Greenland Is Very Mad About the Toxic Waste the US Left Buried Under Its Ice (vice.com) 208
Kate Lunau, reporting Motherboard:Greenland isn't happy about being treated as a dumping ground for abandoned US military bases established at the height of the Cold War -- and in a newspaper editorial, it's calling on Denmark to deal with the mess left behind by the Americans, since the Danish long ago took responsibility for them. This editorial notes that, after decades, Greenland is "losing its patience." One of the abandoned bases, called Camp Century, is full of nasty chemicals and some radioactive material, as Motherboard previously reported. At Camp Century, which was built in 1959, soldiers called "Iceworms" practiced deployment of missiles against Russia and literally lived inside the ice. When the US decommissioned the base in the 1960s, the military left basically everything behind, thinking that its waste would stay locked up in the Greenland ice sheet forever. Well, climate change has made that unlikely. Melting ice threatens to expose all kinds of toxic debris in decades to come, and Greenland wants it cleaned up, now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bases were actually in Denmark (Score:5, Informative)
...the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent....
As the article points out, Greenland wasn't independent at the time; it was a possession of Denmark; and the bases were done with Denmark's knowledge and cooperation.
Re: (Score:3)
...the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent....
As the article points out, Greenland wasn't independent at the time; it was a possession of Denmark; and the bases were done with Denmark's knowledge and cooperation.
Exactly. When a country achieves independence from another, or acquires territory in other ways, it is generally accepted that they get the land AS IS. If there are any hidden surprises, it's now ultimately Greenland's responsibility. It's no different than if you buy a house and discover after the fact that there are toxic chemicals buried in the back yard that require costly cleanup. It is the responsibility of the current house's owner, not the previous owners of the property, to clean up the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
That actually varies by country. In mine, the previous owners would still be held responsible for their own actions, face fines and/or imprisonment under various health and safety laws concerning the unsafe disposal, and I could bring suit t
Re: (Score:3)
Greenland wasn't independent at the time; it was a possession of Denmark
Greenland remains a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, albeit with substantial autonomy. Foreign affairs and security remain the responsibility of the Danish government. The situation hasn't changed drastically since 1397.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also inclined to say that if they want our military to clean up after themselves, they first owe us some back payment for the decades of protection after the
Re:clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
I would take environmentalism more seriously, if its adherents knew how to prioritize.
Re:clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say:
I would take environmentalism more seriously, if its adherents knew how to prioritize.
you actually mean if their priorities agreed with yours.
Re: (Score:3)
you actually mean if their priorities agreed with yours.
Obviously, I disagree and Slashdot reaction to this story is an example of why I do. Notice this following quote:
"I think itâ(TM)s very understandable that the Greenland government wants to get some answers on whoâ(TM)s accountable, and who will ultimately bear financial cost of any potential remediation," said Jeff Colgan, a professor of political science at Brown University and an author of the paper that highlighted the problem with Camp Century.
"At the same time, we expect itâ(TM)s a problem that will take decades to resurface," he told me. "The immediate focus should be monitoring and research."
That's not how it's being spun in this discussion. The US made a mess and they need to clean it up, in one case within the month or Greenland should ship the waste to the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a bit rich for them to bitch at us, and insist on being given more money in the context of something they already abused to their advantage, whilst I'm sitting here unable to go to a specialist because I'm poor and my country (unlike Denmark) spent all of its billions on military bases instead of medical subsidy.
Pull your head out of your echo chamber and take a good look at the world around you. There are no good guys, just better or marginally-better guys disagreeing amongst themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Coalition Theory 101 states that in any coalition, the largest party gets the worst deal. This is rarely, if ever, incorrect.
It's a bit rich for them to bitch at us, and insist on being given more money in the context of something they already abused to their advantage, whilst I'm sitting here unable to go to a specialist because I'm poor and my country (unlike Denmark) spent all of its billions on military bases instead of medical subsidy.
