What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
> What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?
Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.
Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.
Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.
> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.
It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).
Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow.
I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits.
An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
> Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.
I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
Yeah, I realise the Nobel prizes cannot be revoked. It was sarcasm.
But let's hear it from the horse's mouth..
The secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, wrote in his memoir that the decision “did not achieve what the committee had hoped for”, and that “in hindsight the argument … was only partially correct.”
The open workroom was a relatively short fad pioneered by Frank Lloyd Wright. If you look at office buildings before that, they're much more similar to houses and apartments. Lots of rooms connected by hallways, staircases, and atriums. You can imagine the difficulty and expense of lighting a large open space without electricity.
Not to take away from the larger point, but the US remains a manufacturing juggernaut compared to anyone that isn't China. It's still the #2 manufacturing nation in the world and produces more than the EU as a whole. It's just become a small aspect of a much larger economy.
Yes, but I think the US industrial output is overvalued.
The US has a very small value of total exports, and this lead me to assume that the goods it makes a lot of are not always competitive on the international market even though they sell for a great deal in the US.
It's quite common for utilities like water and gas to be shared, where the renter is billed proportionally to the usage of the entire block/rental complex.
Plus, people generally aren't doing chores or using appliances unnecessarily. That means it's difficult to find ways to save meaningful amounts of energy other than adjusting the thermostat. Most household energy use outside heating /cooling comes from the appliances they can't upgrade, so the alternatives are quality of life issues like fewer showers and less laundry.
It's not for mining, but the US built Camp Century and Camp TUTO in the ice to determine how feasible Project Iceworm would be. A construction film about the former was declassified some decades ago [0]. Icefield construction wasn't feasible even in the context of cold-war era MAD spending.
Actual subglacial mining has only been attempted a few times. Kumtor gold mine in Kyrgyzstan is in the middle of a couple glaciers and reshaped the landscape to redirect the glaciers a bit. Svea Nord in Svalbard ran tunnels under a glacier for coal. Canada's Granduc mine wasn't technically on or under a glacier, but it was just below one.
I guess I don't even know what to do with some of this information. It occurred to me that you'd also probably have to build some infrastructure (power plant, railroad, fuel terminal, a real port... I don't know) in order to even get the ball rolling. I don't think anyone's going to pay for that by taxing the citizens of Nuuk.
I also wonder if there has ever been a real geopolitical obstacle to doing this stuff, since the Danes and Greenlanders seem amenable to doing business. It would seem the obstacles have all been financial.
As I said in a comment elsewhere, arctic mining is doable with nation-state level resources. There's just no reason to do so that isn't better accomplished by other means. It would be stupid, expensive, and devastate a beautiful country.
As for "amenable", my experience is that people in the arctic are relatively unhappy about that sort of industrial development. They like the places they live.
Greenland isn't entirely covered in ice. Take a look at any of the mineral resources maps floating around for the country. Everything's on the coastal margins in places only covered by seasonal snow. The interior is a big blank because no one's been able to search under the ice.
However, the adjacent Canadian provinces (Nunavut & Northern Labrador) share many of the same geologic provinces, also without significant glaciation. There aren't a lot of big mines up there relative to the mineral wealth because it's simply too challenging. Constructing big infrastructure in the arctic takes resources approaching nation-state levels. Most mining companies can't muster that or maintain it long-term.
Density is also a problem caused by zoning/permitting regulations. SF, LA, and even NYC should all be more dense than they currently are. Not being able to increase their density just means that prices have gone up instead.
I can get behind that message, to a large extent. The rest of the complaints are largely all downstream of that, though? The reason places don't have the same cheap food options that denser locations have is pretty much fully down to the density question.
And sure, we can tackle making places denser. A large hurdle there is that people want both the space that they currently have, along with the benefits of higher density. And that just doesn't work.
reply