Stop Using Mercator Projection

Why Greenland is important.

I’m pretty sure that Copenhagen is not capable of defending it.

[Update a while later]

[Thursday-morning update]

The unfortunate Greenland kerfuffle.

[Bumped]

26 thoughts on “Stop Using Mercator Projection”

  1. One very important site in Greenland is Thule which housed some of the original BMEWS systems and now houses one of the PAVE PAWS/ UEWR phased array radars which is critical to missile launch detection as it’s field of view is pointed right at the Russian missile fields and the paths over the North pole. Fyligndales in the UK also sees some of the same field, but is far closer to Russia and more vulnerable to an early attack. Thule is needed for our defense, Denmark is likely already toast in any scenario where we need UEWR.

  2. I can’t believe this needs to be explained but:

    The problem is not that it needs to be explained, but rather that it needs to be explained by Trump not a rando on the internet. Then the explanation would be based on Trump.

    And that last bit is a ludicrous explanation from the point of view of Greenlanders. They will throw off the yoke of their Danish oppressors only to embrace the yoke of US oppressors? What’s in it for them to go through the effort?

    I think it would be better to negotiate in good faith with both Denmark and Greenland. Then everyone can get what they want.

  3. Although Murmansk Oblast hosts a great deal of military value, the Strategic Rocket Force is scattered across Russia. So, no, most of the trajectories do not cross Greenland.

    1. Swing that magenta limits arc across most any part of Russia you’d like to, and tell me that what you said is true.

      1. Plot a great a circle route from Krasnoyarsk (ICBM silo field nearby) to Los Angeles (route is 9600 k) and tell me which part of it passes over Greenland. It doesn’t. You’re allowed to move both ends of the arc. I’m surprised you don’t know how this stuff works. The map is crude propaganda and its underlying fact (that Russian ICBMs are all on the Kola Penn,) is wrong.

        1. Irkutsk missile base to Washington DC comes close (over Baffin Island) but narrowly misses Greenland. Most trajectories pass over Canada. I hear we can buy it from the First Nations.

        2. I didn’t say all of them. I said most.

          Don’t try and move the goalposts. But for most westward fired ICBMs it does

          1. If you’re looking only at ground tracks, you’re missing the point. ICBMs are not low altitude machines. Reaching just about anywhere in the US from anywhere in Russia – especially from the southernmost – SS-19 fields requires trajectories so high that radars in Greenland can see all of them.

  4. The map says “Russian Federation”

    It took me several readings before it stopped saying “Soviet Union”.

      1. We all really need to get over that. Russia today is not the USSR. Not entirely sure what it is, but it’s not the bogeyman of 1980. Those who view it as unchanged do ourselves a disservice.

        1. Not the Soviet Union Russia under Putin currently trying to annex Ukraine and has had designs on the Arctic area for some time including Greenland

        2. I’d agree to some degree, if Russia today wasn’t ruled by elite of the former USSR. In particular, it shows remarkably poor judgment to elect former KGB to anything beyond the responsibilities of dog catcher.

  5. We should just offer to relocate Greenlanders to Minnesota and help them set up day-care centers. (Have the Somalis there show them how it’s done.) The weather there will be similar to what they are used to, and I’m sure they can adapt to eating lutefisk instead of whale blubber. No beaches, but then they aren’t much into surfing in Greenland, or so I’m told.

  6. None of this Greenland business makes any sense to me.

    We already have a Space Force base located in Thule. It was an Air Force base before that and had been for decades.

    If we want advanced missile defense systems in Greenland, under Danish sovereignty, we can just negotiate an agreement to put them in. Just like we did with Thule. H*ll in fact, at one point, in 1960 we even installed a nuclear reactor there (Camp Century) for a few years.

    As far as defense is concerned, Denmark is a member of NATO. An attack by Russians against Greenland is an attack against NATO. Simple.

    1. The unfortunate Greenland kerfuffle.
      I saw and read this independently on substack and couldn’t agree more with Cdr. Salamander.

  7. My take on the Greenland business is that from Trump’s point of view you never negotiate from your floor that is the least of what you want you always start higher. Start negotiation with the idea Greenland purchased from Denmark becoming a Territory of the United States possibly a state and then negotiate down to what he really expects. Which is a vote in Greenland heavily juiced by the United States promises of largess for Greenland’s citizenry to get the Geenlanders to agree to independence. Subsequently there would be a treaty between the United States an independent Greenland a treaty would simply give them autonomy as far as their local government etc for the United States we would have exclusive assets as far as military bases and/or mineral rights.

    1. That’s why Trump took control of Venezuela…so he could get hold of their voting machines, and make Greenland use them in their vote for independence. That would make the vote just as unquestionably valid as it did our own 2020 Presidential election.

  8. So while the Democrats are busily crafting some war powers resolution to force Trump to not invade Greenland (which he has no intention to do anyway). The actual deal setting up the vote for independence on the part of the people of Greenland referendum to be juiced by the goodies promised to them in the treaty that they will be made aware of which was really his plan all along. Said treaty only needing the Senate’s approval and can written any way both sides want.

    1. So while the Democrats are busily crafting some war powers resolution to force Trump to not invade Greenland (which he has no intention to do anyway).

      Would you have said the same of Trump a year ago with respect to Venezuela?

      Among other things, it’s a Obama-style diplomacy reset. That could have made some sense when dealing with a former enemy in a changed world, but it doesn’t with a sincere US ally. Why is Trump disregarding decades of goodwill?

      And who knows? Maybe he really thinks that invading Greenland is an option. That would be an explanation for why this keeps coming up.

      The actual deal setting up the vote for independence on the part of the people of Greenland referendum to be juiced by the goodies promised to them in the treaty that they will be made aware of which was really his plan all along. Said treaty only needing the Senate’s approval and can written any way both sides want.

      I still haven’t heard why this is supposed to be appealing to Greenlanders or the Danish. For a glaring example, who will protect Greenland from the US, if Denmark is out of the picture? Another glaring example, Denmark has a good negotiation position with the US now. Lose Greenland and the US has almost no reason to care about Denmark or do anything for them.

  9. This clueless braying by Trump has only encouraged Greenlanders to remain under Denmark indefinitely. I can’t believe you’d find it remotely plausible that it would have done the opposite.

  10. If I was a Greenlander and was offered $1 million to become a citizen of the US and Greenland becomes a Territory of the US, I’d take the deal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *