He already has a military base there. From what Greenland (& Denmark) have said they'd be pretty OK with that being significantly expanded or having a more significant US troop presence on the island. For Trump a lot lot cheaper, they still get their military presence, no international outcry, no international law implications, etc., but as you say, only down side is they don't get the minerals!Just been watching a programme about Greenland and Trumps comments about it
" we need for International security"
Hmm - really - so if you take over Greenlandthen you will defend the cause of freedom in the rest of the World
but than his other comments suggest that he won;t defend anyone unless it is to the advantage fo the USA (AKA Trumpland)
and of course he could just offer a treaty with Denmark (sort of like a mini-NATO) guaranteeing Greenland's security in return for maybe the right to base troops and or equipment there
But then he wouldn;t have control over the mineral rights would he??
I wonder if that is more important to him than the ""security" that he keeps talking about
nb Heard knowledgeable Danish military consultant (working in the satellite tracking business) on the radio in the last few days and his comment was that the US has lost some of their surveillance from the area because they've pulled-out their ice breakers (so US choice to reduce their presence there).
Ian