Noah Heftman:
I do not think the United States should acquire Greenland because thus far attempts to do so have damaged American credibility abroad. Opponents may contend that acquisition is necessary to maintain an adequate supply of rare earth minerals in order to combat China’s monopoly. However, other methods such as rare earth mineral extraction from coal tailings and improvements to domestic mining educational programs can offset China’s monopoly without upsetting our European allies. Others may argue that ownership is necessary to deter Russian expansion in the Arctic, but the United States already has authority over Pituffik Space Base (Formerly Thule Air Base) and can develop its military deterrence capacity at that base in the status quo.
Sofia Romera:
I believe that President Donald Trump’s hope to acquire Greenland is another display of his erratic personality as a leader. Such a pursuit, initiated by Trump, generates unnecessary friction between the U.S. and other nations and is, in my opinion, not worth it.
Bella De Rosi:
I think that the United States would’ve had a better shot at having an agreement with Greenland and Denmark to deploy military troops there and even operating a mine for those rare earth elements, if they hadn’t taken the steps they did. The most major threat they imposed would be implementing tariffs that start at 10% and will rise to 25% in the near future on various European countries. It now seems highly unlikely that the United States can take over Greenland without facing major consequences because of the aggression they’ve displayed.
Nora Murdock:
I do not think that the United States should take action to acquire Greenland, because we can acquire the rare earth minerals found there by other means. Especially, invading Greenland would have detrimental effects on our diplomatic relationships with European countries. It is not essential that we take action to acquire Greenland, and the certain drawbacks of doing so outweigh the potential benefits. Also, there are possible alternatives to such rare earth minerals, providing the same function. For example, nanotechnology. To me, it makes much more sense to invest in developing this technology as opposed to buying or invading Greenland.
Atharv Pateriya:
An American occupation of the Greenlandic state does not seem as the wisest decision the United States should take. NATO and Europe have deemed Greenland as a part of the Danish kingdom, and hence European. American annexation of the island may ruin European-American relations—militarily and economically. This choice is not just President Trump’s to make, the Greenlandic people must also be fine with the decision. One of President Trump’s motivations to take Greenland is its rare earth minerals; those can be acquired with Greenlandic cooperation, not occupation.
