Printable View
I will spare you'all my take - my take is very much a given here.
What is your take on DJT's threats - especially pre-inaguaration - to reclaim/take back the Panama Canal? Are such threats acceptable - if so, why, given that the Panama Canal was ceded fair and square in 1999 under a deal signed by the Carter Administration years before? Rob
Too much at stake with trade/national security interests to let the Chicoms get influence. Bad enough that the Suez/Red Sea is off the table now due to the Houthis and commercial shipping is having to go around the Cape of Good Hope. Having to go around the southern tip of S. America would be even worse.
I think Trump says a lot of things that never come to pass. (I further think the outrage-of-the-day approach may be calculated to keep us from looking at serious issues elsewhere.)
Panama is a sovereign nation, so presumably taking back the Canal would require either negotiation/purchase/lease, or an invasion.
I see in today's news that Trump has revived his idea to buy Greenland. Biden had his issues with age and decline, but in other respects trump is equally mentally unstable, possibly age related. I take these things are verbal running off of the mouth with no substance. I think he says these things to fuel his delusions of power.
For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump said ...
As Pete Buttigieg would say,
Attachment 6156
In Paul Krugman's latest update he speculated that Trump wants Greenland because that's where Santa's workshop is and he can cut off the toy supply to immigrants and journalists.
Well, that plus its location makes it the perfect spot to monitor and intercept missiles from Russia, North Korea and China. Whoever controls Greenland militarily, also controls the Arctic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
When I was at my first duty assignment in the Air Force 50 years ago, as the Vietnam war was winding down, the worst possible assignment was an 89 day TDY (Temporary Duty) to Thule Air Force Base in Greenland.
It's also a nearly perfect spot to launch ships and aircraft to or from those locations, which makes it a desirable beachhead for those foreign powers as well. I don't know when we started using Greenland as an important defensive post against far eastern aggression, but it's been at least that long. Paul Krugman may not be aware of that, but now you are.
It sounds like it would be worth a lot of bitcoin. I wonder if we would want to own it since we already have a military presence there. Trump could probably bargain for more bases.
There is an interesting documentary on Hulu now which I believed is called Haul. We don't hear about it much but ensuring food and water security is driving a lot of acquisitions and wars these days.
Yes, there are only certain places in the world where the rare earth elements and minerals used in our digital devices, batteries and solar are mined. As much as food and water, who ever controls access to those places holds some pretty good cards to play. Greenland just happens to have a lot of them, which I suspect has more geopolitical value than any military strategy.
okay----I am 100% in favor of reneging on Jimmahs' deal with Noriega re: the Panama Canal. Also, if Germany had succeeded, Greenland would now be in their possession, instead of Denmark. Denmark is in no position to defend Greenland from aggression. That was the reason the Czar sold the USA Alaska--to avoid a confrontatation with the evil UK, world conqueror. So yeah--Trump is right on. Both these places are right in our backyard, and essential to our security. Yup.
They don’t call it Thule anymore, they’re using some unpronounceable local name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I remember spending a lot of time talking about the GIUK gap back in the day, as well as the potential for tracking ICBMs on polar trajectories. I understand the place has been costing the Danes a fortune to support since before Napoleon. They refused a purchase offer in 1946, so I’m not sure why they’d change their minds now. As long as the US can maintain basing rights there, I’m not sure it’s necessary to pay for another dependency. There are probably multiple contingency plans for seizing it in time of war. There is mining potential, but the US already has considerable Arctic claims.
I think Trump is just looking for a monument here.
As America’s blue water navy dominance continues to erode, I think we will see growing problems at maritime choke points all over the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd