President Trump renews push for Greenland, citing U.S. national security needs

The Barbarian · Jan 7, 2026

Richard T said:
The mineral wealth is low quality and hard to extract.

For now. But in a warming word, that could change. And the position of Greenland at a strateigic point on what will soon be a navigable "Northwest Passage :

Northwest Passage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Matters for security and economic reasons. Suspicions occur that this might be a way to destroy NATO, via aggression on another NATO nation. Putin would love it.

RDKirk · Jan 7, 2026

The Barbarian said:
For now. But in a warming word, that could change. And the position of Greenland at a strateigic point on what will soon be a navigable "Northwest Passage :

Nah, the Trump Administration doesn't accept climate change, remember. So, they wouldn't use that.

The Barbarian · Jan 7, 2026

RDKirk said:
Nah, the Trump Administration doesn't accept climate change, remember. So, they wouldn't use that.

Exxon didn't accept climate change, either. But...

Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.

Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy’ starting in the 1970s

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu

Now it's true that Trump's understanding of weather and climate is about windmills causing cancer. But not everyone working for him is that dumb.

The Barbarian · Jan 7, 2026

Republican leaders push back on Trump's openness to using the military to take Greenland

The Republican leaders of the House and Senate dismissed the idea of using the U.S. military to take over Greenland, even as the White House has insisted it is on the table.

Republican leaders push back on Trump's openness to using the military to take Greenland

The Republican leaders of the House and Senate dismissed the idea of using the U.S. military to take over Greenland, even as the White House has insisted it is on the table.

www.nbcnews.com

If I was heading up Greenland's defenses, I'd change the island's name to "Epstein." He'd never talk about it again.

Ellesmere · Jan 9, 2026

Valletta said:
It left the EU in the 1980s. Let the citizens of Greenland decide on any offer made by the United States. Most in Greenland would like to break away from Denmark but they are dependent upon financial assistance from Denmark. The U.S. can make them a better deal.

1) Greenland's healthcare system provides free, tax-funded services to all of its residents, covering doctors, hospitals, medicine and basic dental care!

2) More specialized medical facilities are located at Greenland's capital, Nuuk - the most serious medical cases are evacuated back to Denmark!

3) Given the recent defunding of Obamacare leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, the Trump Administration have got this all wrong - its Greenland and Denmark that can make US citizens "A BETTER DEAL!`

JimR-OCDS · Jan 10, 2026

Trump is looking for Denmark to fund more for the defense of Greenland, which is the
basis for him floating the idea that the US might take over Greenland.

Apparently, Denmark is going to spend more of the defense of Greenland than they had
in the past.

The Barbarian · Jan 10, 2026

JimR-OCDS said:
Apparently, Denmark is going to spend more of the defense of Greenland than they had
in the past.

Makes sense. This is the first time in a long time that any nation has made threats against them.

The White House says the administration is weighing “options” that could include military action to take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semi-autonomous region that is part of NATO ally Denmark.

Trump threats against Greenland pose new, potentially unprecedented challenge to NATO

U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest threats against Greenland pose a new and potentially unprecedented challenge to NATO, perhaps even an existential one.

apnews.com

He's getting more and more deranged. And yet republicans continue to ignore his decline.

Akita Suggagaki · Friday at 1:52 PM

How many here are perfectly fine with US invading Greenland?

The Barbarian · Friday at 2:31 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
How many here are perfectly fine with US invading Greenland?

That would require personal corruption on the Stephen Miller level. Not many, if any here.

JimR-OCDS · Saturday at 8:03 AM

Akita Suggagaki said:
How many here are perfectly fine with US invading Greenland?

Not me, I oppose to a US invasion of Greenland.

Tuur · Saturday at 10:16 AM

Akita Suggagaki said:
How many here are perfectly fine with US invading Greenland?

Under what circumstances? Some years ago, Greenland cozied up to China and among other things talked about building air airport until Demark did a "What are you going?" and that ended that. Had China done so and started basing military craft there, then we'd likely would have done what we did in Grenada.

If you mean waking up in the morning and finding out the US has taken Greenland, not so much.

