Get Greenland Before China Does In the long race with Beijing, controlling natural resources is vital.

amgreatness ^ | August 24, 2019 | By Brandon J. Weichert

[dennisw]

But even more than that, Trump’s desire to take Greenland peacefully for the United States makes strategic sense. Not only is it rich in natural resources, but its position along the Arctic Circle—and its relatively weak posture—make it a tempting target for American rivals, notably China, seeking to gain access to those abundant natural resources of the Arctic.

Of course, China is not an Arctic power. Unlike the United States, Canada, and Russia, China has no natural boundary touching the Arctic. Yet, the Chinese insist they are or should be an Arctic power. And, as I reported at my website more than a year ago, China has made overtures to gain access to Greenland in order to buttress its claims on the abundant resources of the Arctic.

Greenland is the Alaska of Our Time Acquiring Greenland from Denmark would be akin to our purchase of Alaska from the Russians in 1867. It might not yield any profits at first. But in time, it would be an unquestioned boon to U.S. national security and economic prosperity.

Many Americans questioned the wisdom of purchasing Alaska at the time, too. The men who shepherded the deal—in particular, Secretary of State William Seward—understood the long-term potential of possessing the Alaskan frontier. The press called the $7.2 million purchase “Seward’s Folly,” but nobody today would question the wisdom of the investment.

Chinese strategists want to lay claim to the bountiful natural resources and vital navigable waterways that comprise the Arctic Circle. The United States can’t allow that to happen.

The addition of Alaska increased the size of the United States by a whopping 20 percent. Within a few decades, Americans were mining gold and other precious metals from the Alaskan Klondike. By the 1940s, petroleum became a major component of Alaska’s economy—so much so that, today, petroleum exports are Alaska’s greatest contribution to our country. None of this would have happened if the naysayers had their way.

At the time, the strategic and economic implications of the decision to purchase the vast and distant, and totally disconnected region of Alaska were not fully understood. Less than a century later, the investment had already paid ample dividends. Plus, as the Cold War heated up, the presence of American territory so close to the Russian Far East proved to be a priceless strategic asset.

[Openurmind]

China is not the worry. Russia is...

[dennisw]

Here is Trump’s deal for Greenlanders

—— 200,000 ice sled dogs of the finest breeds
—— 2 snowmobiles for every red-blooded, non-communist man
—— Off shore drilling for oil n gas. Will establish a sovereign wealth fund to benefit all native Greenlanders including Danes born there.
—— USA will build up the Greenland fisheries and rev up our fish imports. Their small fisheries currently sell into Europe.
-——100,000 pairs of the best thermal long Johns

[ronnie raygun]

also can be used as a penal colony

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Denmark is a member of NATO, and by extension, so is Greenland. Greenland is fine.

[dennisw]

As the search for mineral resources (iron, uranium and rare-earth metals) intensifies, Greenland is facing an industrial and social revolution. Inward migration is set to explode, increasing pressure on a society that can barely accommodate its own population. Despite its growing importance in the ‘Wild North’ group of circumpolar nations, Greenland still finds itself uncomfortably skewered between centuries of tradition and Western economic ambitions.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

China has made overtures to gain access to Greenland in order to buttress its claims on the abundant resources of the Arctic.

China would be incapable of even thinking about this if we hadn't sent our manufacturing, technology, money, and tax base over there.

[DIRTYSECRET]

**Denmark is a member of NATO, and by extension, so is Greenland. Greenland is fine.**

Europe is fine too until you factor in Immigration.

I’d say make them all millionaires with no newcomers outside of miners. Minimal social change.

[nopardons]

BTTT

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Oh Greenland is a dreadful place,
A land that’s never green
Where there’s ice and there’s snow
And the whalefishes go
- Away boys!
And daylight’s never seen.

[sauropod]

You’re kidding me, right?

[faithhopecharity]

I completely agree USA should acquire Greenland for both defensive and resource reasons

[Lazamataz]

Of course, China is not an Arctic power. Unlike the United States, Canada, and Russia, China has no natural boundary touching the Arctic. Yet, the Chinese insist they are or should be an Arctic power. And, as I reported at my website more than a year ago, China has made overtures to gain access to Greenland in order to buttress its claims on the abundant resources of the Arctic.

This is reading JUST LIKE the plotline of the Fallout video game series.

[jdsteel]

Nearby Iceland is also a NATO member. The only one without a military (other than a tiny Coast Guard).

The US is their “big brother”.

[PIF]

if such a thing would happen, the US would be at the mercy of Chinese heavy icebreakers from their base on Greenland.

[rxh4n1]

“Within a few decades, Americans were mining gold and other precious metals from the Alaskan Klondike.”

At least get your facts in order before you write. The Klondike is in the Yukon, always part of Canada.

[_longranger81]

And a penile colony for the trannies.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Why would I be? If they are attacked it would trigger Article 5, so Russia and China won’t attack it unless they want to get nuked.

[Windcatcher]

We’ve been interested in buying Greenland since the 1800’s. We offered 100M in 1946, but they didn’t accept it. If we really wanted it, we should have seen how much we could sweeten the deal to get them to bite. We got the Louisiana Territory, Alaska, and the US Virgin Islands this way (maybe others, too? I don’t know).

I can’t help but look at this and shake my head when I look at the situation in Ukraine. Fifteen or twenty years ago, when Russia was flush with cash, they missed an opportunity. Imagine if they had read Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” and done what we did on at least three occasions: open the checkbook and make a substantial cash offer for Donbas. No matter how much he would have had to sweeten the deal to get Ukraine to bite, it would have been a lot cheaper than fighting this war. He could have made the case that they would not only be making a ton of dough, they’d be giving up a major headache.

With modern warfare it’s been this way for 200 years, and it’s why we’ve done it this way. Whenever possible, don’t fight a war to conquer land to expand, BUY it. It’s always going to be cheaper.

[DesertRhino]

Silliness. There is no way Denmark is going to sell Greenland. That would be like the United States selling Texas.