Comment by exelius | Hacker News Reader

Comment by exelius | Hacker News Reader

War is coming, but military power is also more asymmetric than ever. The US fared relatively poorly in the skirmish-like proxy wars of the last 50 years, but that's a different type of warfare than another world war would be. The goals aren't to win and hold territory, the goals are to create a stable environment. All the opponent has to do is create chaos with guerrilla warfare and the US loses.

When you're talking about a total war scenario, the US is effectively unbeatable for a lot of reasons. Ignoring the amount we spend (much of which is wasted on graft and ineffective procurement), we hold the distinct advantage of geography. We're fully capable of building a war machine all by ourselves -- we have the raw materials, the industry, and most important of all: a several-thousand mile long buffer zone between the US and any potential enemy looking to disrupt production.

China is the only real rising threat, and even then, they have two or three decades of catching up to do. And ultimately, I'm not convinced there are any resources that China and the US both covet so much as to go to war with each other: both are large, geographically diverse countries with a wide range of natural resources. The Chinese also have very little to gain by a shooting war: they will naturally eclipse the US in a global economy in the next 100 years anyway, so why bother fighting a dangerous enemy on the battlefield when you have better economic weapons?

You're thinking about the old kind of war. If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

> If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

The USSR tried to pursue a softer version of this strategy, often highlighting racial tensions in the U.S. and poor civil rights for Black People in the U.S. However, it really wasn't all that successful. It turns out despite poor conditions for many racial groups, a shared national identity wins out.

> It turns out despite poor conditions for many racial groups, a shared national identity wins out.

And it's not clear how much of that is present in China.

> If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

Two can play at that game. (Although the long-term consequences might be unpleasant, as the U.S. has learned about its support of Afghanistan's mujahideen after the U.S.S.R. invaded in 1979.)

The article is making the point that the proxy wars we've seen are peanuts compared to "real" war. What you're describing is a proxy war situation; which is the current status quo.

The future probably looks a lot more like Russia's takeover of Crimea (say, China decides its military is big enough to take over Taiwan). Until eventually one of the big powers decides that enough is enough and it becomes a shooting war. That's how both world wars started and how the next one will likely start as well.

what happens when the power is in the hands of crazies who dont know what button to press when!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com