If, however, there are increasing tensions with Europe (and I anticipate that this will be the case in the long term), we might well seize it. The same with a heat-up of hostilities with China if Denmark hesitated on doing anything. That's a different situation than just taking Greenland because it's there.

Akita Suggagaki · Saturday at 10:21 AM

Tuur said:
however, there are increasing tensions with Europe (and I anticipate that this will be the case in the long term), we might well seize it

Go to war with NATO?

Tuur · Saturday at 10:33 AM

Akita Suggagaki said:
Go to war with NATO?

If NATO continues to exist, that could very well happen. Wouldn't discount it, and I honestly think the US and Europe may well go to war at some point in our lifetimes.

Akita Suggagaki · Saturday at 10:34 AM

Tuur said:
If NATO continues to exist, that could very well happen. Wouldn't discount it, and I honestly think the US and Europe may well go to war at some point in our lifetimes.

That is a chilling thought. Will we have any allies?

RDKirk · Saturday at 10:48 AM

Tuur said:
Under what circumstances? Some years ago, Greenland cozied up to China and among other things talked about building air airport until Demark did a "What are you going?" and that ended that. Had China done so and started basing military craft there, then we'd likely would have done what we did in Grenada.

If you mean waking up in the morning and finding out the US has taken Greenland, not so much.

If, however, there are increasing tensions with Europe (and I anticipate that this will be the case in the long term), we might well seize it. The same with a heat-up of hostilities with China if Denmark hesitated on doing anything. That's a different situation than just taking Greenland because it's there.

"Seizing" Greenland under hostile conditions would be more of a hassle than some people think.

Right now, the US does not have the Arctic combat and logistical capability to do that. We have been depending on the NATO nations that are close to the Arctic (who have been exercising this kind of fighting since WWII) to handle that corner.

It will take years, probably at least a decade, to develop the capability to actually occupy Greenland in combat.

Tuur · Saturday at 2:29 PM

RDKirk said:
It will take years, probably at least a decade, to develop the capability to actually occupy Greenland in combat.

Possibly. Yet when the Japanese took some of the Aleutians, the US managed to take them back within a couple of years, despite the Pacific forces being equipped for warmer weather. As it was, I think the active campaign took place in the summer, not the dead of winter. That said, I wonder just how unequipped the US is for arctic combat. It's not like we don't have a base in a place called Thule. Yes, I know it's called Pittufik now, but it will always be Thule to me.

Tuur · Saturday at 2:32 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
That is a chilling thought. Will we have any allies?

Want a more chilling thought? How many of the allies we have now will be allies we'd want to be associated with then? Remember that we went from the French being allies to being angered over the XYZ Affair and a quasi-war with France within a span of a few years.

RDKirk · Saturday at 5:11 PM

Tuur said:
Possibly. Yet when the Japanese took some of the Aleutians, the US managed to take them back within a couple of years, despite the Pacific forces being equipped for warmer weather. As it was, I think the active campaign took place in the summer, not the dead of winter. That said, I wonder just how unequipped the US is for arctic combat. It's not like we don't have a base in a place called Thule. Yes, I know it's called Pittufik now, but it will always be Thule to me.

Pituffik Space Base (Space Force...not a combat unit) is not an extensive facility. Although it's near the coast, the harbor is iced-in for nine months of the year. It's as far north as the US has been able to physically maintain a permanent facility.

The Aleutians are not as extreme as Greenland, and island-hopping combat is more feasible there for a number of reasons than Greenland. It's very easy with a minimum amount of logistics interdiction to force troops in Greenland into eating their own feet during the winter.

rebornfree · Saturday at 5:58 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
How many here are perfectly fine with US invading Greenland?

UK citizen here, so not sure if I get a vote, but unsurprisingly not at all fine with it.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

President Trump renews push for Greenland, citing U.S. national security needs

Crabby Old White Guy

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Crabby Old White Guy

Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better. ​

Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy’ starting in the 1970s ​

Crabby Old White Guy

Republican leaders push back on Trump's openness to using the military to take Greenland​

Active Member

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.

Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy’ starting in the 1970s

Republican leaders push back on Trump's openness to using the military to take Greenland