Hacker News Reader

Comment by chvid | Hacker News Reader

The US has been in Greenland, and have had complete military control with it, for many decades. Doing its time there it has conducted a number of activities with very little regard for the people living there or the broader environment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

(Accidental crash causing the (non-nuclear) explosion of 3 hydrogen bombs and the loss of a 4th.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm

(A network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the Greenland ice sheet.)

However after the cold war US activity there has been cut to a single base with just over 100 men.

So with the re-newed interest and a willigness to seriously mess up the NATO alliance - what does the US want in Greenland this time around?

Minerals, data centers, launch rockets into space, prepare for climate change, maybe something with the northern sea route?

It is very unclear.

View on HN

US activities in Greenland have always been about strategic defense.

This latest enterprise likely has to do with a strategic missile defense system.

Or random spastic zone flooding. At this point the odds of a motivation being normal or rational are way below 50%.

> US activities in Greenland have always been about strategic defense.

Yes.

This is multifaceted, but my understanding is about control of the artic circle as the shipping lanes open up due to ice loss, and as a staging location for arms and supplies for forward deployed units in the northern hemisphere. Probably also some long range radars for better drone detection.

>The US has been in Greenland, and have had complete military control with it, for many decades.

Not quite.

They needed authorization from Denmark for establishing bases and the agreement was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty.

This new deal has neither constraints.

The power before was broad but this expands it.

No - the US could always do what they wanted - also in the old deal.

No. Again, it required Danish agreement and was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty.

From 1951:

> “ In order that the Government of the United States of America as a party to the North Atlantic Treaty may assist the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark by establishing and/or operating such defense areas as the two Governments, on the basis of NATO defense plans, may from time to time agree to be necessary for the development of the defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area, and which the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark is unable to establish and operate singlehanded …”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

And 2004:

>“Thule Air Base is the only defense area in Greenland. The provisions of Article II of the Defense Agreement shall apply to the establishment of new defense areas.”

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...

Take a look at those Wikipedia pages I posted - do you the Danes or the Greenlanders ok’ed any of those things?!

> No. Again, it required Danish agreement and was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty.

> The United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland and strengthen its military operations or facilities. Either Party may identify the need for a new Defense Area for the defense of the North Atlantic Treaty area, Greenland, and the American continent. Such Party shall provide a proposal describing the location, scope, size, and types of activities of the proposed Defense Area as well as other modalities such as mitigating measures, including those necessary to take account of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2004 Joint Declaration. The Parties shall immediately convene to engage in consultations through the Permanent Committee to decide implementation details based on <<<<<mutual agreement>>>>>.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/agre...

The US still needs Danish agreement for new bases.

> So with the re-newed interest and a willigness to seriously mess up the NATO alliance - what does the US want in Greenland this time around?

This assumes the US has a plan. It's a bold assumption.

I think (perhaps naively) that we do have a plan? Regardless, I have been trying to tell people in my life that the "really truly scary outcome" is not "what if everything falls apart" but "what if this works?"

I was thinking about this last night. I think the goal is "spheres of influence and Monroe doctrine stuff" and troublingly i think we might end up with more annexations in the next little bit.

If the US wanted to have more military control in Denmark, it wouldn't need this sort of ridiculous dance and a new deal.

It always could put military bases in Greenland. NATO was a thing, and Denmark never really bothered itself much with US military bases there. Greenland was not annexed by the US.

This is pretty much the same shit with the Iran war, the US now is scrambling to convince Iran to open the strait of Hormuz, just to get things in the same state they were before the war started.

> It always put military basses in Greenland

I don't think this is unilaterally true, from the first glance at this, it appears to be significantly more capability...

If the USA kept the status quo of being an ally it would never be a problem. It could only be a problem if the USA was hostile so the Danes could block additional bases (which had never happened, the USA built multiple bases in Greenland during the Cold War).

Leaving only one reason for wanting to rip apart the old agreement: in case the USA wasn't an ally anymore.

I mean, I ain't saying you're wrong. I don't like it, but the idea of non-transactional international relations is probably over...

> what does the US want in Greenland this time around?

Trump is a spectacular disaster on the domestic front, so the best he has is trying to bully other countries to make the worst Americans feel better that they're domineering someone (this is a Republican strategy as old as time). It's not unlike Putin and Russia, where a has been has a population that desperately tries to regain something from the past, however self-destructive and stupid it all is.

None of this nonsense, from the coup in Venezuela, to the impossibly stupid trade war with Canada, to destroying soft power worldwide, benefits the US at all. But it's all just for the presentation to an idiocracy (speaking specifically to Trump's base).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com