Could the US Seize Greenland? A Strategic Breakdown
Isaac BennettA US military takeover of Greenland is feasible, but its strategic gains are dwarfed by catastrophic political and alliance costs.
Recent rhetoric from President Donald Trump has renewed discussions about US control over Greenland, forcing a serious strategic question: if the US were to take military action, what would that actually look like? While a US invasion of Greenland would be a relatively simple military exercise, the political and diplomatic fallout would be catastrophic.
Greenland's Strategic Importance in a New Arctic Era
Greenland is the world's largest island—vast, sparsely populated, and strategically invaluable to the United States. Its location is critical, sitting astride the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, a key chokepoint for transit routes in the Arctic and North Atlantic.
This geography makes the island essential for early warning systems, missile defense, and broader Arctic operations. The US already operates space and missile warning assets from Thule Air Base in Greenland. As Arctic ice recedes, the island's value is increasing, and the Trump administration has grown concerned about denying Russia and China access to the region.
Denmark's Limited Power to Defend the Island
Denmark, which governs Greenland as a territory, maintains a minimal permanent military presence. The Danish forces on the island consist of small patrol units, Arctic command elements, and limited surveillance assets. There are no fighter jets, missile defenses, or heavy ground troops.
Essentially, Denmark maintains its sovereignty through administration, not military force. Realistically, Copenhagen cannot defend Greenland from a major power. The island's defense relies on NATO, diplomacy, and the fragile assumption that allies will not act against one another.
What a US Military Operation Would Look Like
A US move to take control of Greenland would not be a traditional invasion with beach landings and large-scale combat. Instead, the operation would focus on rapidly securing key infrastructure like airfields, ports, and communication hubs. The primary military effort would be centered on access, control, and logistics. Given Greenland's sparse population, this would likely not require a large US military footprint.
Resistance to an American takeover would be fierce, but it would be political, not military. The biggest challenges for the US military would be battling the harsh weather and managing the international fallout, not overcoming Danish forces.
The Real Cost: Political Fallout and Alliance Collapse
Following a hypothetical US seizure, Denmark's response options would be severely limited. Copenhagen would issue diplomatic protests, appeal to NATO, and pursue international legal action, but any military response would be symbolic at best. While Denmark could raise the issue at the UN, enforcement mechanisms are weak, and the US has consistently asserted its sovereignty over UN requests.
Denmark's only real leverage is political—an appeal to the norms of alliance and diplomacy. Retaking the island by force is not an option.
The ripple effects would devastate NATO cohesion and undermine trust in American leadership. While NATO has no formal mechanism to resolve disputes between members, a US action against Denmark would force allies to question the value and reliability of aligning with the United States, imposing significant strategic consequences.
A Cost-Benefit Analysis: Why Seizure Makes No Sense
So, would the US actually proceed with military action? It already enjoys strategic freedom in Greenland, with access and bases secured. A formal takeover offers marginal military gain at a gargantuan political cost. Overtly seizing the massive territory would almost certainly not be worth the diplomatic headache.
The question the Trump administration must answer is not whether it can take Greenland by force, but whether it makes any strategic sense to do so.
