Why Greenland is of growing strategic significance
40 points by paulpauper 20 hours ago | 41 comments
  • Animats 18 hours ago |
    Huh? What strategic significance? Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) is mostly a radar station now. It once housed B-52 bombers for the Strategic Air Command, but those are long gone.

    Control of the Northwest Passage, maybe?

    • add-sub-mul-div 18 hours ago |
      I thought it was the melting Arctic circle becoming more passable, increasing the travel routes and importance of the whole area.
    • rectang 17 hours ago |
      Greenland doesn't have "growing strategic significance", except insofar as Trump has imperialist designs on it and the geopolitical consequences that flow from that.
    • BirAdam 17 hours ago |
      ICBMs are not meant to go East or West, they go over the pole. A nuke passing from Russia over the North Pole toward D.C. or NYC would be detectable from Greenland. This is why there’s a radar station there. The island would also be a good spot for a naval base from which one could send ships on patrol between Greenland and Iceland or even the UK. This is useful in attempts to maintain control of the North Atlantic as Russia and China have increased their activity in the arctic and North Atlantic. Personally, I find all of the hostility between nations stupid. War drains wealth while trade increases it. However, politicians and governments become institutionally stupid as they attempt to hold on to power and their duties in government make them see enemies in every foreign government.
      • simne 11 hours ago |
        > ICBMs are not meant to go East or West, they go over the pole

        Yes and No.

        Most effective trajectory to reach Russia from US (or vice versa) is really over Arctic region.

        But in USSR created ICBMs with capabilities to reach US over Antarctic region, and even semi-orbital ICBM R-36 orb (it is large and expensive and not in production now, but Russia have all drawings so could design modern remake).

        And Israel created space rockets, which launched to west (usually space rockets, launched to east), because unfriendly countries on east side could make wrong considerations if Israel launch to east.

        So, as I said, yes, most effective trajectory via North pole region, but years ago produced rockets, which could hit US from any direction.

    • UI_at_80x24 17 hours ago |
      It's all about the Northwest passage. If you'll notice in the same conversations he mentions the Panama canal.

      He wants to control/profit from all East/West trade.

      • libertine 11 hours ago |
        I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.

        Denmark has been a a big Ally of the US, including a military alliance. These words used to mean something, right?

        Denmark has played ball with the USA over the years, so if the US wanted to invest in Greenland or set up military facilities, surely a few meetings and agreements would do the work.

        This sounds more like about legacy, sadly in a typical imperialist way.

        If a US elected leader is willing to take their allies land by force out of greed, that will be the beginning of the end.

        In fact, just the fact that this conversation is happening out in the open signals the beginning of the end.

        European countries need their nuclear deterrence and they need it ASAP.

  • kamikazeturtles 18 hours ago |
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” - Lenin

    Following the news feels more and more like watching a very entertaining tv show, especially with all the plot twists.

  • pasttense01 18 hours ago |
    Nonsense. There are only about 200 U.S. military personnel in Greenland; if it was of strategic significance there would be thousands.
    • RobRivera 18 hours ago |
      Manpower is a terrible metric to use.
    • _blk 17 hours ago |
      That may be the political side of things but I disagree on a technical level. Many systems (sigint) are run remotely. It's not hard to send a technician up there either, just takes a little time. Heck send me. I'll go every now and then if it's not permanent but personnel only goes so far for protection. When you start running logistics is when you need boots on the snow.
  • tw04 18 hours ago |
    I think people overthink this. The reality is far more simple, just ask yourself: what would be in the best interest of Putin?

    Trump threatening to take military action against Greenland due to its strategic military importance legitimizes Russia's invasion of Ukraine "for strategic military importance". Whether Trump follows through or not, suddenly Russia has a defensible position because: look America the land of the free wants to do the same thing.

    Anyone trying to spin in knots trying to come up with an alternative justification will do just that, because there is no sane reason otherwise. Denmark is an ally, and all indications are they will remain an ally as long as a democratically elected government is running the US that upholds western ideals.

    • libertine 11 hours ago |
      Indeed this does sound like a planted idea, and I'm saying this lightly.

