Fun
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

trying to buy Greenland

It’s a classic image from the Cold War: the United States, flush with cash and post-war ambition, looking north and trying to buy Greenland. We laugh about it now—the idea of just "buying" a massive, icy landmass and the 56,000 souls who live there. But when you actually look at the maps and the money, a much darker question emerges: What would actually happen to those people if the deal went through?
To understand that, you have to look at the Geography of Support.
Right now, Greenland exists within the Kingdom of Denmark. It’s a relationship built on something called "The Unity of the Realm." It’s not perfect—no post-colonial relationship is—but it’s built on a fundamental promise of equality. Even though Nuuk is 3,500 kilometres from Copenhagen, a Greenlander is, for all intents and purposes, a full-blooded Dane.
They have two voting seats in the Danish Parliament. They have a "Block Grant"—an unconditional, multi-hundred-million-dollar infusion of cash every single year that ensures their hospitals are first-world and their schools are free. If a student in a remote fjord wants to become a doctor, they fly to Denmark, tuition is zero, and the government hands them a monthly stipend to live on.
This is the Danish Model: High-cost, high-support, and full democratic dignity.
Then, you look at Canada. We do something similar. We realized a long time ago that you can’t have "Northern Sovereignty" on the cheap. If you want people to live in Nunavut or the Yukon, you have to bridge the gap. We use Territorial Formula Financing to make sure that a heart surgeon in Iqaluit is paid for the same way one is in Toronto. A Canadian in the Arctic isn't a "territorial subject"; they are a voter, a citizen, and a full participant in the federation.
But then... you look at the American model. And this is where the map starts to break.
The United States has this category of land called "Unincorporated Territories." It sounds like a boring legal term, but for the 3.5 million people living in places like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa, it’s a ceiling on their existence.
Take Puerto Rico. There are more U.S. citizens living there than in twenty different U.S. states. They pay into the system. They serve in the military at incredibly high rates. But they have zero voting power in Congress. They have no say in who their President is.
And the support? It’s hit-or-miss. In the U.S. mainland, if you’re poor or disabled, there’s a floor called SSI (Supplemental Security Income). In the territories? The U.S. Supreme Court has literally ruled that the government doesn't have to give it to you. In Guam, a quarter of the island is a military base—the "Tip of the Spear"—yet the people there face "Medicaid Cliffs" where healthcare funding just... stops.
This is the American Model: Strategic value first, citizens second.
So, when we talk about Greenland, or the Faroe Islands, or Nunavut, we aren't just talking about borders. We’re talking about a choice between two very different versions of the world. In the Danish and Canadian versions, the "parent" country recognizes that distance shouldn't diminish your rights. In the American version, the farther you are from the centre of power, the more your citizenship begins to fade.
If Greenland had been "bought" in the 1940s or the 2010s, it wouldn't be the 51st state. It would almost certainly be another "unincorporated territory." The block grants would vanish. The voting seats in Parliament would be traded for a non-voting delegate in D.C. The free university stipends would be replaced by American-style student debt.
Sovereignty isn't just about whose flag or military base is on the map. It’s about who has your back when the cost of living in the middle of the ocean gets too high. And right now, the North is showing the world that equality isn't just a mainland luxury—it's the only way a Kingdom, or a Country, actually stays together.Greenland Canada is a logistical nightmare (that's why it's retained it's sovereignty sofar), and then there is King Winter, the defenders protective saint.Americans probably put a kill switch in all the F35. So that if you attack them, you're going down as well. down
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
Small point, since you mentioned it. The Americans certainly did install a "Kill switch" in the F 18s sold to Australia, of which the RAAF was not informed. As a consequence the Australian went to considerable trouble to remove them. 😷
Khenpal1 · M
@whowasthatmaskedman In General 1900 world wide suppliers are involved. F-35s delivered since 2023 do not have combat-ready software. Kill switch does not work yet 🤣
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Khenpal1 If it was up to me I never would have signed up for the lemons..😷
Khenpal1 · M
@whowasthatmaskedman Total debt on the balance sheet as of September 2025 : $22.18 Billion USD. According to Lockheed Martin's latest financial reports the company's total debt is $22.18 Billion USD.Lockheed Martin (LMT) stock tumbled nearly 5% on Wednesday after President Trump issued a series of posts on Truth Social announcing plans to restrict how defense contractors spend their money.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Khenpal1 That has to be a mistake.. It sounded like you said he was trying to keep them honest.....😷 But the British Typhoon would have been a much better buy for our needs..