Hold on there. The US spends a larger proportion of its GDP and more per capita on health care than Denmark does. [oecd.org] It's not Denmark's fault that you as a nation mis-spend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Our spending more of our GDP on healthcare is an direct result of the government not being involved in dealing with the costs of healthcare (this is often characterized as us having a more pro-free market healthcare system but this is absurd--our government still regulates the hell out of medicine, thus ensuring that prices are kept artificially high. In our current setup, primary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The industrialized world has repaid the USA with interest, for the Marshall plan, NATO, UN, and their world police activities.
I'd like to see the accounting on that. Granted, a lot of these things are pretty hard to judge since most transactions aren't zero sum.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you genuinely believe our troops were there strip-mining it for gold or something?
Re:clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In summary, world domination. The protection that the USA gave Denmark against the dreaded communists from the East had the same intent as the protection that Russia gave Czechoslovakia against the dreaded fascists from the West.
Which is just a highly propogandized version of what I just said--protection from the Russians, which the Danish desired and obtained for a bargain price. Yes, a smaller Russian / USSR empire probably implies to some extent and in certain ways a stronger America, but it is almost universally acknowledged, except among some particularly sullen corners of the far left, that American "soft" power is (for all its evils) still very much the lesser evil, infinitely preferable to Russian imperialism or any other
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And like I said, I'm not sure intentions matter all that much here. This is about the welfare of Denmark--costs and benefits. We didn't do what we did to the detriment of Denmark, yes? Did they spend less on defense tha
Re: (Score:2)
In summary, world domination. The protection that the USA gave Denmark against the dreaded communists from the East had the same intent as the protection that Russia gave Czechoslovakia against the dreaded fascists from the West.
Yes, if by "dreaded fascists from the West", you mean the Czech people themselves revolting and being put down by tanks [wikipedia.org]. No one was trying to escape West Berlin to get to the GDR either, for that matter.
No one in the West was perfect, but the "intent" was nowhere near the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually yes, the dreaded fascists from the West.
When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, the Czechs bowed down and spread their arses wide open instead of actually fighting. Only in 1945 they finally got some guts to revolt against the retreating and weak Wehrmacht, but even then not that much, they preferred to beat up German civilians who fled before the Soviets. They weren't nearly as afraid of Russians in 1968, which tells everything you need to know about who was actually dreaded and who wasn't.
Re: (Score:3)
When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, the Czechs bowed down and spread their arses wide open instead of actually fighting.
You really don't history very well, do you?
It's more like the Czechs had the rug pulled out from under them [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting that you should mention Czechoslavakia [wikipedia.org] in that context...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what did the US do during those five years? Read about the Marshal Plan some time. It ensured the US could maintain and continue to project its power by "buying" (the scare quotes are there for a reason) interests in foreign countries ravaged by the war. This was a much smarter way to secure its control and "domination" than outright military conquest. These days most of the world is sick and tired of this legacy and just wants to US to fuck off and leave everyone alone.
The other article here today abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re:clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, the problem is your massive ignorance and lack of understanding of history and strategy.
Here. Let me spell it out for you:
What the US gained:
Airbases on Iceland, perfect for bombers with targets on the Kola peninsula (Murmansk, Archangelsk). Covered behind a screen of fighters, based on Iceland. Bases for maritime patrol aircraft like the Orion, which were a lethal threat to soviet subs. Home for the SOSUS, another lethal threat for soviet submarines. Bases where you could repair, restock and refuel ships on patrol in the north Atlantic.
Here I have to point to another thing you apparently do not understand. It was always the understanding that what NATO had stationed in the way of military forces in Europe would not be enough to stop the soviet tide, should it ever come. The thinking was that what was in Europe should act as a "speed bump", until reinforcements (soldiers, ammunition, matériel) could arrive from the US. This makes the fighters on Iceland and SOSUS imperative for the whole organisation. Without them, Soviet bombers such as the Bear, Backfire and Blackjack, combined with basically their entire submarine fleet (which was considerable in numbers if not quality) would be practically unimpeded to wreck these convoys at will. Forget about your carriers, they could never deal with a saturation attack with missiles.