      Has the WH been compromised?

  • GeneralMayhem 18 hours ago |
    I'm pretty sure there are exactly two reasons for Trump going on about Greenland:

    1. Putin suggested it to him at some point, because he knew it would cause chaos among the Western alliance bloc.

    2. Mercator projection. It looks big on a map, therefore he wants it.

    The second one is along the same lines as his obvious confusion about the word "asylum" - if you watch how he talks about refugees, he obviously doesn't know the difference between "mental asylum" and "political asylum", and thinks that people seeking refuge in the United States are all nuts. The man is really, really, really evil, but he's also really, really, really dumb.

  • perihelions 18 hours ago |
    One striking omission in this piece: that in the Cold War, Denmark always refused[0] the US permission to base nuclear weapons in Greenland. The article puts a heavy emphasis on it being an "ideal springboard for launching U.S. nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union" (in the 1950's), but elides over *why* that did not become a thing.

    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash... ("Thulegate" political scandal" (1968))

    I don't fully agree with their thesis. I think the "nuclear war" aspect is a lot *less* strategic now then it was in the 1950-60's: "over the Arctic" is no longer the primary missile path, like it was in the early technology era. Many of them are deployed on submarines, which can launch at their target from any direction; and there are (now or soon) larger[1] land-based missiles that have enough range to go around the planet the long way, e.g. attacking the US from the south. This is, in part, strategic response to the early focus on the Arctic—both to the detection radars, and to active anti-missile defenses.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment... ("Fractional Orbital Bombardment System")

    edit: And moreover, there's now satellite-based infrared sensors[2] that see rocket launches anywhere on Earth, instantly—something the early Cold War did not have. Radar is no longer the exclusive, or first, way to detect a first-strike.

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_satellite

    • roenxi 17 hours ago |
      It'd be a mistake to interpret 'strategic' as 'nuclear' in this instance. If anything this is probably more about influence and economic control of the Arctic. Depending on what the modeling says about future thawing, Russia might be about to gain consistent and hard-to-restrict access to the Atlantic.

      I doubt the US likes that. Although they don't exactly need official control to station military assets there Trump/someone in the bureaucracy might think that official control is a better long term plan. Especially since NATO is under a little pressure right now.

      EDIT Also, a classic Simpsons moment [0] springs to mind as Denmark expresses outrage at the idea of selling Greenland.

      [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1llSuZfAK3c

    • m463 12 hours ago |
      well, there's some history regarding nuclear weapons wrt cuba.
  • lenkite 18 hours ago |
    So, Greenland is going to become the next Ukraine ? The western war industry really wants to keep their stock prices growing.
    • naruhodo 15 hours ago |
      If anything, the strategic importance of the Arctic region as a whole has the potential to be a good deal greater than it was during the decades of superpower standoff, driven by climate change opening up new shipping routes as well as providing access to natural resources that were previously inaccessible, or at least much harder to exploit.

      The Ukraine was invaded for resources.

    • OKRainbowKid 13 hours ago |
      How would it become "the next Ukraine"?
      • simne 12 hours ago |
        Easy. Amount of Arctic (shelf) belong to country calculated from coast length. And any adequate person will agree, in modern world countries need access to sea, not to ice.

        Ukraine have strategy geography to limit access of Russia to black sea, so for Russia free access stay only on Baltic sea and far east (Vladivostok and Kuril islands, too far to be effectively used by European part of country).

        Now, from international law, Russia control near half of Arctic region, and other divided by weak counties - Canada, Denmark (via their control of Greenland).

        If US will gain formal juridical control of Greenland (or hypothetical of Canada), they will automatically gain large part of Arctic region and will directly compete against Russia.

        Add Canada as new US State, is not a subject now, but for Greenland things are unclear.

        • ttepasse 7 hours ago |
          Russia has a long stretch of Black Sea coast, including harbours at Novorossiysk and Sochi. Before 2014 there were plans to relocate the Black Sea fleet from Crimea to Sochi.

