Greenland

#203
#203
BowlBrother85 said:
That doesn't answer my question.

Why is the current agreement insufficient for purposes of United States national security?

Nobody is denying that Greenland is important for our national security .... but why is the current arrangement not good enough? The United States already has the power to establish new bases, if needed, and nearly unlimited access to defense facilities.
Click to expand...

It does answer the question. The agreement just allows the U.S. to build a base, it really doesn't spell much out other than cooperation.

Greenland could still be annexed, sold, or other foreign parties could be given access.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#204
#204
LSU-SIU said:
It does answer the question. The agreement just allows the U.S. to build a base, it really doesn't spell much out other than cooperation.

Greenland could still be annexed, sold, or other foreign parties could be given access.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to indicate that has been under any threat of happening. So no, it's not an answer as to why the current arrangement is insufficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#205
#205
GroverCleveland said:
Well, the first ICBMs were not operational until 1959 and, as referenced above, Russia's are positioned now where their flights would mostly go directly or near Greenland.

I.e. other words, your correct it did not hold any vital strategic importance during the age of sail and dreadnoughts, probably increased some during long-range bombers and now it can be argued it does occupy a strategic position. If so, the real question is why the dumbasses who were President since the 80s not think about this?
Click to expand...
Kicking the can mentality
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#206
#206
BernardKingGOAT said:
He's proven that his family is going to profit from every international move he's made for the US in this term. From market manipulation with the tariffs to our dealings in the ME. He's not even trying to hide it. Sorry, his interests are always put before the USA's interests
Click to expand...

Bruh...

Name me a President that hasn't been guilty of this for the last 50 years.

I'll wait.
 
#207
#207
BowlBrother85 said:
Per the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, the United States is allowed to keep its military base in Greenland and allowed to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO, but the United States is not to infringe upon Danish sovereignty in Greenland.

Can you explain why this existing 75 year old agreement with an ally, should now be considered insufficient for the national security of the United States? The United States already has almost unlimited access to defense facilities in Greenland.
Click to expand...
As far as Trump is concerned that is an outdated agreement that is not sufficient for modern times modern warfare.....

grok:
"However, in the context of renewed U.S. interest—particularly President Trump's statements as of January 2026—this agreement is argued to be insufficient for contemporary national security needs due to evolved geopolitical realities, strategic vulnerabilities, and long-term uncertainties. Below, I'll break down the key reasons cited by Trump administration officials, security experts, and analysts, drawing on recent discussions."


1. Intensified Great-Power Competition in the Arctic

The Arctic region has transformed since the Cold War era when the agreement was signed. Climate change is rapidly melting Greenland's ice sheets, opening new shipping routes (like the Northern Sea Route), exposing vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements critical for technology and defense), and potentially unlocking oil and gas reserves.


This has heightened competition, with Russia expanding its military footprint— including long-range missiles, autonomous undersea vessels, and increased naval patrols—and China seeking economic footholds through investments in mining and infrastructure.


Trump has explicitly stated that Greenland is "covered with Russian and Chinese ships," making it a frontline in deterring these adversaries, and that U.S. control is a "national security priority" to prevent encirclement in the Arctic.


The 1951 agreement's "monitor-and-respond" framework is seen as under-resourced and reactive, lacking provisions for persistent surveillance or rapid response to these threats.


For instance, it doesn't address gaps in air, maritime, and undersea monitoring across a 3,000-mile strategic void between Alaska and Norway, nor does it enable resilient tracking for very long-range weapons.


Experts argue that full U.S. sovereignty would allow unilateral enhancements, such as new sensor networks, autonomous maritime forces on Greenland's east coast, extended runways for bombers, and outposts for hypersonic missiles, without needing Danish concurrence each time.


2. Risks from Greenland's Potential Independence and Danish Sovereignty

Greenland has significant autonomy under Denmark, with growing movements toward full independence, fueled by resource wealth and cultural identity.

The agreement ties U.S. access to Danish approval, creating uncertainty: if Greenland secedes, it could renegotiate or revoke U.S. basing rights, potentially disrupting operations at critical moments.

Trump has questioned Denmark's ability to "protect" Greenland, implying that reliance on an ally introduces vulnerabilities, especially if Danish politics shift or if Greenland courts other partners (e.g., China for economic deals).

This sovereignty constraint limits U.S. flexibility. For example, while new bases can be established with NATO input, there's no mechanism for shared costs or guaranteed continuity in a post-independence scenario.