The entire point is that Greenland, Iceland and the UK is the centre piece of NATO as it was conceived. If this tripod fell, NATO could basically just as well give up since it would no longer be the master of the Atlantic. And since the policy of the day was to "stop the communism" with just about any means indeed was the US policy back in those days, the US as the primary backer of NATO gained from these countries being members, as well from gaining a valuable buffer zone as well as gaining valuable forward bases for operations against the threat from the Kola peninsula.
Thus even questioning whether the US actually gained something is flat out idiotic and ignorant. But that's what you'd expect from a Trumpeteer, isn't it? Ignorance used to invoke outrage and fear, and nobody sees the bigger picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, let me spell it out for you... well, no, let me give you another hint: I said "other than" the post you replied to. Perhaps you'd care to examine the words that appear to the right of "other than" ? It's one thing to miss an implicit context of a question, but I clearly spelled it out and in a post of perhaps 30 words.
An an adjunct to that "other than", I might further clarify that Denmark benefited from NATO whilst contr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also have never supported Trump.
Have you confused me with someone else or are you merely schizophrenic?
Re: (Score:2)
I fear you're arguing with someone who knows the cost of everything and value of nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
You asked what the US had to gain "other than" what Denmark was interested in too.
You neglected the "(protection from Russia)" bit. I think that might have made your replies just the tiniest bit wrong-headed. The more you argue that Greenland was vital for us, the more you are arguing my position for me, whilst apparently thinking you are destroying it.
The US policy of the time was to stop communism at any cost with any means necessary
1. There are small hints that you're vaguely aware of my thesis here, but you're still meandering way off point. The high crimes and grand schemes and neoimperialism of
Re: (Score:2)
I implicitly and explicitly acknowledged that worth. The AC here has been shadow-boxing phantoms, refusing to go back and re-read anything to see what he misunderstood. My thesis is that Denmark shared in that worth, and that it obviously got more out of the NATO arrangement than i
Re: (Score:2)
Yours? I could easily find thousands with less than a day of searching.
And you still haven't owned up for your gibberish about me claiming that Greenland was worthless. I still don't even know if you understand the purpose of this conversation; seems more likely you just like throwing out your $0.02 on the cold war, regardless of its relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you can be alone in your echo chamber
Oh please, do explain this. The concept of an echo chamber is you hear back similar words and ideas, confirming your biases and reassuring you that you're not alone.
That said, if you want to tell me whose words and ideas you identify as the ones you wish to associate with, feel free, I'll know who to avoid.
Thomas Paine, Kurt Vonnegut, Rénald Luzier, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Samuel Clemens, Eric Blair, Joanna Rutkowska, Lao-tzu, H.L. Mencken, Anne Frank.
Re: (Score:2)
even when confronted by criticism, you can dismiss it easily
Only because you say very, very stupid things. Your "criticism" was entirely based on a very bad parsing of my very short, very clear post asking that, OTHER THAN PROTECTION FROM RUSSIA, what value did we get out of Greenland?
If I say something stupid, I never hesitate to own up.
Re: (Score:2)
Too lazy to go digging on Wikipedia at the moment.
Re:clarification (Score:4, Interesting)
Greenland was part of Denmark, and it was the Danish government making these decisions. Denmark was part of NATO and had given Americans permission to establish air bases.
(Note that at the time, Denmark was actively trying to destroy the native Greenland culture.)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who emigrated from Europe
Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what I said when I left.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, it's not just america doing that.. It's likely that if you're posting on slashdot, your own country is doing its part as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So.. how many countries do you know that keep military bases in other countries?
Ten (Score:5, Informative)
So.. how many countries do you know that keep military bases in other countries?
Ten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases
Re: (Score:3)
Hang on - how come Namibia's not on that list? Don't they have a US military base halfway up their coastline?
I think you're confusing the US with China.
The US doesn't have bases there, but China is interested in building a naval base in Namibia:
http://www.namibian.com.na/ind... [namibian.com.na]
http://mgafrica.com/article/20... [mgafrica.com]
http://www.turkishweekly.net/2... [turkishweekly.net]
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't on that list because it's not the other way round. We're talking guests[1], not hosts.
