News   Feb 03, 2026
UrbanToronto Explores the State of Construction with Special Features Throughout February
 390     0 
News   Feb 03, 2026
Islington Station's New Street Entrance, Bus Terminal Progressing in Etobicoke
 1.1K     0 
News   Feb 03, 2026
Hot Docs Weekend Ticket Giveaway: King of Color and Sketches of Gehry
 292     0 

President Donald Trump's United States of America


Daily Galaxy
The US just claimed a million square kilometers of ocean floor, and no one noticed
Sarah Jones
12 Jan 2026

The United States has expanded its underwater territorial rights by more than one million square kilometers, securing exclusive control over the ocean seabed and subsoil in parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, and Gulf of Mexico, an area nearly the size of two Californias. This move is based on decades of geological data and rules drawn from international maritime law. Even without ratifying UNCLOS, Washington follows its framework to claim an Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) beyond the usual 200 nautical miles, as long as it can prove the seabed is a natural extension of its landmass. According to Earth.com, the effort took over 20 years and involved the State Department, NOAA, and the USGS, granting access to subsoil resources and expanded environmental management, but not control over waters or fisheries. The ECS expansion is the result of an intensive campaign of oceanographic research that began in 2003. According to Brian Van Pay, project lead at the State Department, the U.S. conducted 40 deep-sea missions to unexplored regions, using tools like seismic surveys, bathymetric mapping, and sediment sampling. These efforts uncovered geological features such as unknown seamounts and confirmed that large portions of the seabed were indeed connected to the continental landmass. This scientific data was compiled into a formal submission, including maps, coordinates, and technical justifications, and reviewed by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).
 
Westey said:
If you put it this way, maybe USA does have to get Greenland. It's actually twice as far from USA as it is from Russia.
It's ripe for the pickings.
(assuming Russia is allowed to move along the 3-dimensional sphere that is earth and not constrained by the Mercator directions).
Click to expand...

What part of the two nuclear powers (UK and France) en route from Russia did you miss? Or is it just the American education you got that left you with poor comprehension?
 
kEiThZ said:
What part of the two nuclear powers (UK and France) en route from Russia did you miss? Or is it just the American education you got that left you with poor comprehension?
Click to expand...
Sorry,
I guess it's a good thing that Russia doesn't have any ports facing the Arctic Ocean, or the ability to go under the ice.
But who knows, maybe in a third of a century they might be able too. Hopefully they won't figure out how to add nuclear weapons to the subs by then.
 
Last edited:
Westey said:
If you put it this way, maybe USA does have to get Greenland. It's actually twice as far from USA as it is from Russia.
It's ripe for the pickings.
(assuming Russia is allowed to move along the 3-dimensional sphere that is earth and not constrained by the Mercator directions).
Click to expand...
And if you bothered to look at the actual sphere that is Earth, you would notice that there is a giant sheet of ice in between Russia and Greenland. So any ships have to go the long way around.

There are 3 valid military uses the US has for Greenland:
1. Setting up early warning radar systems to detect any strategic bombers and ballistic missiles flying over the Arctic from Russia and China.
2. Controling Russian submarine and surface vessel movements across the GIUK gap.
3. In the future, to have control over Russian and Chinese maritime traffic across the Northern Passage when the Arctic ice cap melts due to climate change.

That said, to say that these are valid reasons for the US to annex Greenland is complete and utter nonsense.
- While Greenland is important to the US missile defence, including Golden Dome, a US radar of one sort or another has been there for nearly 70 years, without the need for US sovereignty over Greenland.
- US already had a huge military presence in Greenland during the Cold War. If they want a repeat, they can just repeat. No need for annexation.
- Greenland is also covered by NATO's Article 5. And the US, with the rest of NATO, can protect it against any plausible Russian or Chinese attack as much as they please. No need for an annexation.

Conflating Greenland's strategic military importance with the issue of US ownership is misinformed and dishonest.
 
Last edited:
I thought Greenland was part of Canada?
Canada is next and then Central America but he might get stretch out too thin.
Ukraine & Europe are tough to take over and maintain.
It will end up in a battle between North America and Asia.
IMG_2026-01-15-004554.png
 
Full Metal Junkie said:
And if you bothered to look at the actual sphere that is Earth, you would notice that there is a giant sheet of ice in between Russia and Greenland. So any ships have to go the long way around.

