Use of the term "hysteric(al)" is a huge red flag for me. I virtually never see it applied reasonably. In this case, the article is simply outlining a history of the issue. The Greenland case is relevant and interesting.
I used the term specifically because their claims about the Thule crash don't add up. A nuclear detonation at Thule wouldn't mean general war (hackles would be raised but lots of other phenomenologies would be used as part of the warning, verification, and attack characterization processes).
EDIT: Also, at the distance the crash was from the base, assuming a weapon detonated on impact the facilities would have experienced ~1 psi of overpressure. I strongly suspect they'd still be operational afterwards.