[1] which does not necessarily imply they're welcome, before anyone chimes in.
The developing world is not so innocent (Score:2)
And no country is contributing to Global Warming the way the US is. Most of the pollution in the "3rd world countries" is from the production of goods for the US (and allies), often by US companies operating on foreign soil to run around regulations..
Those countries choose to produce that stuff. The people there like the new higher paying jobs. It enables them to develop and raises living standards as has happened in India and China. They aren't innocent victims. And they do make choices as to how they want to allocate resources. China could be more environmentally conscious where it to stop increasing the size of it military and spend the money on green energy instead. And it's important to remember that there are many more environmentally safe technol
Beautiful Greenland. (Score:5, Funny)
It shows how rigged this whole thing is that they have a place that's covered in ice and call it "Greenland". Completely rigged. The crooked media doesn't want you to know that it's covered in ice. It's a disgrace.
When I'm president, we'll make Greenland green again. There will be the most beautiful golf courses in Greenland, believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Beautiful Greenland. (Score:2, Funny)
When it got that name it was the first and last act of false advertising ever perpetuated on Viking kind.
Re: (Score:3)
I think some of those vikings had a twisted sense of humor. Iceland is mostly green and Greenland is mostly ice.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Something I find Funny (Score:3, Funny)
Greenland is mostly covered with Ice but Iceland is very green.
Maybe do a name switch?
Re: Something I find Funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 would read again :)
Re: (Score:2)
The naming goes back to Viking times, and was meant to mislead enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
Pack it up in a shipping container (Score:2)
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which way do the currents flow? They *could* do that, but if they wanted to reach New York they'd better put a motor on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Dump it in Southern CA(lifornia)'s beaches like Newport Beach. ;)
Climate change BS (Score:2)
The glacier were and are moving. That was one of the things that killed Camp Century to begin with.
camp century indeed (Score:2)
From the TFA: "Maybe in a century, theyâ(TM)re going to start to melt out."
Whoa, now there is a real crisis. MAYBE in a CENTURY there will start to be problems! Act now, save no expense!!!!
Re:Nothing there (Score:5, Insightful)
So's Death Valley. Keep your shit in your own bowl.
Re: (Score:2)
It was done all the time in the past. No one really considered the consequences in those days. Sure nowadays they'd know better but even so the military only cares about two things, war and preparing for war. I feel that we should go back and clean it up though, it's not right to leave it to Greenland.
Re:Nothing there (Score:5, Informative)
Come on man. We can't just leave that shit lying around and not go clean it up. Greenland doesn't have the money for that and it's really not right. We built that place for our benefit in the Cold War and they were nice enough to let us use the place. It's not good manors to leave a big mess behind.
Re: (Score:2)
We built that place for our benefit in the Cold War and they were nice enough to let us use the place.
If we did not force them to let us build there, I would argue that building it was also for their benefit.
I can't explain why about half the population doesnt understand the core ramification of free choices, that when you are free to choose you choose things that you think will benefit you.
This thought should have been the very first thing in your head. Any reasoning on this matter must begin from this point. You however have outright denied the basic reality in your argument, which doesnt make for a
Re: (Score:2)
If we did not force them to let us build there, I would argue that building it was also for their benefit.
Denmark's benefit, perhaps. Nonetheless, "it's for your own good" is the justification of colonists and abusers throughout history.
Re: (Score:2)
And billions of parents as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on man. We can't just leave that shit lying around and not go clean it up. Greenland doesn't have the money for that and it's really not right. We built that place for our benefit in the Cold War and they were nice enough to let us use the place. It's not good manors to leave a big mess behind.
The 'they' out here refers to Denmark, since Greenland was still a colony/part of Denmark, during the time in question. So it would make sense to split the costs 2-way, maybe 3-way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I noticed that right after I posted it. I was waiting for someone to point it out.
