Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

[Arwon]

Assuming they didn't literally just make it up*, it's quite possible the contact was confusing enough they picked up mostly pro-independence sentiment.

*which is my primary assumption from this gronk running what I think is just a Wordpress page

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

are you trolling?

No, I am not trolling. Greed and selfishness are part of human nature.

Throughout history, children and even wives have been sold into servitude for money. Parents are murdered for inheritance. Friends are betrayed for business interests. Daughters are married off to older men if the bridal price is large enough.

Some Greenlanders are proud of their culture, community, and land. Others are willing to take some money, migrate, and not look back. Being born in a place and speaking the language doesn't make you like it. Greenland is a cold and isolated place, there are better places in the world to live in. They just cannot say it out loud because gossip travels fast in small communities.

greenlandic pragmatists.

Humans care about individual well-being first and foremost. Migrate to a new place, marry a local and start a family, three generations later nobody cares where great-grandparents came from.

Greenland can be bought off if enough of its residents sell out the place and the price is right. Every person has their price.

 

[Angst]

this is all really strange in ways i'm not sure how to respond to. let's leave out the questionable tone i noted before.

greenland is not like sled dog mania. while it's the epitome of rural life and harsh climate, and while it has a lot of social problems, it's high tech and a modern state. they have more passport power than american citizens, by the way.

it's true that money buys a lot of things, but i'm unsure of what construct you're making there that'd reflect actual human behavior on a societal scale. some of the posts here rightfully note that not a lot of people live there, but not enough people recognize like... you're talking about selling your children as an example. you know how hard it is to get 60,000 people of a reasonably cohesive community to all opt into doing something like that? even half that number? let alone be paid to move? there's a degree of unmet needs and desperation that needs to be there for something like that to be facilitated. and in spite of how many issues they have, that is just not the state of things.

like it sounds like you're talking how to do a victoria 3 exploit. it's kind of buck wild.

i'm really struggling to figure out what kind of frozen wasteland you're envisioning here. the glaciers are a given. i'm talking about the rest.

 

[Arwon]

Some of it seems built out of some very anti indigenous sentiments

 

[Moriarte]

let's leave out the questionable tone i noted before.

I for one did hear a different tone, while reading Llewelyn: if it's agreed that Greenland becomes independent or protectorate, big US mineral companies go in and start prospecting for rare minerals, adding to national income. Might not even need a million bucks upfront, if you promise the people a larger economy, which stems from additional defence contracts, metal/mineral prospecting and aerospace. Is there anything Denmark can offer Greenlanders that's better than independence + contracts with USA? Denmark being a US partner itself isn't likely to object intensely to the soft bullying emanating from hegemon. Denmark can get something out of it too, say, idk, a seat on the UN Security Council for the next couple of years. Or Denmark can object and station a military force on the island preventively denouncing all attempts of negotiation.

There seems to be a broad trend of, let's say, peaceful land grabs, where countries with limited arable land or those seeking to secure resources are investing in land abroad directly or through commercial extensions. China/Chinese companies are doing it in Africa, UAE has land deals in Sudan, Indians and Japanese compete in buying out arable land in Brazil. Even South Korean Daewoo tried (but failed) to lease half of arable land in Madagascar in 2008.

 

[Verbose]

No, I am not trolling. Greed and selfishness are part of human nature.

And if one cultivates it American-style it is possible to dupe oneself into thinking it's more or less the only things that motivate people. That and fear. Arguable it's how that society has become set up.

Greenland? Maybe not so much. They are rather ticked off about the record of their former colonial overlord Denmark however – hence the rather strident independence movement.

Otoh, IF Trump and the US was actually motivated by money here, they could always get the contracts for developing all manner of undeveloped Greenland assets. Lack of money and people with requisite expertise are things Greenland struggles with. But it's not really about money – for the US – even when making ad hoc assumptions how it should be for the Greenlanders? (Which is always an aspect of how rich people think about, supposedly, poor people – they should be for sale.)

I for one did hear a different tone, while reading Llewelyn: if it's agreed that Greenland becomes independent or protectorate, big US mineral companies go in and start prospecting for rare minerals, adding to national income.