There are 3 valid military uses the US has for Greenland:
1. Setting up early warning radar systems to detect any strategic bombers and ballistic missiles flying over the Arctic from Russia and China.
2. Controling Russian submarine and surface vessel movements across the GIUK gap.
3. In the future, to have control over Russian and Chinese maritime traffic across the Northern Passage when the Arctic ice cap melts due to climate change.

That said, to say that these are valid reasons for the US to annex Greenland is complete and utter nonsense.
- While Greenland is important to the US missile defence, including Golden Dome, a US radar of one sort or another has been there for nearly 70 years, without the need for US sovereignty over Greenland.
- US already had a military base in Greenland during the Cold War. If they want another one, they can just build one. No need for annexation.
- Greenland is also covered by NATO's Article 5. And the US, with the rest of NATO, can protect it against any plausible Russian or Chinese attack as much as they please. No need for an annexation.

Conflating Greenland's strategic military importance with the issue of US ownership is misinformed and dishonest.
Click to expand...
Denmark's current national Intelligence outlook makes explicit its assessment of outside powers competing for the Arctic environment (which is singled out for mention in the Introduction by the Director of the Danish Defence Intelligence Service). Thus, a reasonable planning assumption is "they're coming." Who, when, how, where, etc., is still to be seen.

You correctly mentioned that Greenland is covered by NATO's Article V on mutual defence. Which country can project military power that is both enduring and at scale? Only the United States, by the looks of it. Other nations (e.g. JEF countries) could probably do so in the short term, but at the cost of leaving bare forces in the home waters for European defence.

China was the rising power, is now the risen power, and will in the coming decades challenge the US in many aspects of global trade, influence, technology, military power, etc. As 'the pacing threat', the US sees itself as having to increasingly disengage from European defence to pivot to Asia (Obama, 2011), having encouraged the Europeans to take a greater interest in their own defence.

Is there a benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland? Or is this a Trump bargaining tactic? (I am not convinced any intelligent answers will come forth in this forum...). But it is worth red teaming from a US perspective.

But if I could define the dilemma, it is that the US is effectively responsible for Greenland's defence, but without the benefit of ownership and direct control. Further, Greenland and the High North are of greater core ('Homeland') security interest to the US (and Canada, if we choose to admit it) than continental Europe. The US will still have to work through a third party (Denmark) for defence coordination. Not impossible, but a complication.

None of the above negates the very poor diplomacy pursued by Trump, that threatening and insulting core allies. But I would be interested to observe how future administrations approach the problem. I think there will be a degree of continuity on Homeland security and balancing towards Asia, within the context of:

- The balance of power in the world has shifted considerably towards China, as well as other Southern Hemisphere nations.
- Russia is a fading power, but it will assert its interests at risk for NATO for at least the short term.
- Europe is not only struggling with its own defence, but also with significant social, political, and economic problems. They have sort of got the memo that the 90s have ended, but are having trouble coming to terms with the new world.
- We in Canada have many of the same problems as Euros, but mitigated by national smug self-satisfaction. We know come what may, the US will defend us. Otherwise, we would have a huge military being the second-largest country in the world.
 
Westey said:
Sorry,
I guess it's a good thing that Russia doesn't have any ports facing the Arctic Ocean, or the ability to go under the ice.
But who knows, maybe in a third of a century they might be able too. Hopefully they won't figure out how to add nuclear weapons to the subs by then.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing your understanding of military risks and capabilities is greater than a serving member of the CAF, a well-educated one at that, who has also been posted in the U.S. in the past?

We all make mistakes, but if you're going to argue he's off base, you need to bring material evidence, not sarcasm.
 
mburrrrr said:
I thought Greenland was part of Canada?
Canada is next and then Central America but he might get stretch out too thin.
Ukraine & Europe are tough to take over and maintain.
It will end up in a battle between North America and Asia.
View attachment 708933
Click to expand...

This reminds me, its a good time to most a more accurately scaled map, because most people really only have the mercator projection as their point of reference.

1768486886678.png

Above from: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-accurate-earth-and-shows-africas-full-size/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top