When it comes to the reasons for Trump's ambitions on Greenland, the best we can do is speculate. Trump says "we need Greenland for national security and even international security," but Greenland (as a dependency of Denmark) is part of NATO and the United States already has a military presence there. Some argue that the rationale revolves more around the mineral wealth Greenland is said to store beneath its ice. Others speculate Trump's obsession with Greenland may just be an attempt to secure a legacy for himself with a territorial expansion, reminiscent of his first-term proposition to purchase the island.

But there is one problem: Denmark says no.

The Danish foreign minister said no.

Then the Danish prime minister said no.

Even the Greenlandic Prime Minister said no.

So while the word "no" has never stopped Trump before, it's safe to say that, sparing military conquest (which would have massive political consequences), the United States will not be acquiring Greenland. Despite this sting of rejection, aspiring Greenlanders need not lose hope. America already has its own Greenland, and we don't have to destroy our international standing to benefit from it. In fact, this region can bring Trump and the country all the same benefits that Greenland could, and perhaps even more. The name of this region is Alaska, the last frontier.

First it's necessary to examine why there is so much interest in the Arctic these days. The answer is simple: it's getting warmer.

Putting aside the devastating climatic implications of a warmer Arctic, many countries are reconsidering their priorities in the far north in light of new economic and military opportunities. In the past, when technology was less developed and the globe was colder, the Arctic had little value, be it for enterprising or militarizing beyond highly specialized operations. As the Northwest Passage, a sea route over North America, remains free of ice for longer and longer periods, trade in the far north is becoming increasingly viable. As other countries such as Russia and China take advantage of this warming Arctic, there has been increasing pressure for America and her allies to do so as well.

Alaska is the perfect staging ground for American interests in the Arctic. Ever since the Cold War, Alaska has been the United States' first line of defense against its enemies, acting as an early warning system for the rest of the country in case the Soviets ever attempted to attack. In the modern day, Alaska's position in the far north is becoming increasingly important. Not only is there the threat of Russia, which has proven itself to be a rogue power with its invasion of Ukraine, but China has also become a major player in recent years. In December of last year, the United States Department of Defense noted that China is attempting to assert itself as an Arctic power, and, to that end, has been collaborating with Russia. Half of the Arctic coastline belongs to Russia and the country has 32 "continuously-attended military sites," although NATO on the whole still has more than them. According to The Economist, Russia has also built more than 475 military bases along its northern border in the past six years.

Alaska would fulfill much the same strategic function that Trump claims Greenland would. Alaska's northern coast lies along the Arctic Ocean, and if the United States were to increase its defense investment there, it could pose a real competition to Russia. Indeed, this is noted by several reports, including one by the U.S. Naval Institute, which proposed bases in the Aleutian Islands.

Next we must discuss Alaska's economic potential.

Alaska's economic potential is self-evident, and it's something the Alaskan Angle has covered in the past, but what are the numbers? Right now it's mostly rough estimates, but the estimates we have are extremely promising. Forgive me, but I'm about to drop some statistics:

Alaska is likely to contain over 25 billion barrels of untapped oil, over 105 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, an abundance of proven and hypothesized rare earth mineral deposits, millions of pounds of uranium, 3.5% of all the world's zinc reserves, tens of billions of pounds of copper, billions of tons of coal, a multitude of thorium deposits, millions of pounds of cobalt, vast untapped gold reserves, and that's not even considering Alaska's off-shore resources. These untapped resources would be worth trillions of dollars. If Trump wants Greenland for the resources, especially for strategic rare earth minerals, it's clear that Alaska would suit this need nicely. As a bonus, increased federal investment would have the added benefit of creating thousands of new jobs for Alaskans as new mines open up.

If you're critical of the aforementioned resource paragraph on the basis of environmental protection, rare earth minerals are actually vital for the production of green energy. This is why global demand is rapidly increasing. China is the main producer of rare earth minerals, and since China is considered an adversary of the United States, it is in our interest to reduce our reliance on them. Reducing our reliance on them would also be better for the global environment overall, as rare earth mining has devastated China's environment due to lack of regulation.

Resources aren't the only economic benefit the state offers. Alaska has significant value for trade as well. With the northwest passage clearing up, experts estimate that up to 5% of global traffic could be going through the region by 2050. As more and more shipping heads over Alaska, northern ports like Nome or Barrow might see renewed economic value for commerce. This commercial value has already been recognized, with funding being granted for a new deep-water port in Nome to accommodate larger vessels.

It is clear then that investment in Alaska will unlock these strategic and economic benefits. To sweeten the deal even further, it's worth noting that Greenland's resources are still largely inaccessible, locked beneath deep ice within the island. Why should the United States spend billions of dollars on a purchase, or, even worse, destroy our alliance with Denmark just to acquire an island with resources packed beneath the ice? Why buy Greenland? Why die for Greenland?

America's future is in Alaska. Not Greenland.