With climate change opening up more routes through the arctic seas, it becomes a strategic place to set up shop and control all that traffic (read: tax.)
Incidentally we already have a base there. (I believe it’s for launching rockets into polar orbits. Don’t quote me on that.)
It’s an incredibly lucrative land for minerals and such, they already had to give Denmark a slap on the wrist for screwing over the local Greenlandic population.
Genuine question. Why would anyone want greenland?
With climate change opening up more routes through the arctic seas, it becomes a strategic place to set up shop and control all that traffic (read: tax.)
Incidentally we already have a base there. (I believe it’s for launching rockets into polar orbits. Don’t quote me on that.)
I didn’t think that’s true, at least for NASA. According to their site California is the preferred launch location for polar orbits .
https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/lspeducation/launch-operations/
Apparently I conflated a few things. In any case it’s a Space force base
Ah, that does make sense. Easy to conflate the air force with NASA.
I refuse to acknowledge Trump’s “space force”. Childish, I know.
Probably lots of untapped natural resources under so that ice.
Which is probably gonna be melting soon. Once that ice is gone all those minerals in the Greenland archipelago are gonna be up for grabs.
It’s an incredibly lucrative land for minerals and such, they already had to give Denmark a slap on the wrist for screwing over the local Greenlandic population.
Good strategic placement as the arctic ice pack melts for new shipping routes and opportunities for oil exploration