This would however be a bad idea from an economic perspective considering the incredible resources that are there. Also, assuming that Trump opens up the North for oil production and exploration, some of these territories might be needed as transit territories for pipelines, roads, and even rail. Last thing to consider is the global security profile of the region. Russia has already stated in the past that they believe the northern passage is an internationally navigable waterway, and they already working to open up the north transit lanes with their icebreakers (they have a huge fleet of 45 icebreakers) the United States will need military base is along this corridor. True, they could have bases in a "territory," but the argument that they are defending sovereign American territory is less compelling without these territories being actual parts of the United States, along with Greenland.
This is why the normies are so stupid, thinking that Trump is being a buffoon and overreaching about Greenland. No. The strategy is to cap and close the Arctic passage under one global security umbrella, headed of course by the United States.
True, they could have bases in a "territory," but the argument that they are defending sovereign American territory is less compelling without these territories being actual parts of the United States
I do believe there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, I am referring to the Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories as Article IV territories. An attack on these territories would be no different than the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, given Hawaii wasn't granted statehood until 1959.
This would however be a bad idea from an economic perspective considering the incredible resources that are there. Also, assuming that Trump opens up the North for oil production and exploration, some of these territories might be needed as transit territories for pipelines, roads, and even rail. Last thing to consider is the global security profile of the region. Russia has already stated in the past that they believe the northern passage is an internationally navigable waterway, and they already working to open up the north transit lanes with their icebreakers (they have a huge fleet of 45 icebreakers) the United States will need military base is along this corridor. True, they could have bases in a "territory," but the argument that they are defending sovereign American territory is less compelling without these territories being actual parts of the United States, along with Greenland.
This is why the normies are so stupid, thinking that Trump is being a buffoon and overreaching about Greenland. No. The strategy is to cap and close the Arctic passage under one global security umbrella, headed of course by the United States.
I do believe there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, I am referring to the Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories as Article IV territories. An attack on these territories would be no different than the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, given Hawaii wasn't granted statehood until 1959.