There's a curious thing about Greenland that most people miss - it's not the ice that matters, it's the coordination problems.

Consider: Greenland has 56,000 people managing 836,330 square miles (roughly 1/4 the size of the US). That's like having the population of a small suburb running an area larger than Mexico.

Studies show Greenland's mineral wealth could exceed $1 trillion. But developing these resources requires massive infrastructure investment that the current administrative structure can't support.

The US has expertise in managing vast, sparsely populated territories (see: Alaska). We've solved similar coordination problems before. Our federal system could provide Greenland the autonomy it wants while delivering the infrastructure it needs.

Some will say: "But Denmark!" Yet Denmark's GDP is $395 billion while the US sits at $23 trillion. Simple game theory suggests we can offer better terms.

The numbers are compelling: Greenland's strategic location + US capital and expertise = massive positive-sum gains.

But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's examine the counter-arguments...