Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Greenland Is Very Mad About the Toxic Waste the US Left Buried Under Its Ice (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the cleaning-the-mess dept.

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.

33 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nothing there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So's Death Valley. Keep your shit in your own bowl.

  2. clarification by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Americans can be forgiven for being remiss about this, as this was nuclear and defense research in arctic climates related to the US ability to ward off an impending attack over alaska. We learned we could indeed install nuclear reactors and war bases in the tundra, however we unfortunately learned that cooling these reactors and ensuring they stayed in one place was a completely untenable matter.

    the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent. these were secret bases established on remote areas of Greenland that existed for only three to six months before disappearing entirely. The cleanup is nontrivial amounts of chemical and nuclear material. As an american i feel we have a duty to clean this up, but as an american I also understand there isnt much impetus to get us to do anything responsible after the fact.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:clarification by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Before I get worked up about this, I'd like to know what the damage is. Plants affected, wildlife in danger, people who want to settle there? Greenland is the least densely populated country on earth. Not having dug into the details yet, I immediately suspect there's a reasonable chance that this will affect very little if we just left it there.

      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 they voluntarily signed up for protection under NATO (and then, along with the rest of Western Europe, they left the USA to shoulder 95%+ of the costs.)

      since the Danish long ago took responsibility for them.

      That is a suspiciously polite way of saying that Greenland had long been a Danish territory/colony, and the mess was left there whilst Greenland was almost entirely under Danish sovereignty.

    2. Re:clarification by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent

      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.)

    3. Re:clarification by Shane_Optima · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The USA has done a lot of dumb and evil shit, particularly in the context of the cold war. That doesn't mean that the NATO powers in western Europe aren't generally a bunch of whining moochers who were, truth be told, utterly terrified of the Russians and have used the budget savings they reaped from having very small militaries (in addition to Marshall Plan assistance, if we go back far enough) to build themselves lovely little civilizations.

      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.

    4. Re:clarification by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think there's a few observations to make here. First, it is ultimately the US who caused the problem, though with the permission of Denmark. Second, it is not much of a problem at present nor would be much of a problem at any point in the future. Third, it would be particularly expensive to clean up at present. I think even Greenland could think of better things to do than clean up this particular mess.

      I would take environmentalism more seriously, if its adherents knew how to prioritize.

    5. Re:clarification by peppepz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:clarification by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      Well, apparently it is a threat to a block of ice, some activists and reporters. Maybe we should send more activists and reporters there and just forget to go and get them again.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    7. Re:clarification by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:clarification by peppepz · · Score: 2
      I didn't say that the methods were the same, I said that the intentions were. Of course living under the protection of the USA was far better than living under the protection of the USSR. But this doesn't change the fact that altruism was the last thought in the mind of political leaders when they partitioned Europe after WW2. As for the feelings of the common people, the average person from the streets of Russia will genuinely think that their troops have to be deployed abroad in order to altruistically defend other countries from fascist aggressions, in the same way as Americans might genuinely think that Europe is made up of lazy people who need to be altruistically defended by US forces which, as a result, have the right not to clean any mess they make in the process.

      And let's be honest, the US never spent less on welfare because they needed the money to patrol Greenland. They have done so because welfare programs aren't high on the list of priorities of the American electorate.

    9. Re:clarification by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:clarification by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2
      Are you ready for the coupe de gras? Fine fine, let's do this already:

      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 America are ENTIRELY irrelevant to this conversation except as they pertain to the enrichment of or detriment of Denmark and her former colony, Greenland.

      2. Ask the status quo in Denmark and the rest of Western Europe what their policy was vs. communism. Pretty sure they were a trifle concerned--rightly or wrongly; it doesn't matter. My point stands either way. Being smaller countries, they might have been in less of a position to do anything decisive about it but to pretend that this was only America's fight is just dumb. The elites (along with much of the lower classes) in every single Western European country were fairly goddamn worried, and then fairly goddamn relieved that they didn't have to spend a fortune on militaries when it became clear that NATO was almost exclusively about allowing us to defend them and yes, that does necessitate them giving us land for bases, but that land didn't generate wealth for us except to the extent that we might prosper whenever Russians were contained... BUT THIS WAS A PROSPERITY THAT THE ELITES DENMARK MOST SURELY SHARED IN. I would tend to argue that it's a prosperity the common man tended to share in as well, but you don't even have to concede that point for my primary point here to stand.

