Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
112 Indlæg 75 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • depereo@mastodon.socialD depereo@mastodon.social

    @futurebird set up weird slave cities for american billionaires

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/10/greenland-trump-silicon-valley-tech-utopia-mars/83025685007/

    mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
    mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
    mostlytato@mstdn.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #73

    @depereo @futurebird

    "Wealthy tech investors including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen have invested in a venture-capital firm that has launched a half dozen charter-city projects globally."

    #CharterCities #Palantir #PeterThiel #Fascism #USPol #USPolitics

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

      Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

      Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

      Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

      It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

      What do you get?

      mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
      mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
      mostlytato@mstdn.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #74

      @futurebird
      Its seems to be about big tech charter cities.

      https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/10/greenland-trump-silicon-valley-tech-utopia-mars/83025685007/

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • catherineflick@mastodon.me.ukC catherineflick@mastodon.me.uk

        @futurebird also port cities that can open up when the arctic ice retreats (yay! Climate change!)

        funkula@goblin.campF This user is from outside of this forum
        funkula@goblin.campF This user is from outside of this forum
        funkula@goblin.camp
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #75

        @CatherineFlick @futurebird this is my understanding of it. An ice-free arctic is a potential major shipping lane, and Greenland is positioned to be able to control traffic into it.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

          Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

          Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

          Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

          It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

          What do you get?

          roberte3@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
          roberte3@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
          roberte3@mastodon.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #76

          @futurebird I think its a combination of a) mineral rights and b) the northern sea lanes opening up and new resources there.

          a) is kinda bunk since no one is mining there.
          b) if you squint sideways maybe. But we don't have new ice breakers (and that project has gone sideways recently).

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

            Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

            Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

            Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

            It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

            What do you get?

            happysteve@mas.toH This user is from outside of this forum
            happysteve@mas.toH This user is from outside of this forum
            happysteve@mas.to
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #77

            @futurebird
            My theory is that Trump is a toddler who wants to colour in more countries with his "owned by me" colour of crayon. He's probably only seen the Mercator projection of the world map. See also: Canada

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

              Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

              Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

              Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

              It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

              What do you get?

              geri@mastodon.onlineG This user is from outside of this forum
              geri@mastodon.onlineG This user is from outside of this forum
              geri@mastodon.online
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #78

              @futurebird

              Kuannersuit, in southern Greenland, contains the second-largest uranium deposit, possibly the largest thorium deposit, and the third-largest rare earth's deposits in the world. All of this will be required for AI data centres. To control knowledge that will lead to a white planet

              That's what it is all about.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                What do you get?

                mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                mxspoon@tech.lgbt
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #79

                @futurebird
                Resources and it likely turning a lot more hospitable place to be with climate change.

                Also bigger dick to wave

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • eugestshirley@m.ai6yr.orgE eugestshirley@m.ai6yr.org

                  @futurebird
                  Putin wants NATO gone. He's Donnie's puppeteer.

                  mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mxspoon@tech.lgbt
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #80

                  @EugestShirley
                  Eeeh, Donald and Vlad are cut from the same cloth but Duck ain't a puppet per se. The Home Alone star has just acted in Moscow's interests for selfish reasons for the most part and not because they've got the KGB agent's hand up their ass.

                  For more direct russian control I'd look at the weirdos under and around El Presidentte.
                  @futurebird

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                    Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                    Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                    Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                    It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                    What do you get?

                    eliterrell@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
                    eliterrell@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
                    eliterrell@mastodon.social
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #81

                    @futurebird I think it boils down to him wanting his face on Mount Rushmore. Taking Greenland has no practical benefit. He might be able to enrich some of his people but not worth the cost.

                    He was raised on a pathetically simple story about American history that lionized national expansion. He thinks if he can push the borders out he will finally be universally recognized as a Great Man.

