add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Greenland Expansion???

ZFGeek
  • 7 months ago

Any thoughts on the news stories about the talks of the U.S. obtaining Greenland? Nothing is certain yet, but there has been discussion apparently. If it were to happen, the expansion would be the largest in United States history(even trumping the louisiana Purchase). Reasoning seems to be for strategic advantage and mineral resources. From what I read, the Country(territory?) has been under sights by China and Russia too, which is why the U.S. has jumped in.

And I thought the U.S. was done growing...hopefully if it happens states aren't added. The blue star field on the flag is pretty packed. Plus the political mess right around elections. Trump most certainly would wait to see if he won election so he has a full term? Yet again, sound like something he'd do right before just in case he isn't re-elected.

Comments

  • 7 months ago
  • 5 points

Finally! We can win a country-measuring contest against Canada...

  • 7 months ago
  • 5 points

I doubt they would be willing to sell or that it would ever be monetarily worth it, but from a strategic standpoint it makes sense with the ability to counter Russian ballistic trajectories, and having a stronger hold on the arctic region which Russia has been pushing to develop.

Thinking about it that way it is kind of surprising that this wasn't done earlier in the cold war.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

It was also proposed under Truman's presidency, I believe.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

yeah, it was. There was also hints at it back in 1867.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I mean, we bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark before, and Greenland is owned by Denmark technically. Not sure they'd give up that much land though.

  • 7 months ago
  • 3 points

even trumping the louisiana Purchase

Bad pun.

there has been discussion

Pretty one-sided. Denmark doesn't seem willing to sell.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Never said who discussion was with.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

I legitimately thought that this was a joke.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Nope...completely real news...

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

its just wagging the dog. Throw something crazy to the media, and let it be the topic of conversation for a while. What is being hidden by this, is the question we should be asking.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

its just wagging the dog. Throw something crazy to the media

The entire Trump presidency in a nutshell.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

It's not going to happen, it's not for sale. On the positive side, it is a better idea than sending humans on extra-terrestrial missions. (space station=good, moon station=bad)

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Why moon station = bad? Fiscally, it's one of the best bets to springboard to further missions.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I see it as a waste of time and resources. I'd support a larger space station program farther from Earth, (geosynchronous/geostationary), but exploration is too expensive and risky at this time. There's lots of stuff we need to perfect, and it won't require a "colony" to work on it. If we find something out there that's worth taking a close look at, fine, but in the meantime we can do a lot of stuff without revisiting a dead end.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

The reasoning is because it's far too risky to have all of our eggs in one basket. As for the risk of colonization being excessive, I don't think it is. Every time people have explored and colonized there has been risk. It's easily worth the risk and the cost can be mitigated, if not turned profitable by the benefits it could bring. To err away is a short sighted choice, IMO.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

I think we send a robot, and if it finds something then we look at going, meanwhile...….

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

That's a perfectly understandable direction to go. And, with the advancements we are making, I think that a likely way it would start. Robots which build domiciles and make habitable the area/domiciles before we actually go to inhabit them. Reduce risk, lower cost, achieve the same results at about the same time scale.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

We need a bigger American flag before any expansion happens...

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah I think we need to add territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc as states. It would be cool to see the number of stars change in my life time. And even the possibility of Greenland would be cool.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

At least then we'd know where some of our tax dollars are going...

  • 7 months ago
  • -1 points

I'm down with Guam and don't know much about American Samoa. But, definitely not Puerto Rico. They have far too much poverty to be admitted as a state. Shouldn't add states with too many problems.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Too late for that. We ruined that when we added California.(no offense to those few good people in Cal.)

  • 7 months ago
  • 3 points

If we're negating statehood based on 'too much poverty' then can we ax Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, and Texas before we take out California? It has a lower poverty rate than all of those states, and its GDP is higher than all of them combined when you subtract Texas.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Let alone those commonwealths are already our problem as is their debt.

Making or denying them statehood doesn't change the bills that are owed.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah, California has a reasonable poverty rate at around 13%, the national average.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I guess.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

well Trump has just cancelled his visit to Denmark after their prime minister said greenland wasn't for sale. pretty sure that was his intention.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Rediculous...

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube