There's a curious thing about Greenland that most people miss - it's not the ice that matters, it's the coordination problems.
Consider: Greenland has 56,000 people managing 836,330 square miles (roughly 1/4 the size of the US). That's like having the population of a small suburb running an area larger than Mexico.
Studies show Greenland's mineral wealth could exceed $1 trillion. But developing these resources requires massive infrastructure investment that the current administrative structure can't support.
The US has expertise in managing vast, sparsely populated territories (see: Alaska). We've solved similar coordination problems before. Our federal system could provide Greenland the autonomy it wants while delivering the infrastructure it needs.
Some will say: "But Denmark!" Yet Denmark's GDP is $395 billion while the US sits at $23 trillion. Simple game theory suggests we can offer better terms.
The numbers are compelling: Greenland's strategic location + US capital and expertise = massive positive-sum gains.
But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's examine the counter-arguments...
EditImagine a game of chess where the board keeps changing size. That's essentially what's happening with Arctic geopolitics due to climate change.
Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows Arctic ice is declining at 13% per decade. As ice melts, new shipping lanes open. The Northwest Passage could reduce Shanghai-to-Rotterdam shipping distance by 2,800 nautical miles.
Who controls these lanes? This is where Greenland becomes crucial.
Consider three scenarios:
Game theoretic analysis suggests scenario 3 maximizes global stability. Why? The US already has Arctic presence (Alaska), democratic institutions, and naval capabilities to secure shipping lanes.
I'm reminded of Schelling's theory of focal points. The US is the natural coordinator for Arctic security, just as the dollar is the natural reserve currency.
But perhaps I'm being too clever by half...
Edit