                    Same with Putin, who wants to be Peter the Great.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                      Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                      Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                      Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                      It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                      What do you get?

                      graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                      graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                      graydon@canada.masto.host
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #82

                      @futurebird The petrofaction ("keep extracting fossil carbon no matter what") sees the Arctic Ocean as the Next Big Thing, it's practically an interior sea like the Med if it wasn't frozen over and there's decades of Russian "and soon it will not be frozen over and it is ours" positioning.

                      Thing is, the Bering Strait is epicratonic (=shallow, over continental crust), it's not really suitable for major trade. The only really deep water access is Fram Strait.

                      graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                        Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                        Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                        Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                        It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                        What do you get?

                        capnthommo@c.imC This user is from outside of this forum
                        capnthommo@c.imC This user is from outside of this forum
                        capnthommo@c.im
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #83

                        @futurebird yes. Someone was explaining some of the problems that extraction would have. Climate etc plus that applies to shipping windows in the extremely short season.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                          @futurebird The petrofaction ("keep extracting fossil carbon no matter what") sees the Arctic Ocean as the Next Big Thing, it's practically an interior sea like the Med if it wasn't frozen over and there's decades of Russian "and soon it will not be frozen over and it is ours" positioning.

                          Thing is, the Bering Strait is epicratonic (=shallow, over continental crust), it's not really suitable for major trade. The only really deep water access is Fram Strait.

                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                          graydon@canada.masto.host
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #84

                          @futurebird Fram is next to Greenland. So there's this economic fantasy about control of Atlantic access to the Arctic Ocean which means needing a strong territorial claim to something along the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.

                          There's a belief that melting glaciers will just leave masses and masses of rock flour that can be scooped up and refined at low cost; there's another belief that the US should exert territorial control over the entire Western Hemisphere.

                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                            @futurebird Fram is next to Greenland. So there's this economic fantasy about control of Atlantic access to the Arctic Ocean which means needing a strong territorial claim to something along the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.

                            There's a belief that melting glaciers will just leave masses and masses of rock flour that can be scooped up and refined at low cost; there's another belief that the US should exert territorial control over the entire Western Hemisphere.

                            graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                            graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                            graydon@canada.masto.host
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #85

                            @futurebird There's a belief that NATO is a scam; the other NATO members are exploiting US defense funding so they don't have to spend, which is an economic advantage, and a huge fraction of (at least) Republicans feel like they're being ripped off and resent it bitterly. (Having to spend money instead of just stealing things is the worst thing that can happen to a mammonite.) They want to destroy NATO because they, personally, aren't getting money from it.

                            graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                              @futurebird There's a belief that NATO is a scam; the other NATO members are exploiting US defense funding so they don't have to spend, which is an economic advantage, and a huge fraction of (at least) Republicans feel like they're being ripped off and resent it bitterly. (Having to spend money instead of just stealing things is the worst thing that can happen to a mammonite.) They want to destroy NATO because they, personally, aren't getting money from it.

                              graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                              graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                              graydon@canada.masto.host
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #86

                              @futurebird Putin's legacy grand strategy is a safe Russia, which means no other nuclear powers and control of the ice-free Arctic. That means breaking up alliances and taking over the government of any other nuclear power and ideally crashing their economy so hard they cannot maintain a credible deterrent. (In the Time of Angry Weather, that is a simple ambition.) So Putin's an input, but not the only input; "why shouldn't we steal it?" is home grown.

                              graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                                @futurebird Putin's legacy grand strategy is a safe Russia, which means no other nuclear powers and control of the ice-free Arctic. That means breaking up alliances and taking over the government of any other nuclear power and ideally crashing their economy so hard they cannot maintain a credible deterrent. (In the Time of Angry Weather, that is a simple ambition.) So Putin's an input, but not the only input; "why shouldn't we steal it?" is home grown.

                                graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                graydon@canada.masto.host
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #87

                                @futurebird It is important to note that this interior-sea vision of the ice free arctic is abject nonsense; it may well get there, but it doesn't get there on a timescale of human lifetimes, and there's nothing to eat in the meantime.

