Does the US need Greenland by any means necessary?

[Anonymous]

Yes

No

[FreyaRed]

No. It's just Trumps desire to expand of his falling empire.
Greenland will be ice free if climate changes, but it takes at least 1000 years, probably 10k years. Ironically when the Greenland's ice shield melts it start to behave like a pancake and grows to sides, what make Greenland completely inhabitable. I don't think rare earth in Greenland will be soon accessible. Rather will US don't exist anymore when pack ice and ice shield allow profitable mining of Greenland's resources.
By the way, If Greenland's ice shield melts ocean level increases 6-7m this will be death to most coast regions of current world.

[Curmudgeon]

To be honest... about Donald Trump...

What he *always* does, from tariffs to treaties, is start out with a blustering hard line, then he negotiates downward. And time and time again, the tariffs have ended up reduced or even rescinded, in exchange for concessions from the other nation (s). Empirical evidence of this was his first term 2017-2020. "The Donald" may be crude and crass and oafish, but by gum, he gets results.

I predict that in the end, Greenland will stay Danish, the USA will get the base (s) it wants on the terms it wants, and life (and the NATO alliance) will go on.

Moreover, those bases are intended to keep an eye on Putin, and the same people finding fault with Trump's hardball negotiation strategy were previously accusing him of being soft on Putin. You can't square that circle...

But enough of that. How about those Seahawks?

[Pohjolan]

@Curmudgeon
USA is already permitted to have bases there. The security & world peace part is just BS.

[Chazmatazz269]

The US doesn’t need to own or control Greenland, but they do need that military base protected. If it’s taken or destroyed, we lose a major protection point for Space Force.
We also benefit from any certainty that the minerals available there are traded only to western nations. Well, the corporations benefit. It’s not like they’re ever going to reduce the retail price of electronics just because the necessary resources are more available and therefore less expensive to acquire, refine and apply. When has that ever happened? Never.

[exitseven]

I think making Greenland a US territory is important but blowing up NATO or crashing the economy should be avoided, The US already has military bases there. We could expand upon that and maybe get oil or mining leases so we can develop it;s resources.

[Snakeyes7]

I don't know about by any means necessary but it would put us at a massive advantage over Russia. Also Denmark did some messed up things to the Greenlanders like having a 30 year long mass sterilization campaign of their women.

I see this as a win win for the US and Greenland.

[DryGermanGuy]

No! The U. S. already has a military base there plus a treaty with Denmark allowing them to build more military bases! How could that security setup be outmatched?

[Lliam]

The U. S. should keep its filthy mitts off of Greenland. Greenland doesn't want to be part of the U. S. And the idea that Russia has plans to invade Greenland is neocon nonsense. It is America that has imperial ambitions, not Russia.

[strateguy632]

Not by any means, trump didn't invade but it is important for security and why doesn't Denmark agree for a fair price?

[permanent]

Either America controls Greenland, or the Earth faces nuclear holocaust. What works better for you?

[Dargil]

Should the US acquire Greenland by any means necessary? Any means except bloodshed.

[jshm2]

Denmark needs to acquire the USA by any means necessary.

[Anonymous]

The US needs to get rid of diaper boy Donnie and his merry band of fuck-ups in their entirety. Even if they can do that, there's the old problems of the US that still need fixing, and the list is long. That's one very messed up country.

[Anonymous]

for the US? no

for NATO? yes but NATO without US can't defend Greenland

[Pohjolan]

Take a second look at the map. How exactly do you think Russia could successfully capture and hold Greenland?

[Opinion Owner]

@Pohjolan Russia has vastly superior firepower to Greenland and they reach there in a straight line to the north of Greenland where the population is least dense

[Pohjolan]

This wouldn't be a Greenland Vs Russia but Greenland Vs NATO war.
Strategically that would be actually beneficial to allies. Those troops would have to be supplied creating a additional logistics challenge and permit attritting their navy and air fleet.
You do realise that they would do part of the journey without air cover but within range for NATO aircraft?
Also it would be nonsensical for Russia to start such a conflict as they already have way more easily accessible ore deposits and oil which they struggle to access due to less harsh arctic conditions.

[Opinion Owner]

@Pohjolan Greenland vs NATO? I think you mean Russia vs NATO

and who is NATO's strongest member by far? Denmark? UK? of course not, it's the US

why wouldn't you put your strongest member at the forefront to deter the enemy?

this is equivalent to not giving the basketball to Michael Jordan in crunch time when the rest of your team are a bunch of scrubs

[Pohjolan]

The hardest to defend spot for NATO isn't Greenland but the Baltics. Using Russia as boogeyman in this context is just a shitty excuse.
Besides as Trump is hinting at the idea of waging war against NATO, its a bit questionable if there would be any US help coming anyway if Russia were to invade.

[Opinion Owner]

@Pohjolan Trump doesn't want war with NATO. he wants NATO to pull their own weight and it seems like Trump "threatening" them is the only way to push some urgency in them given Putin can't

[888theGreat]

The US needs a new President by any means necessary

[Anonymous]

In current state, no. But imagine what would happen to the free world in China or Russia took it by force? That is a very real possibility.

[Quigly]

It's certainly important to trade and security of the West. But, there may be other avenues.

[beefcakebradybatson]

HANDS OFF GREENLAND, TRUMP !!!

[Pterodon]

China will get them by any means necessary

[Pohjolan]

Invading Greenland from China would be a logistical nightmare and Antarctica is less defended with more resources.

[Anonymous]

Not at all.