U.S. v. Denmark: who ya got?

#52
#52
Destroy the supply chain so then you have to secure it. Genius.
Not sure where you got “destroy the supply chain” out of that. That would certainly be counterproductive.
From all I’ve read about China making moves to add the rare earth minerals in Greenland to their quasi-monopoly it seems that it is in the USA’s national interest to see that doesn’t happen. Offering to buy Greenland from Denmark would seem to be a reasonable opening offer to start negotiations to prevent that rare earth mineral supply from falling further into China’s control. There are certainly other reasons as well, given its location and other resources that would make a purchase very appealing.
 
#53
#53
Not sure where you got “destroy the supply chain” out of that. That would certainly be counterproductive.
From all I’ve read about China making moves to add the rare earth minerals in Greenland to their quasi-monopoly it seems that it is in the USA’s national interest to see that doesn’t happen. Offering to buy Greenland from Denmark would seem to be a reasonable opening offer to start negotiations to prevent that rare earth mineral supply from falling further into China’s control. There are certainly other reasons as well, given its location and other resources that would make a purchase very appealing.

I'm talking about Trump trade wars and protectionism dating back to 2017 ****ing up the supply chain.
 
#54
#54
I'm talking about Trump trade wars and protectionism dating back to 2017 ****ing up the supply chain.
Seems like we’ve been digging this hole long before 2017.


The United States' reduced capacity to mine sufficient rare earth minerals for its needs stems from several interconnected factors:
  1. Environmental Regulations: Over the past few decades, stringent environmental regulations have increased the cost of mining in the U.S. These regulations aim to protect the environment but also make it more costly to extract minerals, leading to the closure of many mines.
  2. Economic Viability: Rare earth mining involves complex processes that require significant capital investment. The high cost of labor in the U.S., combined with cheaper extraction methods abroad (particularly in China), has made domestic mining less economically competitive. China has been able to maintain lower costs due to less stringent environmental controls and government subsidies.
  3. Market Dynamics: In the 1980s and 1990s, China began to dominate the rare earth market by offering minerals at very low prices, which pushed other producers out of business. The U.S., once a leader in rare earth mining, saw its industry decline as it couldn't compete on price.
  4. Geopolitical Strategy: China strategically invested in rare earths, recognizing their importance in technology and defense. This has led to a situation where China controls a significant portion of the global supply, influencing market prices and availability. The U.S. has been slow to counteract this dominance due to the long lead times required to restart or develop mining operations.
  5. Technological Challenges: Rare earth elements are challenging to mine and process due to their chemical similarity, making the extraction process complex and expensive. The U.S. has not kept pace with technological advancements in this field, partly because of the economic disincentives to do so when cheaper options were available from abroad.
  6. Policy and Investment: There's been a historical lack of consistent policy support for domestic mining of rare earths. Recent initiatives have aimed to change this, with new investments and policies seeking to revive the sector, but these efforts are still in the early stages.
  7. Public Perception: Mining operations, especially for rare earths which can produce significant environmental hazards if not managed properly, often face public opposition. This can delay projects or prevent them from starting due to community and activist resistance.
Efforts are now underway to revitalize domestic production, driven by national security concerns and the need for supply chain independence. However, reversing decades of decline in this sector will take time, investment, and possibly new technological innovations in mining and processing.
 
#59
#59
Anyways, if anyone has any interest in why the USA and Trump seem to be making a play for Greenland, there is quite the rabbit hole to go down, with lots of interesting (to me anyway) history as well as geopolitical considerations. Buying Greenland would seem to be a long road if the Danish constitution requires changing, as I understand it. But Greenland itself has options for autonomy that could be leveraged in any deal. Like I said, interesting stuff.

Carry on.
 
#61
#61
Actually After we buy “Green”land, we ship all of the environmentalist greenies there and let them establish a totally net zero carbon state. They can design the ideal economy without any use of carbon based fossil fuels whatsoever. Should be fun watching them heat their homes in winter using solar when the sun doesn’t come up for about four straight months 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#66
#66
From the OP article - seems Trump got what he wanted here.

Army Maj Steen Kjaergaard of the Danish Defence Academy suggests it may have been Trump's intention to pressure Denmark into such a move.

"It is likely to be sparked by the renewed Trump focus on the need for air and maritime control around Greenland and the internal developments in Greenland where some are voicing a will to look towards the US – a new international airport in Nuuk was just inaugurated," he told the BBC.

"I think Trump is smart… he gets Denmark to prioritise its Arctic military capabilities by raising this voice, without having to take over a very un-American welfare system," he added, referring to Greenland's heavy dependence on subsidies from Copenhagen.
 

VN Store



Back
Top