          One of the surprising things about the Ukraine war was the successful sea war by Ukraine, forcing the Black Sea fleet outside of Ukraine’s range. But I think with "strategic geography" meant peace time. In war time Russia would have problems with three other NATO members on the Black Sea and above all with the Bosporus.

  • IAmGraydon 17 hours ago |
    What prompted the member of the press to ask him about this obscure topic in the first place? No one was talking about this, and then a guy at a press conference asked the right question to get him to run his mouth. Now the whole world is talking about it. Who and why?
    • nerdix 17 hours ago |
      Trump has publicly talked about buying Greenland since his first term. This is an article from 2019:

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-consider...

      • IAmGraydon 17 hours ago |
        Yes I know, but no one has really brought it up in years and it wasn’t being actively discussed before this. I would therefore like know why the guy at the press conference chose to ask him this question with a known inflammatory answer, seemingly out of nowhere.
        • veeti 16 hours ago |
          Like the kids used to say, "for the lulz".
        • gklitz 13 hours ago |
          > but no one has really brought it up in years

          Yes, it hasn’t been brought up during the last four years because he wasn’t president. Now that he’ll be president again it’s suddenly relevant.

    • stanislavb 17 hours ago |
      That's a very good question. Now, I'm thinking it's been a well pre-orchestrated theatre.
    • skeeter2020 17 hours ago |
      Well in Canada we've got a click-bait crazy, manipulative media desperate to keep this going and drive angst, fear and anger. It makes me pretty upset to see even the CBC (our national broadcaster) playing these stupid games, getting sound bites from everybody and their dog. Nobody actually covers the original story anymore, it's all about the reaction to the reaction.
    • lrasinen 14 hours ago |
      He was ranting about it at least two weeks before the recent press conference.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna185416

  • breadwinner 17 hours ago |
    Trump also wanted to rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. This is all about vanity, not about minerals, economy, security etc.

    In his press conference Trump mentioned the world map multiple times. Trump may well be forming his annexation ambitions based on what the map would look like after the annexation. Well, the world map looks very different based on what kind of projection you use. In the Mercator projection Greenland looks big. Bigger than the US, in fact. This may be what is attracting Trump, as it looks like a lot of real estate. Tobler hyperelliptical projection on the other hand makes Greenland look small. Someone should show Trump this projection and it may very well cause him to lose interest, and we can sidestep a dispute with Denmark and Europe.

    • xethos 15 hours ago |
      That... would actually explain the "Canada as the 51st state" bit too. Canada is massive, but still of exaggerated size with Mercator projection
    • chuckwfinley 10 hours ago |
      Ha! I said this the other day to a friend as well. The 'typical' (Mercator) view has Greenland looking nearly as big as the continent of Africa. Reality is that it's about 1/4 the size of the mainland US. Still a lot of land but not as big as a lot of people seem to assume.

      I honestly have no idea how basic math (sphere to flat projection) escapes people.

  • wumeow 16 hours ago |
    This is all moot anyway since the Trump admin lacks the intelligence and diplomatic chops to acquire Greenland, even by force. All he’s doing is driving away our allies.
    • backtoyoujim 15 hours ago |
      And making the discussion certainly not about Trump's sentencing in NY state court.
  • kasperni 15 hours ago |
    Drill, baby, drill. Greenland contains some of the largest earth earth mineral deposits in the world. And the US needs them desperately.

    The strategic importance is just a decoy. The US could put as many bases they wanted just by asking nicely.

  • metalman 13 hours ago |
    Greenland just got set up for its biggest tourist season ever, and the business interest will be off the chart, anything and everything. Though of course Greenland is still a forbiding place with less total infrastructure than Maine, no roads, no possibility of roads, very few places for harbors, non of them ice free, and level land for airports scarce. While mines are possible, and done, they are a lot like a lunar base would be, everything in buildings and underground, and zero contact with the outside world, no town,no trees,rock and ice no where to go that isn't more dangerous than the mine. 3 to 6 month shifts. mind numbing tedium, drudgery, low wages, total isolation, and stuck with the kind of people who LIKE THAT who wants a job?