Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by apo 2505 days ago
> The U.S. has sought to derail Chinese efforts to gain an economic foothold in Greenland. The Pentagon worked successfully in 2018 to block China from financing three airports on the island.

This is where the story takes a dark turn.

Global warming and the reduction of arctic sea ice is making this marginally interesting place more interesting all the time. In 10-20 years Greenland could become the center of a power struggle among countries seeking to obtain it.

Would the US allow China or Russia, for example to buy it? No need to sell the whole thing, either - how about a few tens of thousands of square miles? What if countries started pressuring Denmark to part with some or all of Greenland through various channels?

How would such advances be perceived by the US and how far would the US go to prevent it?

Of all the crazy ways for WWIII to start, a land grab over Greenland would be one of the strangest - at least from today's vantage point. But in just a few years, Greenland could become a flashpoint in world politics.

Also, why was this story flagged?

3 comments

> Of all the crazy ways for WWIII to start, a land grab over Greenland would be one of the strangest - at least from today's vantage point. But in just a few years, Greenland could become a flashpoint in world politics.

Greenland and Iceland have been strategically important for US/NATO since at least WW2. Keflavik is and was an essential base for ASW (anti-submarine) patrols in the North Atlantic, a waystation for ferrying aircraft from the Americas to Europe, and a variety of other uses.

Russia establishing a military presence on Greenland would be something akin to their attempt to base ballistic missiles in Cuba in terms of US national security.

If the Danes are amenable to transferring ownership to the US, then I think it would probably make total sense from a national security perspective. It seems to me that it would be a mistake to try to include it as a state, but allowing it to continue functioning as an autonomous possession would make far more sense than even trying to make it a territory (a'la Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands), especially given its low population and longstanding cultural ties to Europe. The current annual subsidy from Denmark is "only" about a half billion US Dollars. The US federal budget for FY2018 was $4.094 trillion, so that would be a whopping 0.125% increase.

Thinking about it in those terms, it would make sense for the US to buy it and increase investment into their economy purely as a hedge against potential drastic climate change and to guarantee a base of military operations in the North Atlantic.

Does Russia really need it? Other than have a foothold close to the U.S mainland ? By most predictions, Russia is going to do well with it's Siberian region due to climate change. plus it already has easy access to the artic.
> Also, why was this story flagged?

Lord if I know... it seems like it fits all guidelines, and I've seen no comments that object to the story itself.

Paging dang... unflag please?

I'd recommend sending a short email making your case to 'hn@ycombinator.com'. You're more likely to get a response while the story is still young. "Paging" comments are hit or miss, while incoming email is better monitored.
Good suggestion; thanks. Sent.