Hacker News Reader

Comment by TMWNN | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> ...there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government.

If you can't trust foreign governments any more than they can trust you (you are the foreigner to them, after all), why not just divvy up the world into a bunch of "hunger games" districts and use gunboat diplomacy to keep them in line?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unified_Command_map_...

>Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

I think the US may just remain secure without owning Greenland. I mean it's done ok so far.

Shrinking of the ice caps is opening up a whole new theatre for trade, natural resource extraction, and more importantly conflict.

"New spaces for trade and natural resource extraction" doesn't sound like "unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security" to me.

As for conflict, what? The US already has military bases there and the only threat to continued military access to the area is that the US is acting like a fucking two year old and pissing off all of its allies.

And imagine the worst case scenario. The US loses access to the land and sea in the entire region. How specifically does this dramatically change US security? Is a naval invasion launched from Greenland actually a thing people are worried about? Surely a better approach to maintain US security is, you know, a stable global order and military alliances with other powerful nations in the region?

You and I are most definitely aligned wrt reality, I was just saying expanding on the OPs argument. I believe diplomacy (plus a healthy dose of hegemony, and Alaska) is plenty for the US to be safe here. In that reality Canada/US relations are critical.

How about if China buys Greenland or otherwise acquires a massive port on Greenland. Maybe China builds one of the world's largest military bases on Greenland with a century deal.

China is going to end up being every bit as powerful as the US ever was, both economically and militarily. Nothing will be off the table in what's coming. Russia has never had a true global projection navy, China will have a navy that is plausibly going to be both larger and more powerful than the US navy with full global reach. That global reach will include the entire North and South American region.

If you're the US you look to lock down Greenland and Panama, for starters.

What if China builds a port in Canada? Does that mean the US has to invade?

In practice Greenland and Denmark have been quite sensitive to these things are unlikely to open a Chinese naval base. Which is one of the things that's sad about this - why attack one of your most faithful allies and wreck NATO in a way that horries most of the democratic world and delights Moscow? Not really the US's finest hour.

NATO is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

Even more so, _Trust_ is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

We now live in a world that knows for a fact a deal with the US is worth nothing and can not even be relied upon to last more than six months.

Countries and allies that made trade deals with Trump after he destroyed existing deals are now seeing further petty tariffs being applied by what appears to be a giant baby.

All the movements of plastic ships and little horses on a Risk map aside, the steady undercurrent of reliable trade and markets is headed out the window in an act of self defenestration.

I disagree with the person you responded to, but I also don't see any practical reason why the US should remain in NATO going forward. It's essentially the defense equivalent of a welfare program, but one that primarily benefits wealthy nations that 1) have citizens who openly gloat about what they spend their money on instead of their own defense (e.g., months of paid vacations, generous parental leave, free college), 2) can't help us in the Asia-Pacific region (our primary concern) since they lack any ability to project force, and probably wouldn't help us even if they could, and 3) judging by opinion polls, do not like us, and haven't for some time, even when we do what they demand of us (support Ukraine).

Agreed on all counts.

I've thought more and more as time passes, that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was right when she said after the Cold War that the US should declare victory and exit NATO.

> 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

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

> 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-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_opinio...

that alone is enough to make joining the US a non-starter for them:

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-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

> 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

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.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW556309012026RP1/

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-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)

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com