Acquiring Greenland would eliminate these risks, ensuring absolute control and allowing the U.S. to exclude foreign influences outright, such as blocking Chinese investments that could lead to dual-use infrastructure.


3. Economic and Resource Security Dimensions

Beyond pure military access, Trump has framed Greenland as vital for "economic security," pointing to its untapped resources amid global supply chain tensions.

The island holds about 10% of the world's rare earth minerals, essential for electronics, renewable energy, and weapons systems, and melting ice could enable large-scale oil drilling.

Under the current agreement, the U.S. can't directly control these assets or prevent competitors like China from gaining economic leverage, which could translate into strategic influence (e.g., via debt traps or port access).Full acquisition would secure these for U.S. interests, integrating Greenland into American economic frameworks and bolstering NATO's overall resilience.

This aligns with broader U.S. strategies to onshore critical minerals and reduce dependence on adversarial suppliers.

4. Broader Strategic and Alliance Considerations

The agreement was forged in a NATO-centric era, but today's multipolar world demands more proactive U.S. posture. Analysts suggest updating it with a new "Greenland Security Deal" to expand access, share infrastructure costs, and formalize defenses against hybrid threats.

However, Trump's approach goes further, viewing acquisition as necessary to avoid alliance frictions—Denmark has rejected sales outright, and European leaders have pushed back on recent takeover talk, arguing it could strain NATO.

Some U.S. officials have even floated military options as a last resort to achieve control.

5. You Just Do Not Like It Because Trump Is Doing It

TDS runs strong in you.
 
#208
#208
BowlBrother85 said:
There is nothing to indicate that has been under any threat of happening. So no, it's not an answer as to why the current arrangement is insufficient.
Click to expand...

The agreement doesn't give parties any rights other than the base which does answer the question. And treaties are revoked all the time.

Now do I have that concern or care, no, but that is beside the point.
 
#209
#209
GroverCleveland said:
Say it ain't so! A politician in Washington putting their financial best interest in front of the country's?

"I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."
Click to expand...
I thought Trump's not a politician? At any rate, a President running the White House like his personal till has thankfully been rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and NashVol11
#210
#210
LSU-SIU said:
The agreement doesn't give parties any rights other than the base which does answer the question. And treaties are revoked all the time.

Now do I have that concern, no, but that is beside the point.
Click to expand...
Like I said .... there is nothing to indicate that such concerns are under any threat of being realized. This agreement has stood for 75 years with an ally.

It's not beside the point. In fact, it's the whole point. The current agreement is sufficiently protecting the national security interests of the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, NashVol11 and BeardedVol
#211
#211
BowlBrother85 said:
Like I said .... there is nothing to indicate that such concerns are under any threat of being realized. This agreement has stood for 75 years with an ally.
Click to expand...

The agreement doesn't really mean anything because legally the U.S. has no real rights i.e. power to exclude. It just basically allows the U.S. to build a base(s).
 
#214
#214
LSU-SIU said:
The agreement doesn't really mean anything because legally the U.S. has no real rights i.e. power to exclude.
Click to expand...
In "legal" rights? No ... but as a practical matter, of course, the United States can exclude foreign expansion into a territory where we already have a military foothold.

There is nothing to indicate that the current agreement is insufficient in its protection of national security.
 
Last edited:
#215
#215
jmacvols1 said:
As far as Trump is concerned that is an outdated agreement that is not sufficient for modern times modern warfare.....

grok:
"However, in the context of renewed U.S. interest—particularly President Trump's statements as of January 2026—this agreement is argued to be insufficient for contemporary national security needs due to evolved geopolitical realities, strategic vulnerabilities, and long-term uncertainties. Below, I'll break down the key reasons cited by Trump administration officials, security experts, and analysts, drawing on recent discussions."


1. Intensified Great-Power Competition in the Arctic

The Arctic region has transformed since the Cold War era when the agreement was signed. Climate change is rapidly melting Greenland's ice sheets, opening new shipping routes (like the Northern Sea Route), exposing vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements critical for technology and defense), and potentially unlocking oil and gas reserves.


This has heightened competition, with Russia expanding its military footprint— including long-range missiles, autonomous undersea vessels, and increased naval patrols—and China seeking economic footholds through investments in mining and infrastructure.


Trump has explicitly stated that Greenland is "covered with Russian and Chinese ships," making it a frontline in deterring these adversaries, and that U.S. control is a "national security priority" to prevent encirclement in the Arctic.