US companies can do that already, if they think they will make a profit. There has been a distinct lack of takers so far. They might know something about the assets and the conditions for extracting them Trump does not (among the very many things Trump is unaware of).

Denmark has been a VERY close ally of the US since the War on Terror – to the point of the Danes accepting to play the role of small but aggressive attack-dog in the US projects. And now Trump can be seen kicking it for the trouble. There's a fair bit of commentary on the irony of it all in the US/NATO sceptic press this side of the pond.

 

[Angst]

I for one did hear a different tone, while reading Llewelyn: if it's agreed that Greenland becomes independent or protectorate, big US mineral companies go in and start prospecting for rare minerals, adding to national income. Might not even need a million bucks upfront, if you promise the people a larger economy, which stems from additional defence contracts, metal/mineral prospecting and aerospace. Is there anything Denmark can offer Greenlanders that's better than independence + contracts with USA? Denmark being a US partner itself isn't likely to object intensely to the soft bullying emanating from hegemon. Denmark can get something out of it too, say, idk, a seat on the UN Security Council for the next couple of years. Or Denmark can object and station a military force on the island preventively denouncing all attempts of negotiation.

There seems to be a broad trend of, let's say, peaceful land grabs, where countries with limited arable land or those seeking to secure resources are investing in land abroad directly or through commercial extensions. China/Chinese companies are doing it in Africa, UAE has land deals in Sudan, Indians and Japanese compete in buying out arable land in Brazil. Even South Korean Daewoo tried (but failed) to lease half of arable land in Madagascar in 2008.

rare mineral prospecting is still a pipe dream, and it's not because of danish hegemony, it's because, like, in spite of global warming, the glacier's still there. denmark has a green reputation, but it's all relative; i assure you danish opportunists are also salivating at the prospects, and bluntly, it's not like denmark doesn't have money. and it's not like us companies can't already make deals in greenland, just as it's not like the us can't have a military presence on the island (they do). the blockage of industry isn't being a us territory or not, it's the goddamn ice sheet.

i also want to make a fine line about money. greenland on a pure gdp level per capita ranks above countries like germany. there are real issues as to expenses and available expertise and logistics on the island, but like... people should really wrap their head around the state of the economy there. they are not madagascar or sudan. people tend to think "oh they're natives" and then default to some exotic construct they can refer to (poor natives on a bed of resources they don't have the capital or tech for) - and this is not necessarily for you - greenlanders have full rights as danish citizens, including passport stuff, they have full access to western tech, they get substantial subsidies from the danish government, and such. now, they still have incredible difficulties, because of their vast distances, sheer costs of everything, and being burdened with the aftershock of colonialization, as they have a number of social issues.

basically, the issue is complicated and bad, but you can't eu4 mana dev your way out of it in real life, and it's not like greenlanders/danes are too stupid and poor to do mining on their own, and like, there's plenty of options for greenlanders to already access that through denmark's international position.

this is mostly about self-determination. they are dreaming about *future* industrial prospects because it'd give them the option to disentangle themselves from danish subsidies and do their own thing. right now there's a bunch of ice on top of where these minerals could be.

and on tone, the issue is like "it's technically possible to buy out anyone"/"they are desperate need money"/"they don't *actually* want to live there anyways" have some... undertones that do compare well to other stories around the world.

and on that, greenlanders are, afaik, also not just waiting around and cheering for global warming. they're somehow human enough to appreciate the crazy beauty of their homeland. there's a bit of sombre bleakness to it all, needing money but appreciating what makes your land special; but the point is that it's not just possibilities and money that keeps them from leaving. there's real beauty and culture present, and they, like, know how to deal with the cold?

 

[Kyriakos]

The problem with Greenland is that you can't claim something resembling a subcontinent when you have the population of a town If the US decided to claim part of it, there's nothing to do against it. Suburbs of the city I live in have double the population of Greenland.

