On August 16, 2019, The Wall Street Journal, citing some "knowledgeable sources", reported that the Administration of US President Donald Trump is considering buying the island of Greenland from Denmark.
The Wall Street Journal is a very serious publication, so if they write about a fact, then this fact takes place. However, at first it was not very clear whether the White House was really considering buying the island, or whether the White House asked The Wall Street Journal to publish this small opus so that the idea of acquiring the island would drive all other thoughts out of the American minds.
And now, after several days and millions of comments on this news, including fiction, The Wall Street Journal writes the same thing. That is, the issue seems to be really being considered. And since the question is being considered, the topic requires analytical comments, since this question seems to be very, very serious. How serious this question is will become clear from attempts to answer it.
Let's start by recalling: formally Greenland is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark. That is, its government makes decisions on internal issues, and Greenland's foreign policy is under the jurisdiction of Copenhagen. However, in reality, there is no politics there, in principle, since the island is almost entirely covered with ice.
Its area is about two million square kilometers, which is 80% of the island's territory. That is, Greenland is such a small Antarctica, which is home to about 60,000 people. 89% of them are Inuit Indians, 8% are Danes and Icelanders, 3% are simply extreme lovers who were not born in Greenland.
If you look at the outline map, then Greenland appears to be a huge island the size of the mainland:
Promotional video:
However, in fact, this map is very far from reality and on the globe, Greenland looks something like this:
Thus, Greenland is, although not a mainland, but still a very large island, on which half a billion people can easily fit. However, they will fit there, of course, only if the ice in Greenland melts. Or if Greenland moves to the equator - as shown in the map above. And, since the topics of global warming, melting glaciers and an imminent pole shift are being discussed today even by officials, such a development of events should be considered very likely.
As we reported earlier, on August 10, 2019, lightning strikes were recorded in the area of the geographic north pole, which is nonsense for these latitudes. Lightning always and on all planets with an atmosphere is concentrated closer to the equator, where the weakest magnetic field strength. Therefore, since the lightning has moved to the geographic North Pole, it means that the magnetic pole is also preparing to move, the consequences of which can be the most incredible.
The second important point is the amazing speed of melting of glaciers in Greenland. The rate of glacier melting there has increased sixfold over the past 50 years!.. Since 1980, temperatures in southern Greenland have increased by 4 ºC in summer and 10 ºC in winter, while with a temperature rise of only 3 ° C in the region, the ice sheet could melt completely over a period of more than 1000 years. Back in the 1980s, an average of 40 billion tons of ice melted there a year, but already in 2017 this figure had increased to 250 billion. And the rate of melting continues to increase.
Since the beginning of August 2019, the air temperature in Greenland has been above 20 ° C and the ice there is melting just like in Europe in April:
If things continue to progress at such a pace, then Greenland may lose a large part of its ice sheet in the very near future.
The complete loss of ice by Greenland will cause the sea level to rise by 6 meters, which will lead to the flooding of many of the world's port cities. Moreover, if Antarctica melts at the same time, this will give an increase in ocean level up to 60 meters - if Antarctica melts all.
And if it does not melt, then due to the loss of ice in the region of the North Pole, a certain imbalance in the stress of the lithosphere will develop, as a result of which the crust will begin to move relative to the mantle. Then the ocean level will rise not by 60 meters, but by 600, and at the same time.
In general, a rather interesting geographical perspective is emerging. And this prospect is realized not in a million years, as the officials mutter, but much earlier.
In English, Greenland is called Greenland, that is, "green land". The reference books say that this word was invented by the Viking Floki in the hope of luring other Viking suckers to the uninhabited island, but this version will not convince even a raving gray mare. The fact is that the Vikings did not speak English.
But what's interesting: in Danish, “green” is grøn, and Greenland is Grønland. And this theme can be traced in almost all languages of Europe. So language borrowings do not work. The whole world says New York, not New York. The whole world says Novgorod and Volgograd, not a “new city” or “a city on the Volga”. Proceeding from this, one must think that Greenland was a green island full of vegetation not 500,000 years ago, as the “academicians” write, but at the time of the formation of European languages. That is, about 500 years ago. And since the green land of Greenland was committed recently, it will also turn green very soon.
And now, in light of this data, let's ask the question: why did Trump bother buying Greenland? Why does he need this at all?
The first and simplest explanation of the situation is a competent PR move. The purchase of Greenland, in the perception of the Americans, would be comparable to the acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1867, therefore, if the venture is successful, victory in the next election is guaranteed to Trump, and in a few decades in his honor, the United States will not only name aircraft carriers, but knock out his name healthy in gold letters on the roof of the White House.
