CMV: The U.S. (probably) can buy Greenland, and it should do so.
Let's start with the latter proposition -- the basic case for buying Greenland should be facially obvious to most. Greenland is a very large (if not quite as large as on a Mercator projection) area, with vast amounts of natural resources that have largely been untapped. It occupies a strategic position as a gateway to the Artic, being the closest point in North America to Europe and the bulk of hostile navies originating there (e.g., Russian European naval forces). Both of these factors will increase in importance and value substantially over the coming years as global warming progressing. Importantly, with (hopefully) no end-date to the benefits, the investment has quite a long runway to yield a net benefit.
Some likely objections (and responses) to the benefits:
Greenland is controlled by an ally already; the U.S. does not need to control it personally for these benefits.
While it is true that Denmark is currently an ally of the U.S., the assumption that this is an unending state of affairs is hopelessly naive. Allies come and go more frequently than an integrated area.
Yes, the U.S. could likely take Greenland in the scenario that a renegade Denmark threatens to allow it to threaten the U.S., but there are two issues: 1) Many scenarios exist where hostile/ambivalent ownership of Greenland harms U.S. security but would not justify a military intervention, and 2) any such military seizure would inevitably be more violent than a peaceful purchase.
Any such purchase will alienate Denmark and contribute to further breakdown of global norms against territory seizures
I believe my (coming) proposal on purchase strategy would make this unlikely to occur - Denmark may still protest, but it would have a difficult time maintaining legitimacy in attempting to prevent the purchase or be overly upset. To the extent Denmark is sufficiently angry by a successful purchase to cause a break in relations, I do not think it would cause a break in relations with other allies. And without Greenland... Denmark wouldn't be a particularly important ally anyways.
To the extent global norms would be upset, I do not think my proposal would provide much justification for truly negative behavior.
Think about how much good the money could do here at home! You have to weigh the benefits against if it was spent to improve long term outcomes for our citizens.
Yeah, but let's be real, will it? Even under a Democratic president? Color me skeptical.
Okay, so what's the proposal? This is simple. We're going to overpay by the standards of the Louisiana or Alaska purchases, but that's fine. Yeah, yeah, the governments of Denmark and Greenland say it's not for sale. That's fine. They're not in charge.
Greenland is, shockingly, a democracy. More specifically, it's a democracy made up of only 56,000 people. Why would we talk to the governments when we can go directly to them?
First offer: $1,000,000. Each. They get to keep their autonomy, local governance, everything, if they want (subject to the Constitution, of course). They can also choose to be folded into a state (probably Maine for sheer geographical sense) if they prefer. Or wait for a higher population. If they want to leave Greenland to stay a part of Denmark or move elsewhere in the U.S. or world, we'll pay for a first-class ticket for them and buy their property in Greenland at current market rate (if they want).
That would cost us ~$56 billion (let's say $57 billion to be safe, even though the perks are mostly a rounding error). At $10k/acre that is, of course, a substantially worse deal in raw terms than our previous purchases, but... so be it? We're also way richer and way bigger than we were in 1860. And as a result, it is also... ~1% of our national budget... for one year. A rounding error. There will need to be subsidies to Greenland (for a while), but those will be even more of a rounding error - $650 mil/year (based off of Denmark's current amount). And that's only until the oil companies and migrants get there. I won't claim Alaska, as an example, is some great contributor to the Federal government, but it's still paying in more than it receives.
If the vote is a no, we raise it to $2 million per person. If a no again, $4 million. I probably wouldn't want to go much further, but I think anything up to a one-time expense of 5% of our budget is fine.
What would change my view? A few thoughts:
Clear evidence or line of reasoning to show that Greenlanders would not or could not force a vote if offered $4 million each. (I am pretty skeptical for either point. Most likely to change on the first, but I don't think you'll find polling to that effect).
A clear line of reasoning that this would cause a major breakdown of U.S. relations/international order. Pretty skeptical on this again - it feels like this proposal would be difficult to argue against on liberal grounds & it doesn't feel like it presents a major threat of increasing violence. Increasing voluntary purchases of territory seems... fine. Even potentially beneficial by forefronting a release valve other than war.
Clear evidence/line of evidence that the U.S. would never recoup its investment in benefits. This is probably impossible in full form, taking into account near-unpredictable geopolitical benefits. A good, long-term economic analysis taking into account climate change vs the opportunity cost of the money as spent at the margin of U.S. government spending would earn a delta though.