 

[Angst]

The problem with Greenland is that you can't claim something resembling a subcontinent when you have the population of a town If the US decided to claim part of it, there's nothing to do against it. Suburbs of the city I live in have double the population of Greenland.

if we want to get into cynical political realism and spheres of influence and so on and so forth, that's a discussion that's relevant; but few things;
- they very much can claim it.
- the uninhabited areas are so because they're glacial. invading the "empty" space is the equivalent of building a city on an iceberg. now, one that doesn't float, sure, but the question has always been about the livable areas.
- political realism and strongmanning or not, we're talking about the leader of nato then invading a member because of 1800s "well you aren't using it", over a glacier
- this is all just wat, dude

 

[Lexicus]

Some of it seems built out of some very anti indigenous sentiments

Honestly it's amazing how little different mainstream liberalism is in 2025 compared to 1925

 

[Verbose]

Is Trump a Liberal now? Man, US politics...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Of course we want to speed up the melting of Greenland's ice sheet for economic development. Just imagine the benefits! New beachfront property!

The Greenland ice sheet is an ice sheet which forms the second largest body of ice in the world. It is an average of 1.67 km (1.0 mi) thick and over 3 km (1.9 mi) thick at its maximum. It is almost 2,900 kilometres (1,800 mi) long in a north–south direction, with a maximum width of 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern edge. The ice sheet covers 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), around 80% of the surface of Greenland, or about 12% of the area of the Antarctic ice sheet. The term 'Greenland ice sheet' is often shortened to GIS or GrIS in scientific literature.

Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[banzay13]

Of course we want to speed up the melting of Greenland's ice sheet for economic development. Just imagine the benefits! New beachfront property!

The Greenland ice sheet is an ice sheet which forms the second largest body of ice in the world. It is an average of 1.67 km (1.0 mi) thick and over 3 km (1.9 mi) thick at its maximum. It is almost 2,900 kilometres (1,800 mi) long in a north–south direction, with a maximum width of 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern edge. The ice sheet covers 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), around 80% of the surface of Greenland, or about 12% of the area of the Antarctic ice sheet. The term 'Greenland ice sheet' is often shortened to GIS or GrIS in scientific literature.

Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 715052

Good deal could be selling ice to Africa or Asia

 

[caketastydelish]

Ameria is not entitled to neither Greenland nor the Panama Canal. Leave people alone and don't be a bully.

 

[danjuno]

Ameria is not entitled to neither Greenland nor the Panama Canal. Leave people alone and don't be a bully.

We no longer live in a world where common sense like this is allowed.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I'm not sure we ever did live in that world.

 

[Verbose]

I'm not sure we ever did live in that world.

Trump at least isn't helping to get closer to it even if so...

 

[caketastydelish]

If it was not for US involvement NATO would not expanded East as it did, it was your presidents search for willing accomplices to invade Iraq that drove the expansion, are you old enough to remember Old Europe and the Freedom Fries ?

It could also be pointed out that the only NATO member to have ever invoked article 5 was precisely the US, for a simple terrorist attack, imagine that.

9/11 was not a "simple terrorist attack". A terrorist attack yes, but not a simple one. There's honestly no other terrorist attack in world history (not just American history) I can think of that is that complex and sophisticated in how it was carried out. Far less Americans were killed in the ship that sunk which got America involved in World War 1. Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack but by a state actor but more Americans were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. Yes, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, but if 9/11 is a "simple" terrorist attack then by that standard ALL terrorist attacks are simple ones. Meaning you think there is simply no such thing as a complex, or sophisticated, or significant terrorist attack. 3k people dead with property damage of astronomical proportions. Just say it already, you are sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Queda.

 

[Snowygerry]

That’s a strange conclusion to draw, I just hink US Americans are drama queens.and useless as allies. I’m not paying for that, get out of here.

 

[Kyriakos]

That’s a strange conclusion to draw, I just think US Americans are drama queens.and useless as allies.

I’m not paying for that, get out of here.

Some are just (obv I don't mean caketasty) superdumb. Then again, due to sheer numbers alone it'd be difficult to not have a positive opinion of even one USian in the forum ^^
Goes without saying that the privilege of part of the population being superdumb is not strictly USian.