR) which is opening up cause of climate change.

But Trump said climate change is a hoax!

It's to force the dissolution of NATO. There is no other reason.

The president is kind of impressionable and flips his position depending on who he talked to last. The Russians have an influence either directly or through others he speaks to and would love him to invade Greenland as it would break NATO and legitimise their whole strategy of being able to invade and annex their neighbours of the basis of some bs excuse. The Russians really want NATO to collapse and to take back Ukraine and the Baltics. Or at least Putin's lot do.

The whole rationale is quite Russian in style - they have to invade Ukraine because it was an existential threat - it never was - they have to denazifi it - it's run by a democratically elected jewish comedian. And similarly Trump has to take Greenland before Russia or China does - there's no way that was happening. The whole thing is rather mafia style in that the reasons are ridiculous as a way of showing power, like we need money to protect you in that case.

That said the US has been interested in acquiring Greenland for ages.

The rational reason for the threat is that it is a good distraction.

Ronald Lauder, the billionaire, has floated the idea about buying Greenland with Trump since his first time in office.

The same Ronald Lauder then started buying businesses in Greenland.

The Guardian put out a good article on it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/15/ronald-laude...

As usual with Trump, it's just brazen corruption.

>The same Ronald Lauder then started buying businesses in Greenland.

Yes, and so have Bill Gates, Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Bloomberg, etc. etc.

There have been news speculation that Trump saw Greenland on a Mercator projection map, saw how big it was, and decided the US should have it. It is so stupid that it might be right.

Trump would be remembered forever as the 'president' that acquired Greenland for the USA. It's all ego.

Maybe the next president could be remembered as the one who gives it back!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com