      That is not saying that the Cold War was conducive, on the whole, to prosperity; I am merely saying that the Cold War sans NATO seems rather unlikely to have led to greater prosperity for Denmark.

      3. As the events of the last few years have shown, communism was a bit of a red herring. The real issue was and is Russian imperialism. The McCarthy shit was genuine and genuinely hysterical (and, need I say, very bad for the country), but whether they knew it or not they were locked in an very real battle of wills against an adversary that desired global domination as least as much as we did, and demonstrated a propensity for using much more ruthless tactics than we (for all our evils) tended to use.

      From an international geopolitical perspective, Russia without communism turned out to be pretty similar to Russia with communism except their fifth column powers aren't nearly as robust. And if you feel like lecturing me on how Russia's actions in Ukraine are entirely justified for demographic reasons and/or because of our interference in the EU vs. Russian internal political struggle that went on in the years leading up to it... why don't you give it a miss instead. I'm only thinking about your self-esteem here. Baby steps, and all that.

      Do you really think basically every European NATO country would have been F-104 and F-16, and soon unfortunate F-35 users, if it hadn't been for the American influence via NATO?

      I think that if NATO didn't exist, the chance that European countries would've spent and would be spending LESS on their defense is virtually zero. The welfare states of Europe are built, in part, on a foundation of American paternal protection (and yes, with that comes paternalistic condescension and geopolitical games). Peek before that, and there's the Marshall Plan money. Peek a little before that, and there's America saving the whole damn thing from Germany.

      I don't have a problem with admitting any of this any more than

    11. Re:clarification by HiThere · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:clarification by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

      Well, substitute "paid less taxes" if you must. Either way, America would have been more enriched. Our military expenditures (particularly post-1940s, after most of the really nifty stuff had been invented) cannot be viewed as anything other than a huge net negative drain on the economy.

      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 than they would have otherwise, or more? (This somewhat depends on whether or not you'd believe they would have given up... I tend to believe that Europeans would've played for time as long as they could by increasing their defense, spending far more than what they spent knowing that America was at their back. But, this is admittedly mostly just a gut feeling.)

    13. Re:clarification by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      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. It's not Denmark's fault that you as a nation mis-spend it.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    14. Re:clarification by khallow · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Re:Nothing there by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    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.

  4. Bases were actually in Denmark by XXongo · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Bases were actually in Denmark by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      ...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. That's partly why it is important to have thorough home inspections before buying a house.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Bases were actually in Denmark by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. Re:Scheduling by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. Beautiful Greenland. by PopeRatzo · · 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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Beautiful Greenland. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      When it got that name it was the first and last act of false advertising ever perpetuated on Viking kind.

    2. Re:Beautiful Greenland. by squiggleslash · · Score: 3

      Not even close. It's been covered in ice for millenia. It got that name because Erik the Red was hoping to attract settlers, having found one tiny patch of habitable (probably still snow covered) land in an otherwise completely icy wasteland.

      I'm guessing your version is something spouted by a global warming denier somewhere, but it doesn't make much sense given known Earth historical temperatures and the relative modernity of the words involved.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re: Beautiful Greenland. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I think some of those vikings had a twisted sense of humor. Iceland is mostly green and Greenland is mostly ice.

  7. Re:Practical Realities: Who cares by johanw · · Score: 2, 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.

  8. Something I find Funny by Diac · · Score: 3, Funny

    Greenland is mostly covered with Ice but Iceland is very green.

    Maybe do a name switch?

    1. Re: Something I find Funny by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Greenice and Landland?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  9. Ten by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, 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

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Ten by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

      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...
      http://mgafrica.com/article/20...
      http://www.turkishweekly.net/2...

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  10. Re:Nothing there by TroII · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    "If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
  11. Re:Nothing there by amiga3D · · 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.

  12. Re:Nothing there by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    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.