The second possible explanation for the situation is America's expansion of its military presence in the North. Currently, there is a treaty between the United States and Denmark that gives the American military virtually unlimited rights at Thule airbase in northern Greenland, but ownership would be better. With warmer Alaska in the northwest, and Greenland partially free of ice in the northeast, the Pentagon will be able to more reliably cover the mainland from ballistic missiles of a potential enemy and his submarines.
The third explanation involves the relocation of the entire state of the United States to Greenland. It is possible that the Americans know for sure about some not very good situation with Yellowstone, perhaps someone warned them that a large meteorite would hit America, or there will be some other biblical disaster in North America - and now they are preparing the ground to evacuate the continent.
The fourth version is suggested by the relatively recent Hollywood masterpiece, Elysium - Heaven Not on Earth:
According to the script of the film, the top planetary leadership with its servants moved into orbit, building a cozy town there for several million individuals of both sexes, and leaving everyone else to rot on the planet, from where the world leaders drew resources for their orbital station. The film, as everyone understands, is not just a film, but quite a serious futurological doctrine, which is just as seriously discussed in American society.
So, the population of the United States today is about 325 million people, but there are at most 25 million really useful elites for the future. That is, there are very few creative scientists who can give birth to something, good workers / doctors / engineers and valiant cool marines who will tear the Chinese special forces with their bare hands all over America.
And all the rest are some famous lawyers / economists and their numerous offspring, crowds of managers of some kind, pizza sellers, famous rappers and drug dealers hung with chains, pregnant housewives who arrived from Mexico and hereditary players in backyard basketball. And all this mass is protected by 10 aircraft carriers, missile defense deployed around the world, a bunch of military bases. This mass also needs to be fed with something and kilotons of various other goodies must be imported into the USA. What for?
In the middle of the last century, this approach was correct, since the infantry was the queen of the fields and decided something. For example, by 1944 the Germans had a total technical advantage over all the allies put together, but what did this give them? The White House put all jazz lovers on the assembly line, and in a couple of years they stamped 50,000 tanks and about 500,000 trucks, most of which went to the USSR, which also did not doze and stamped 100,000 T-34 tanks. And there were other models of everything and hordes of fellows from Central Asia. All this boldly the Third Reich in a matter of weeks.
In the high-tech XXI century, the situation is completely different. The queen of the fields and home front workers will easily be replaced by robots, which themselves will stamp their own kind. At the same time, the robot will make Indian programmers faster and better, who need to sleep, eat and go to the Ganges after work. Therefore, from the point of view of the elites, it would be optimal to choose a small, inaccessible territory and make a small state there for oneself, where the brain serving the elites, servants and elite grenadiers will live.
And if protecting the United States is a very big problem for the Pentagon, then protecting an area the size of Texas is a completely different task. And if this Texas is also on the island, then its defense will be simply impenetrable even with modern missile defense forces. At the same time, ten aircraft carriers with fighter drones, five hundred small destroyers controlled by AI and a couple of million infantry droids, which can easily be turned into twenty million, will be based on the island. Warmer Greenland for such a "Elysium" is just an ideal springboard, where one can already think about going into orbit altogether.
All four of the above options are more or less probable, so all of them are now being discussed on the forums. However, for some reason no one thinks that there is also a fifth option - the global problem of lack of fresh water.
We all see that something terrible is happening with the rivers and lakes in the world: not only are they polluted, but they also began to go underground. If you believe the prophecies, in the next 10 years almost everything will go underground. Something will remain though.
Lake Baikal, for example, on which comrades from the Chinese Communist Party have long laid their eyes. In the event of a global water crisis, Baikal will be a valuable resource that will never completely dry up.
However, the Chinese comrades did not take into account one sad fact that for the United States, for example, it costs nothing to deliver to Baikal a large steel piece with a striking power of somewhere in the 10 or more megatons. And a couple more pieces will arrive, carrying other interesting substances on board such as sarin, mustard gas and others - options are optional. And drink to your health, Chinese comrades, at least drown. You can even trade radioactive water with India, where even such water will not be available.
At the same time, this cannot be done with Greenland. Even if something falls there, there will be kilometers of environmentally friendly ice below that can be mined and sold. Technically, the glaciers, of course, are melting, but so far there is no talk of 50 ° C in Greenland and at the current rate they will melt for quite a long time - centuries.
You can also, of course, carry ice from Antarctica - but Greenland is an order of magnitude closer. In addition, in the event of the Third World War, tankers with water from Antarctica will have to cover the convoys, while a pipeline can be laid to Greenland - to Canada / USA, to Europe / Great Britain.
After the construction of such a “Nord Stream”, the NATO countries already have water, while the rest will be supplied with liquid methane by Gazprom. And in light of this prospect, buying Greenland is a very smart and forward-looking option.
In total, as we have shown, there are five such options. And which of them is the most correct - will only show the development of events.