> Nothing is stopping the US from deploying those in Greenland

That would require the (politically unlikely) agreement of the Danish government. See article 2 of the relevant treaty [1]:

"...establishing and/or operating such defense areas as the two Governments, on the basis of NATO defense plans, may from time to time agree to be necessary..."

> The only reason Trump wants Greenland is he's not all there -- Greenland looks big on the map so he's fixated on it.

I agree that that is part of it, but there is more to it than that.

[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

▲

Symbiote 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why wouldn't Denmark agree? Danish and Greenlandic politicians have reminded the US several times that more bases can be established under the terms of this treaty.

E.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx21669452lo

▲

myk9001 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So, you're saying the US (300+ mln, #1 military) never actually requested to deploy them and Denmark (5 mln) never actually refused. But because you think an agreement is unlikely, it's straight to annexation by force. Do I have that right?

	▲	andyjohnson0 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No, I'm saying that new military installations would be unlikely to be agreed due to domestic political sentiment. Pituffik was certainly agreed by both sides, but that was a long time ago. (I'm not Danish or Greenlandic, so this is just my reading of the situation.)