- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greenland? Really?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:17 pm to Techdave
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:17 pm to Techdave
quote:
Techdave
Look, I don’t know you, nor do I have any beef with you. But your premise in this thread is embarrassingly asinine. All it does is show everyone that you are really, really ignorant of matters of geopolitics and modern military realities.
0
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:36 pm to FoTownBam
I never thought of it as a possibility until he mentioned it in his first term. Since then I’ve consistently held that it’s been his best idea in either of his terms.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:57 pm to Techdave
quote:
I mean really....what would owning Greenland actually do for us?
Well for one, we could land and refuel our B17s there after bomb raids on Nazi occupied territory in Europe.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:00 pm to Techdave
I believe any country whose name ends with Land should be taken by the United States.
Switzerland
Scotland
Ireland
Greenland
Iceland
New Zealand
Poland
Thailand
Netherlands.
Should all be OURS!
Switzerland
Scotland
Ireland
Greenland
Iceland
New Zealand
Poland
Thailand
Netherlands.
Should all be OURS!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 11:18 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
But there's no question that ownership vs military expansion under the current treaty is much more favorable for the US.
Not sure that's true either.
What will we be able to do as an owner that we can't do right now?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 11:27 pm to wackatimesthree
Defend Greenland from hostile forces
Prevent harmful treaties or agreements made by the Danes
Control air and sea space
Control and trade natural resources
Mobilize freely throughout the landmass
Expand militarily without NATOs permission.
It’s really a silly question. It’d be like asking what we could do in Florida that we can’t do in Greenland. Lots of things.
There’s a reason the US has tried to acquire Greenland several times under both Republican and Democrat administrations since this treaty was signed. Hell the treaty was initially drafted illegally by the Danish ambassador while Denmark was conquered by the Nazis and had to be renegotiated after the war.
Prevent harmful treaties or agreements made by the Danes
Control air and sea space
Control and trade natural resources
Mobilize freely throughout the landmass
Expand militarily without NATOs permission.
It’s really a silly question. It’d be like asking what we could do in Florida that we can’t do in Greenland. Lots of things.
There’s a reason the US has tried to acquire Greenland several times under both Republican and Democrat administrations since this treaty was signed. Hell the treaty was initially drafted illegally by the Danish ambassador while Denmark was conquered by the Nazis and had to be renegotiated after the war.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 12:03 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Defend Greenland from hostile forces Prevent harmful treaties or agreements made by the Danes Control air and sea space
Lots of attacks against Greenland going on recently? Any harmful treaties to US interests by the Danes? Some sudden lack of air and sea control?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:08 am to Sofaking2
quote:
Please tell me you aren’t this stupid. Ever heard of Seward’s Folly? It wasn’t cheap at the time.
You probably ought to re-evaluate your intelligence level yourself before opening your mouth. Sewards Folly was a joke, that was an amazing cheap purchase when you check the math.
Alaska was ~600k square miles sold at 7.2 mil. Which is around 132 mil in today's money. Which is about $220 per square mile, ~0.31 cents per acre, in today's money.
Greenland is ~836k square miles, will likely cost between 500 billion and 1 trillion. That comes out between $600k - $ 1.2 million per square mile and $934 - $ 1,869 per acre.
So even if we got a great deal on Greenland, it would still cost $934 per acre compared to Alaska .31 cents per acre. Both figures in today money.
So frick Off idiot.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:10 am to Techdave
You’re an idiot
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:15 am to wookalar1013
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:19 am to JellyRoll
Alaska was cheap AF. Greenland won't be.
Alaska was ~600k square miles sold at 7.2 mil. Which is around 132 mil in today's money. Which is about $220 per square mile, ~0.31 cents per acre, in today's money.
Greenland is ~836k square miles, will likely cost between 500 billion and 1 trillion. That comes out between $600k - $ 1.2 million per square mile and $934 - $ 1,869 per acre.
So even if we got a great deal on Greenland, it would still cost $934 per acre compared to Alaska .31 cents per acre. Both figures in today money.
Alaska was ~600k square miles sold at 7.2 mil. Which is around 132 mil in today's money. Which is about $220 per square mile, ~0.31 cents per acre, in today's money.
Greenland is ~836k square miles, will likely cost between 500 billion and 1 trillion. That comes out between $600k - $ 1.2 million per square mile and $934 - $ 1,869 per acre.
So even if we got a great deal on Greenland, it would still cost $934 per acre compared to Alaska .31 cents per acre. Both figures in today money.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:24 am to ninthward
quote:
You’re an idiot
Says the guy who showed up, wrote three words, and left without stating his case.
I like the idea of owning Greenland. But Greenland will be expensive AF. Convince me the price will be worth it.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:51 am to Techdave
It’s all relative. The natural resources there alone are worth 4.5 trillion. There’s immense value in its strategic military position in the Arctic. Essentially the same levers that justified the purchases of Hawaii and Alaska. Economists have been all over the place with evaluations so there’s no telling what the price tag will end up being.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:04 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
It’s all relative. The natural resources there alone are worth 4.5 trillion. There’s immense value in its strategic military position in the Arctic. Essentially the same levers that justified the purchases of Hawaii and Alaska. Economists have been all over the place with evaluations so there’s no telling what the price tag will end up being.
I want Greenland. I like it.
But I don't like it if we had to finance it for 1 trillion. That's my only point here.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:09 am to Techdave
As long as Greenland is “in the black” the price tag won’t matter. Tapping Greenlands vast resources is difficult, though. This isn’t west Texas. So expecting an immediate economic windfall is foolish.
Currently Danish eco-loon bureaucrats won’t allow the island to do much in terms of extracting these resources, but it’ll be interesting to see if they take Trumps money knowing he will do exactly that.
Currently Danish eco-loon bureaucrats won’t allow the island to do much in terms of extracting these resources, but it’ll be interesting to see if they take Trumps money knowing he will do exactly that.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:23 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Defend Greenland from hostile forces
Prevent harmful treaties or agreements made by the Danes
Control air and sea space
Control and trade natural resources
Mobilize freely throughout the landmass
Expand militarily without NATOs permission.
We can do every one of those things right now. We might have to apply pressure to the Danes to keep number two from happening, but we could do it.
Trump Says...
If true, that deal is the best case scenario, and congratulations to Trump for making it.
quote:
It’s really a silly question.
No doubt, and it's amusing to watch you so smugly fail to answer it.
quote:
It’d be like asking what we could do in Florida that we can’t do in Greenland. Lots of things.
Name the ones that don't also have to do with federal funds going to Florida.
quote:
There’s a reason the US has tried to acquire Greenland several times under both Republican and Democrat administrations since this treaty was signed.
I could also say that there's a reason why they've never gone through with it.
Let me ask you this, since there's already been a bill introduced to make it the 51st state—they won't get many electoral votes, but they will get two Senators and one Representative. What do you think the chances are that they ever elect a Republican? Like, ever?
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 9:27 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:41 am to Techdave
quote:
what would owning Greenland actually do for us?
Well we could always sell it to China.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:47 am to 1loyalbamafan
quote:
Well we could always sell it to China.
It is a bit of a fixer-upper. Let's flip it for a profit?
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News