Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thejohnconway 89 days ago
Maybe Americans don't really get this, but the Greenland stuff was a very, very big deal. The rest of NATO was staring down the barrel of the unthinkable: war with the United States. For what? Some lib owning? A bit of fun? A real estate deal? The sense of betrayal is very strong, more than the politicians are letting on.
2 comments
IAmBroom 89 days ago
The sane Americans get it. We know how important NATO is, and sovereignty of nations, and so on. We get it.

We are in a state of permanent horror at what the voting majority has done, all to avoid voting a woman of color into office, to own the libs, to hate on brown-skinned people, etc., ad nauseum. Votes against today, instead of towards tomorrow. Hatred and fear as prime motivations.

link
QuarterReptile 89 days ago
The Diego Garcia stuff is a very, very big deal. I think it's unreasonable to draw the comparison between the exceptionally short-sighted Brits and the uncommonly prudent Danes. But hypothesizing Trump Tower Thule as the motive is ridiculous.
link
thejohnconway 89 days ago
I don't understand your comment.
link
QuarterReptile 89 days ago
Diego Garcia is an island of exceptional strategic importance to the West. When it eventually gets granted to a client state of China, that will steadily degrade the effectiveness of bases there. I expect slower movement than the time the UK promised to protect the rights of Hong Kong citizens, but that is a matter of degree.

I am not aware of Denmark giving meaningful control of Greenland to China or Russia, nor or any plans to push the US out: therefore, while I think the principle is worth considering, I find it to be a small concern not worth angering allies over.

Does that answer your statement of confusion?

link
thejohnconway 89 days ago
I don’t see how it relates very well to what I said. I think you’re trying to say the that the Chagos island lease disagreement is as big a deal as threatening to invade a NATO ally.

I disagree.

link
QuarterReptile 88 days ago
No, that is incorrect. I disagree that my comment draws that equivalency, not least of all because claiming "as big a deal" is to make a comparison between two radically different concerns between fairly different groups, which could only be lined up against one another in some narrowly scoped way.

I'm saying that losing stable access to Greenland sites would be similar to losing access to Diego Garcia sites, and the threat of the latter is a recent flare-up. And if you're hoping to retreat to fortress America, then Greenland becomes much more important than Diego Garcia.

link
arethuza 89 days ago
"exceptionally short-sighted Brits"

Probably something along the lines of "nice nuclear deterrent shame if it was to stop working" or "nice carriers, shame if the only aeroplanes that can fly from them stopped working"....

link