Nick Shirley helps Trump make his case for Greenland

Asking Greenlanders About Becoming Part of the United States: (Nick Shirly interviews Greenlanders)

The Strategic Value of Greenland: A Hypothetical $100,000 Per Capita Purchase and Its Implications for U.S. National Security

In a provocative street interview conducted by YouTuber Nick Shirley in Nuuk, Greenland's capital, a local resident expressed willingness to "sell" the territory to the United States if each citizen received $100,000. While such sentiments are anecdotal and do not reflect official policy—Greenland's government has repeatedly affirmed that the island is "not for sale"—they have reignited discussions about the feasibility and strategic merits of a U.S. acquisition. Former President Donald Trump, who has long advocated for purchasing Greenland, views it as a critical move for American security interests. This article explores the hypothetical cost of such a deal at $100,000 per person and examines why Trump believes it aligns with U.S. protective priorities.

Calculating the Hypothetical Cost

Greenland, the world's largest island, has a population of approximately 56,000 people, predominantly Inuit with a small European minority.

At $100,000 per capita—a figure floated in Shirley's interview as a personal buyout threshold—the total cost would amount to roughly $5.6 billion. This is a modest sum in the context of U.S. federal expenditures; for comparison, the annual defense budget exceeds $800 billion, and even a single aircraft carrier can cost upwards of $13 billion. Unlike historical offers, such as President Harry Truman's 1946 bid of $100 million (equivalent to about $1.5 billion today), this per-person model frames the transaction as a direct benefit to Greenlanders, potentially easing negotiations by addressing economic incentives.

Critics might argue that the true price tag could balloon far higher. Independent estimates suggest a comprehensive acquisition, factoring in infrastructure, resource rights, and geopolitical concessions, could reach $700 billion.

 However, the $5.6 billion figure represents a baseline hypothetical, focusing solely on population-based compensation. It sidesteps broader valuations of Greenland's vast natural resources, including rare earth minerals, zinc, and potential oil reserves, which could offset costs through long-term economic gains.

 Trump's Vision: Greenland as a National Security Imperative

Trump's interest in Greenland dates back to his first term, when he described the idea as "essentially a large real estate deal."

Reviving the proposal in late 2024, he emphasized that "the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity" for global freedom and U.S. security.

This stance is rooted in the island's unparalleled strategic position in the Arctic, a region increasingly contested amid climate change and great-power competition.

The Arctic is warming at four times the global rate, causing the melting of sea ice and the opening of new shipping routes, such as the Northwest Passage. This shift has drawn attention from adversaries such as Russia and China, who are expanding their military and economic footprints. Russia has militarized its Arctic bases, while China has invested in polar research and infrastructure, aiming to capitalize on resource extraction and trade advantages. Trump has explicitly warned that without U.S. control, "Russia or China will take Greenland," framing the acquisition as a defensive bulwark.

The U.S. already maintains a significant presence through Thule Air Base, a key radar and missile-warning facility leased from Denmark since 1951. Full ownership would enhance this, allowing expanded military operations without reliance on foreign agreements. As Trump has noted, it shifts from "leasing" to "owning," providing greater autonomy in an era of strained alliances.  Trump points out that "Noone defends leases, but they will defend ownership." 

Beyond defense, Greenland's resources could bolster U.S. supply chains for critical technologies, reducing dependence on China, which dominates rare earth production.

 Broader Geopolitical and Ethical Considerations

A purchase at $100,000 per person could appeal to Greenlanders facing economic challenges under Danish autonomy, including high living costs and limited opportunities. Shirley's interviews revealed mixed but notable support for U.S. integration, with some citing benefits like stronger military protection and economic growth. However, opposition remains strong, with many asserting Greenland's sovereignty and cultural identity.

Ethically, or maybe just politically, the proposal, for some, evokes colonialist echoes, as Greenland seeks greater independence from Denmark. Any deal would require consent from Greenland's self-governing parliament and likely a referendum. For the U.S., his Greenland plan aligns with Trump's "America First" doctrine, prioritizing unilateral security over multilateral frameworks like NATO, and Denmark, for now, is an ally.

Summarizing... 

In summary, a $5.6 billion per-capita purchase of Greenland represents a cost-effective strategy in Trump's calculus, safeguarding U.S. interests against Arctic rivals while unlocking economic potential. Whether feasible or not, it underscores the evolving geopolitics of a thawing north, where strategic real estate could define future power balances.