Let’s be frank. Greenland is about as useful for US national security as a Kleenex against modern weapons and surveillance systems.
Note: Golden Dome, one of the supposed excuses for this frivolous exercise, is a sort of upgrade of Israel’s Iron Dome. You don’t see Israel trying to annex Cyprus on that basis, do you? You don’t see them making a static target out of their system, either.
Missile defense doesn’t and can’t work like that, especially large-scale or integrated into strategic systems. It’s like someone in the Middle Ages building a mildly threatening hot dog stand in Kazakhstan and saying it’ll stop Genghis Khan. None of the Golden Dome systems is said to be deployment-ready, anyway.
This absurdity even has a historical lineage. The US abandoned most of its Greenland bases a long time ago on pretty much that basis. It’s not and can’t be a “forward base,” it’s a sitting duck. It’s as stupid as those isolated South China Sea artificial islands.
Yet here we are 50 years later, discussing a possible forceful takeover of Greenland by the US against the express wishes of NATO. Trump now threatens tariffs being raised against any country that opposes the takeover.
It’s not just NATO that doesn’t like this. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17% of Americans support it.
So far, we have the scenario as follows:
It’s an obsolete idea with no even theoretical military value.
Americans don’t support it.
It’d be incredibly expensive and time-consuming, particularly in the event of any military clash with NATO.
The logistics alone are in the billions of dollars.
Securing Greenland against any kind of third party would be extremely demanding on military resources.
In my opinion, few things could be less in America’s best interests than to take on such an unproductive project.
Resources, you say? Not really.
Greenland’s resources are a thing at the moment in the wonderful and usually deeply misguided world of geopolitical theory.
No. The resources idea doesn’t survive much if any scrutiny. If extracting those resources was a good move or cost-viable, there are plenty of huge mining companies who’d just ring Denmark and would have done so decades ago. This isn’t a new discovery; it’s an unavoidable reality of mining.
Add this to the fact that extracting would take many years to even begin, let alone make money. Exactly like the Venezuelan oil, the oil industry won’t touch.
So what’s left of the Greenland idea?
Very little.
It would divert an enormous amount of US resources. Maintenance of so much as a pup tent in Greenland could cost a lot over time.
It would further isolate the US from its allies. Is that the objective? Because if so, it’s working.
Trade and diplomacy could become very difficult. The import-dependent US would be at the mercy of foreign exporters. The parts for “Made in USA” manufacturing may never show up.
The relationship between Canada and the US will further deteriorate if that’s even possible.
The Greenland move would directly play into the hands of any hostile nation, putting a major resource imbalance into US geophysical security. The US doesn’t have unlimited resources.
There are 8 billion people in this world, and none of them signed up for this endless imbecility.
This won’t be “America First.” It’ll be “America Alone.”
If America falls over, nobody will be in any hurry to pick this mess up.
____________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
