Zone1 Should Greenland be under the administrative control of the United States?

[byapollo]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

wouldnt happen.....the US can get people to Greenland faster then Russia can....we already have a base there for one....

 

[alang1216]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

It matters what the Greenlanders want and only about 6% of the population is in favor of becoming part of the United States.

 

[0311]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

**** NO! The people of Greenland are very firm on NOT wanting U.S. Control.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

Instead of "ceasing" land ... I suggest cutting a deal with Denmark and the people of Greenland. I was always taught as a kid that stealing other people's stuff is wrong. I still believe it's wrong. But there's nothing wrong with negotiating.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

What a bullshit article. It fails to mention that those rare earths are under a mile of ice. It also fails to mention those airbases are in Russia.

 

[byapollo]

wouldnt happen.....the US can get people to Greenland faster then Russia can....we already have a base there for one....

We have 600 troops stationed there and some missile detection. If we got into a conflict with Russia for another reason they would be able to occupy Greenland and use it as a vantage point into North America. It's necessary that we take full control of the land so we can set up sufficient defenses.

 

[byapollo]

It matters what the Greenlanders want and only about 6% of the population is in favor of becoming part of the United States.

It's a population of 57,000 people. Denmark is incapable of securing Greenland the way it needs to be and Greenland would be even more vulnerable as an independent nation. This may sound imperialist, but when we're a nation of 300 million potentially looking at a conflict with another world superpower, there comes a point where it doesn't matter what 57,000 people want. We need to look out for American interests over anything, and securing the Arctic is absolutely in our interest.

 

[byapollo]

**** NO! The people of Greenland are very firm on NOT wanting U.S. Control.

It's a population of 57,000 people. Denmark is incapable of securing Greenland the way it needs to be and Greenland would be even more vulnerable as an independent nation. This may sound imperialist, but when we're a nation of 300 million potentially looking at a conflict with another world superpower, there comes a point where it doesn't matter what 57,000 people want. We need to look out for American interests over anything, and securing the Arctic is absolutely in our interest.

 

[byapollo]

Instead of "ceasing" land ... I suggest cutting a deal with Denmark and the people of Greenland. I was always taught as a kid that stealing other people's stuff is wrong. I still believe it's wrong. But there's nothing wrong with negotiating.

Well, we did try that and they're firmly rejecting our offers, which is a bit of a suicide mission given how militarily vulnerable the region is. There comes a point where it doesn't matter if they agree to it or not. Are we really going to put the interests of a territory of 57,000 people above hemispheric security in a WW3 scenario?

 

[byapollo]

What a bullshit article. It fails to mention that those rare earths are under a mile of ice. It also fails to mention those airbases are in Russia.

Greenland is not uniformly ice covered. Like 80% of Greenland is covered by the ice sheet, but most known mineral deposits are along the coast, especially in southern and western Greenland, which are ice free or seasonally ice free.Several rare earth and critical mineral projects (Kvanefjeld/Kuannersuit, Tanbreez, Krингlerne) are not under a mile of ice. They’re in exposed rock formations

 

[peacefan]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

i would want a revenue sharing plan for Denmark in the 'deal', scaled back to zero over the span of one-hundred years.

 

[peacefan]

It matters what the Greenlanders want and only about 6% of the population is in favor of becoming part of the United States.

that can certainly change, given time and positive incentives.

 

[peacefan]

Greenland and NATO vow to boost Arctic security after Trump’s annexation threats

Trump has insisted that Greenland needs to be brought under US control, arguing that the Danish autonomous territory is crucial for national security.

Remote : Mon, 12 Jan 2026 21:03:11 +0100
Local : 2026-01-12(Monday) 21 : 03 : 11
Found via NicerApp WebOS homepage

"A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark."..............

 

[byapollo]

Greenland and NATO vow to boost Arctic security after Trump’s annexation threats

Trump has insisted that Greenland needs to be brought under US control, arguing that the Danish autonomous territory is crucial for national security.

Remote : Mon, 12 Jan 2026 21:03:11 +0100
Local : 2026-01-12(Monday) 21 : 03 : 11
Found via NicerApp WebOS homepage

"A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark."..............

Them asking NATO for help is a bit pointless when we fund 2/3 of it NATO. Greenland will be American one way or another

 

[SaxonJackson]

Well, we did try that and they're firmly rejecting our offers, which is a bit of a suicide mission given how militarily vulnerable the region is. There comes a point where it doesn't matter if they agree to it or not. Are we really going to put the interests of a territory of 57,000 people above hemispheric security in a WW3 scenario?

A couple of thoughts:

1) If the USA set up Greenland as a military checkpoint or stronghold then Greenland becomes a literal target. I'm sure that makes that worthless "57,000," expendable pawns as happy as larks.

2) If we're to see Greenland as a pawn on a chessboard isn't the goal of chess to take out the king? If so, who are the kings that Trump is concerned about? Why is he going after the weak nations or territories instead of the perceived enemy?

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Greenland is not uniformly ice covered. Like 80% of Greenland is covered by the ice sheet, but most known mineral deposits are along the coast, especially in southern and western Greenland, which are ice free or seasonally ice free.Several rare earth and critical mineral projects (Kvanefjeld/Kuannersuit, Tanbreez, Krингlerne) are not under a mile of ice. They’re in exposed rock formations

I know it only 80% and I stand corrected. Should have done more looking.

 

[MisterBeale]

A couple of thoughts:

1) If the USA set up Greenland as a military checkpoint or stronghold then Greenland becomes a literal target. I'm sure that makes that worthless "57,000," expendable pawns as happy as larks.

2) If we're to see Greenland as a pawn on a chessboard isn't the goal of chess to take out the king? If so, who are the kings that Trump is concerned about? Why is he going after the weak nations or territories instead of the perceived enemy?

I'm reasonably sure, that the so-called "tensions and wars," between nations are manufactured. I am suspect that these are really the existential struggles nations had, like before the great reset.

I knew that Biden would win, that was a forgone conclusion. The folks that run the entire show telegraphed that fact to us during the 2020 campaign, regardless of who voted for which candidate.

". . . Regular readers know I would tend towards the latter. Fundamentally, I cannot reconcile the two worlds with which we are presented.

On the one hand, we have a set of nation-states wholly in concert on almost all the broader issues. They all work together to promote pandemics and climate catastrophes; they synchronise in passing near-identical legislation to tackle the same non-existent or heavily exaggerated problems.

They all have central banks “printing” fake money, they all have so-called “free-market” capitalism (in reality, a construct of state-protected monopolies that siphon public money into the private sector).

They all agree to pretend that Covid is a thing and the vaccines are safe and the climate is changing and the internet will be nothing but snuff films and child pornography if they don’t put a digital surveillance chip in everyone’s brain as soon as possible

Central bank digital currency, digital identity, genetically modified food…All of this is resolved supranational policy.

They tell the same lies to serve the same ends. They are all the same.

And yet, on the other hand, we’re told they cannot work out a single territorial or political conflict or disagreement in anything but the most crude, base or violent ways. . . . "

Quick Take – The world is burning…but are the flames real?

I’ve had a cold, and as a cold Traditionalist, that means I’ve been sitting on the couch in my dressing gown, sipping herbal tea with honey in it. (The Zealots from The Church of New Co…

off-guardian.org

 

[buttercup]

 

[Zebra]

View attachment 1205147

I could not see the picture