The 1951 agreement's "monitor-and-respond" framework is seen as under-resourced and reactive, lacking provisions for persistent surveillance or rapid response to these threats.


For instance, it doesn't address gaps in air, maritime, and undersea monitoring across a 3,000-mile strategic void between Alaska and Norway, nor does it enable resilient tracking for very long-range weapons.


Experts argue that full U.S. sovereignty would allow unilateral enhancements, such as new sensor networks, autonomous maritime forces on Greenland's east coast, extended runways for bombers, and outposts for hypersonic missiles, without needing Danish concurrence each time.


2. Risks from Greenland's Potential Independence and Danish Sovereignty

Greenland has significant autonomy under Denmark, with growing movements toward full independence, fueled by resource wealth and cultural identity.

The agreement ties U.S. access to Danish approval, creating uncertainty: if Greenland secedes, it could renegotiate or revoke U.S. basing rights, potentially disrupting operations at critical moments.

Trump has questioned Denmark's ability to "protect" Greenland, implying that reliance on an ally introduces vulnerabilities, especially if Danish politics shift or if Greenland courts other partners (e.g., China for economic deals).

This sovereignty constraint limits U.S. flexibility. For example, while new bases can be established with NATO input, there's no mechanism for shared costs or guaranteed continuity in a post-independence scenario.

Acquiring Greenland would eliminate these risks, ensuring absolute control and allowing the U.S. to exclude foreign influences outright, such as blocking Chinese investments that could lead to dual-use infrastructure.


3. Economic and Resource Security Dimensions

Beyond pure military access, Trump has framed Greenland as vital for "economic security," pointing to its untapped resources amid global supply chain tensions.

The island holds about 10% of the world's rare earth minerals, essential for electronics, renewable energy, and weapons systems, and melting ice could enable large-scale oil drilling.

Under the current agreement, the U.S. can't directly control these assets or prevent competitors like China from gaining economic leverage, which could translate into strategic influence (e.g., via debt traps or port access).Full acquisition would secure these for U.S. interests, integrating Greenland into American economic frameworks and bolstering NATO's overall resilience.

This aligns with broader U.S. strategies to onshore critical minerals and reduce dependence on adversarial suppliers.

4. Broader Strategic and Alliance Considerations

The agreement was forged in a NATO-centric era, but today's multipolar world demands more proactive U.S. posture. Analysts suggest updating it with a new "Greenland Security Deal" to expand access, share infrastructure costs, and formalize defenses against hybrid threats.

However, Trump's approach goes further, viewing acquisition as necessary to avoid alliance frictions—Denmark has rejected sales outright, and European leaders have pushed back on recent takeover talk, arguing it could strain NATO.

Some U.S. officials have even floated military options as a last resort to achieve control.

5. You Just Do Not Like It Because Trump Is Doing It

TDS runs strong in you.
Click to expand...
That is hyper-alarmist nonsense.

6) Cultish fanaticism is in you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and MontyPython
#216
#216
EasternVol said:
If he's making so much money for the country, why do we go deeper in debt every day he's in office?
Click to expand...
because previous Congresses have spent the country 39 trillion in debt. Some economist have said the debt has reached a point of no return. Trump is generating trillions of new business ventures in the US
 
#221
#221
jmacvols1 said:
because previous Congresses have spent the country 39 trillion in debt. Some economist have said the debt has reached a point of no return. Trump is generating trillions of new business ventures in the US
Click to expand...
OMG.

You don't think Trump has any responsibility for his own budget request proposals and for what he has signed into law?

And "Trump is generating trillions of new business ventures in the US." ????

What a crock of $hit. Cultist could not even begin to cover whatever the hell is wrong with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, MercyPercy, NashVol11 and 5 others
#223
#223
BowlBrother85 said:
OMG.

You don't think Trump has any responsibility for his own budget request proposals and for what he has signed into law?

And "Trump is generating trillions of new business ventures in the US." ????

What a crock of $hit. Cultist could not even begin to cover whatever the hell is wrong with you.
Click to expand...
It's too stupid to even argue with
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#225
#225
jmacvols1 said:
because previous Congresses have spent the country 39 trillion in debt. Some economist have said the debt has reached a point of no return. Trump is generating trillions of new business ventures in the US
Click to expand...
Lol
www.poynter.org

Trump says the US secured at least $18 trillion worth of investments this year. That’s wrong - Poynter

Trump’s figure doubles the White House’s $9.6T tally, which includes long-term goals and unlikely foreign pledges that may never materialize
www.poynter.org www.poynter.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top