Re: (Score:3)
This assumes we don't give a shit how the people living in Greenland or the rest of the world for that matter, think of us. Of all the stupid shit we spend money for around the world I'd think this would easily fall into the better ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's like "well, I'm on the wrong, but fortunately there are lots of stupid guys on the world... maybe if I talk BS some will fall for it... let's try, what's there to lose?"
Mr. Trump, when did you start browsing Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland invited and welcomed the U.S. military with open arms. There is plenty of excuse for the USA to have done things normally and typically at the time they were there.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that no missiles were ever installed, and the only thing that was there was the PM-2A reactor which the Danish government DID know about. You have no point
Re: (Score:3)
Greenland is huge and almost unpopulated. If it weren't covered in ice...
Global warming is changing that, that is what this article is about.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the type of arrogance that is going to destroy the world. What level of stupidity or insanity is required to say that remote areas of the earth, where people live, are perfect dumping grounds for toxic waste and radioactivity?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the type of arrogance that is going to destroy the world. What level of stupidity or insanity is required to say that remote areas of the earth, where people live,
In the particular places under discussion-- underneath the glacers-- nobody lives.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true for now. But if you do have a major melting of the ice-caps, while the rest of the world may largely get flooded, Kalaallit Nunaat would be a very inhabitable place, and not as cold as it is now. (Where do you think the name 'Greenland' came from?)
The Sahara is a better place for this. Or better yet - Antarctica.
Not on the ice (Score:2)
(Where do you think the name 'Greenland' came from?)
I think it came from Eric the Red, who was doing a con job trying to convince people that the place was desirable. [thornews.com]
In any case, the places Eric the Red started settlements in, that he called "Greenland", was not the ice sheets in the north, but the southern tip.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the military just left everything behind, you probably left Greenland with a few nukes.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could talk to Putin if he's interested in setting up a base there, much more near US soil. I guess he likes to repay the way the US is acting in Eastern Europe. And maybe the US left something interesting for the Russians behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will they write us a letter telling us how angry they are?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words: "What are they going to do? Attack?"
Is that what you are saying? Great way to make friends. Or you think, that you don't need any?
Re: (Score:2)
The US is getting its payment now from letting Europe participate in all the US wars of aggression and let is deal with the immigrant flows they create. Next time the US invades a country, I suggest we help the invaded country by supplying advanced anti-aircraft missles. That will make the war soon too costly for the US to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
The borders and nations of the Middle East are the aftermath of European imperialism and European war mongering; they are on the doorsteps of Europe, they primarily supply oil to Europe. The US doesn't benefit from these wars, Europe does.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a really slow news day...
Yes we should save all our outrage and news of it until the day before it's due to be a problem. It's unamerica and inhuman to think about and plan things in advance. As we all know international politics especially concerning radioactive materials and military establishments during war time easily resolve themselves within a few hours.
Lets all get back to more important things like whose pussy Trump will grope next!
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy [wiktionary.org]. No, it does not have to be "day before". A year or two before would do.
As things stand, though, we aren't at all certain, this particular one will ever be a problem — the stuff may remain buried in ice for eons. "Climate Science" and related alarmism (Peak Oil [wikipedia.org], anyone?) is rather notorious for unsuccessful predictions, while successful ones are rather hard to come by — people have tr
Re: (Score:2)
For this kind of problem a couple of decades for cleanup may not be excessive. And you pointed about the failures of climate science without understanding their nature. Greenland is melting a LOT faster than predicted. It's more likely that we have less time than we think for the cleanup than that we have more.
Climatology vs. Astrology (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming my point — the "Climate Science" predictions are worthless.
Greenland, mysteriously warming faster than expected today, may start freezing again ten years from now. We may as well rely on predictions of Astrologers.
Re: (Score:2)
A year or two before would do.
For international disagreements on radioactive and toxic waste cleanup activities in a remote and difficult to reach area?
What are you smoking?
"International" vs. "International" (Score:2)
They aren't really "international" — the term would imply multiple nations and some sort of deliberative body, where they meet with their agendas.
Greenland and Norway used to be one nation not long ago, split up peacefully and continue cooperating. They would not need very long to come up with a solution to a real problem. Which this is not. Certainly not today.