Oh, and Greenland is back on the table!

Donald Trump says it is an “absolute necessity” for the United States to annex Greenland.

“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” pic.twitter.com/rp9KObWaX7

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) December 23, 2024

Strategically, it makes sense. But how do we make this happen?

Interesting trades? Maybe Puerto Rico and Maine? Any proposals?

Why do we need it so badly? Wouldn't we buy it or trade for it?

We need it with a naval base and airfield at minimum. Helps shut down the GIUK gap even more. Great strategic significance.

Sea Speed said:

---

Imagine if it became a state before Puerto Rico.

---

It would never happen, but Greenland having 3 electoral votes going Red and having a population the size of Port Arthur would be glorious!

I wouldn't necessarily assume it would be red.

I have some beads if Denmark is willing to take them in exchange for Greenland.

TxLawDawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Imagine if it became a state before Puerto Rico.

---

It shouldn't become a state IMO, but I'm all for acquiring it as a territory. I'd rather give billions to Denmark in exchange for Greenland than send it to Ukraine or all of the other s___holes across the globe.

---

Greenland with just under 57K population according to wiki. They don't have any business being a state repped by two Senators.

agent-maroon said:

---

TxLawDawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Imagine if it became a state before Puerto Rico.

---

It shouldn't become a state IMO, but I'm all for acquiring it as a territory. I'd rather give billions to Denmark in exchange for Greenland than send it to Ukraine or all of the other s___holes across the globe.

---

Greenland with just under 57K population according to wiki. They don't have any business being a state repped by two Senators.

---

but when we flood it with geologists, extraction teams, transportation support, ports, power plants, resorts, general supply chain, etc etc...it's a big deal.

And we're the only ones who can defend it.

Based on proportionality, we should not fool around and just offer Denmark an offer they can't refuse of one trillion dollars ,since we pissed away seven trillion in the Middle East and got absolutely nothing !

Denmark's GDP is about $400B. Total debt is $119B. Anything between those two numbers would be worth it and you gotta think they'd have to take it.

TxLawDawg said:

---

I wouldn't necessarily assume it would be red.

---

I'd relocate to help.

And so it begins:


Western hemisphere, the new frontier.

If Trump is expecting to be the conqueror of the western hemisphere, he must start somewhere and Taking Greenland without losing one America soldier is the making of a legend. Alexander the Great, step aside.

52nd state.

Canada is 51

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Will Greenland flip over if too many people move there?

---

Won't flip, but it might sink under the weight of more people and all that ice!

Cuz... science

Dumb me, I didn't even know it was for sale.

Should Greenland get a Land Grant university? I say yes, and, further, that they, like most other land grant schools, should start life as the Greenland Aggies.

Can any Greenlanders play linebacker?

Maroon Dawn said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Why do we need it so badly? Wouldn't we buy it or trade for it?

---

Look at this view of the world from the top:



Greenland is essentially a shield against Russia. We already have defensive assets there. Control of it adds an almost second Alaska for purposes of containing Russia and accessing the rich resources of the Arctic

Not saying we should give up too much for it but if some agreement with Denmark can be reached then we should go for it

---

Looks like a great way to position ourselves around Canada so those snow ******** are forced to become our 51st state.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Why do we need it so badly? Wouldn't we buy it or trade for it?

---

Look at this view of the world from the top:


Greenland is essentially a shield against Russia. We already have defensive assets there. Control of it adds an almost second Alaska for purposes of containing Russia and accessing the rich resources of the Arctic

Not saying we should give up too much for it but if some agreement with Denmark can be reached then we should go for it

---

Further supporting your point looking forward:

Did You Know:

By 2040, maritime shipping firms expect to open new polar and northern sea routes for global trade

Making Greenland as important as Panama for strategic sea lanes pic.twitter.com/8lvksLhgTp

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 24, 2024

Stupid question - why 2040? Why not now?

Supposedly global warming or more ice breakers I assume.

agent-maroon said:

---

Stupid question - why 2040? Why not now?

---

Because all of the AGW predictions of the past decades have been way off. "But believe us this time!"

I don't buy the "Greenland is the new Panama" bit. What are they going to do; set up a toll booth on the ice and charge for boats to follow their ice breakers? As if Russia and the US wouldn't be able to cut their own lanes? And so what if ships skirt a bit wide to stay in international waters. Sure it's a strategically beneficial location IF the ice cap melts… but it unless they take after Somalia I don't see the economic play.

Yeah, global warming was my first thought. But they couldn't be so stupid as to use that as a justification, right?

We could trade California for Greenland then build a wall on the 3 sides of California. Really don't need a wall on their northern border. Oregon, California, all the same.

About time we play offense with our foreign policy and not always defense.

This give us leverage with our adversaries in slowing their ambitions.

Trump gets negotiations.

You think Russia is pissed over "NATO expansion" now? Just wait and see how many nuclear threats they make if the US suddenly had bases in Greenland, lol.

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

Dumb me, I didn't even know it was for sale.

---

Everything is for sale. You never know for how much until you ask the price.

AggieMac06 said:

---

We need it with a naval base and airfield at minimum. Helps shut down the GIUK gap even more. Great strategic significance.

---

We need to have a Navy that is up to the task of operating up there first. Our Navy is in a woeful state of readiness right now and it is even worse when you start talking about arctic capable ships and looking at the number of ships we plan to retire vs the number of new ships coming online in the next decade or two.