                                It's also important to note that the freebooting "we want it, we should take it" basis of policy is predicated on different material conditions than those which actually pertain.

                                graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                                  @futurebird It is important to note that this interior-sea vision of the ice free arctic is abject nonsense; it may well get there, but it doesn't get there on a timescale of human lifetimes, and there's nothing to eat in the meantime.

                                  It's also important to note that the freebooting "we want it, we should take it" basis of policy is predicated on different material conditions than those which actually pertain.

                                  graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                  graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                  graydon@canada.masto.host
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #88

                                  @futurebird So, alas, it really does come down to a policy constructed by people who think greed is a virtue and who need loot to keep the illusion of prosperity going for the elites whose opinions they notice.

                                  The actual fix in prosperity terms is to decarbonize, quickly and thoroughly. But this lot have been resisting that since the 70s because that would reduce their relative wealth and status and they're quite willing to immolate the world instead.

                                  urlyman@mastodon.socialU johnzajac@dice.campJ 2 Replies Last reply
                                  0
                                  • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                                    @futurebird So, alas, it really does come down to a policy constructed by people who think greed is a virtue and who need loot to keep the illusion of prosperity going for the elites whose opinions they notice.

                                    The actual fix in prosperity terms is to decarbonize, quickly and thoroughly. But this lot have been resisting that since the 70s because that would reduce their relative wealth and status and they're quite willing to immolate the world instead.

                                    urlyman@mastodon.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                    urlyman@mastodon.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                    urlyman@mastodon.social
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #89

                                    @graydon @futurebird

                                    I wonder if over the short term it’s analogous to the point that @pluralistic has made about deliberate share price inflation by AI vendors.

                                    All the world’s biggest private fossil/mining companies are sitting on assets which are in a superposition of being stranded. These same companies have the engineering expertise (in theory) to exploit Greenland. Merely ‘owning’ its assets is sufficient to provide a prop to share prices

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                      Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                      Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                      Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                      It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                      What do you get?

                                      apostateenglishman@mastodon.worldA This user is from outside of this forum
                                      apostateenglishman@mastodon.worldA This user is from outside of this forum
                                      apostateenglishman@mastodon.world
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #90

                                      @futurebird

                                      Your CW ate into my character limit, so I've rewritten my response and posted it here. 👇🏼

                                      https://mastodon.world/@ApostateEnglishman/115888012566269860

                                      androcat@toot.catA 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                                        @futurebird So, alas, it really does come down to a policy constructed by people who think greed is a virtue and who need loot to keep the illusion of prosperity going for the elites whose opinions they notice.

                                        The actual fix in prosperity terms is to decarbonize, quickly and thoroughly. But this lot have been resisting that since the 70s because that would reduce their relative wealth and status and they're quite willing to immolate the world instead.

                                        johnzajac@dice.campJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                        johnzajac@dice.campJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                        johnzajac@dice.camp
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #91

                                        @graydon @futurebird

                                        I think we're extremely lucky that the people who'd rather immolate the world simply do not have the self-control to not broadcast their intentions and seem to be able to only hamfistedly pursue their antisocial goals.

                                        graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                          Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                          Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                          Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                          It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                          What do you get?

                                          silvermoon82@wandering.shopS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          silvermoon82@wandering.shopS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          silvermoon82@wandering.shop
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #92

                                          @futurebird
                                          Natural resources, Greenland has some oil and lots of uranium and rare earths.

                                          Strategic value, it would give the regime a military foothold in the north oceans.

                                          Willy-waving, he'd be The Big Man who conquered the Vikings.

                                          Real estate, he likes the idea of owning land.

                                          And finally, he's butthurt that he had a whim ("I want Greenland!") but people didn't fall all.over themselves to make it happen for him. He wants to.punish the nonbelievers.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper