What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea (2015) | Hacker News Reader

What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea (2015)

nytimes.com

62 pointstmlee22 comments

From last time around:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9981493

I am astonished how geo-political squabbles over resources such as oil and fishing may destroy the great reef ecosystems of this region. Ecosystems, that are far more valuable than the things these nations squabble about.

The cold war was messed up in so many ways. It reminds me these developments.

The type of people that advocate such nationalistic projects in favour of international, peaceful and reasonable exploitation should be removed from power.

This is not the end game of China's ambition, its just the start.

Do you mean that China has no right to "ambitions"? If you check your history books you'll see that China has lost an enormous chunk to USSR and to other countries when she was weak. Now she is stronger and will not let anyone take any more of what she's got hold of, not even a cm2. I think it is understandable.

"China" is as much a fantasy as "god". There is no such thing. Not even looking at the trouble with some of the unwilling provinces (which many countries have), just what is a "country" exactly? Definitely noting with a "will" or "ambitions". That's just people. The fact here the concept is all in human brains is underlined by the fact that the stronger the concept of "country" the more akin to religion the way it is treated, case in point: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/football_announcer_...

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing at all wrong with "country" concepts - not until people start posting comments like yours, then it gets a little disturbing when somebody takes a useful administrative concept too far.

There is also no "war", "peace", "love", "human rights", "democracy", "united states" or "being gay".

Funny how I have attacked against materialistic and constructionist world views during a single day. Personally I stand in the middle ground of these two where things like "truth" and "humor" really really exist. Because I like those things so damn much.

PS. You don't need to get so metaphysical to oppose imperial ambitions. Just plain old non-aggression goes pretty far.

I don't think he's being metaphysical. Much of what we now call China was other countries a couple of hundred years ago. Is the little core that we call ancient China the true China or are all the newly added provinces just as real? If some land changes from being under control of one set of politicians (one country) to another set of politicians (another country), is that really bad for anyone? People usually feel the politicians that control their own place are somehow superior to all the others, but that's obviously nonsensical because they can't all be the best. If part of China was taken over by Russia, it's still just a place where people live, but with a different name and different laws. None are clearly better or worse than the others. If they were, then people from some poorly governed country would be clamoring to give their territory to another country so they can benefit from becoming part of the better one.

> If some land changes from being under control of one set of politicians (one country) to another set of politicians (another country), is that really bad for anyone?

Some people would call that the definition of bad itself. And I can't blame them.

You sound very american. Would you give U.S. governance to Mexico? No qualms about it?

The reverse worked out great for California. I think the US government does a better job of looking after it's people than the Mexican one. So no, I'd rather it go the other way. But I might be wrong since it's not easy to see the whole picture.

I suspect the Mexicans who want to be Americans tend to take themselves to America and the remaining people are more concentrated as nationalists. So perhaps immigration is a natural damping force on "giving away your country". Actually the direction of immigration is probably a good indicator of which countries are genuinely better than which. Germany shouldn't give up control to Poland, but Poland should give itself up to Germany - the former Poles would probably enjoy a better life eventually.

So "I like this principle as long as I get more power, and other people get less power". Thought that U.S. governance is somehow better than Mexican sounds nationalistic. Is it?

Your ideology seemingly supports imperialism. The opposing idealism is called Subsidiarity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

U.S. is weird as it's currently one of the most imperialistic nations around. Yet it's organized (nominally) as federation.

There are lots of people who think local governance is more or as important than democracy itself. It doesn't even require nationalist motivations. Simply government with fewer subjects and close by is likely to be more effective than government far away and with lots of subjects.

I'm not an American and have never been there. I come from a small country and I would happily see that country gobbled up by one of its more successful neighbors so we can share the economic advantages they have. Ultimately that means cheaper stuff and higher wages.

That would involve me getting more power, as you say. My new home country would now be slightly bigger and more powerful than before my old country joined it.

>Ultimately that means cheaper stuff and higher wages.

There are bunch of historical examples where this does not hold true. It has been relatively common that the "new colony" pays all the taxes while the mother country reaps all the rewards. This was the case with UK occupying Ireland, Soviet union occupying Estonia, Germany occupying France and northern Italy occupying kingdom of Sicily. Only exception that comes to mind is east Germany, but there is exceptionally strong cultural affiliation.

You should be able to gain all the positives with free trade. Without any of the negatives.

Try defending this as "moral and just" with a straight face:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/67616000/gif...

What about this?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x7xNgfhbbWo/TLxegWcfLTI/AAAAAAAAAx...

Can't defend that either.

What's the purpose of that?

And? Do you mean that the "border" do not look very "straight"? Then the Malouines islands should belong to Argentine, right? And Alaska to Canada, and Monaco to France, and Antartica to the pinguins...

It's a dangerous game when china builds islands to support It's military. Looking towards the future, could ever mean world war 3. I read an article just recently that the world is the closest It's ever been to world war 3.

China has every right to protect their potential $5 trillion in trade. International law does not matter. No one else will fight them for it. To do this, requires lots of sand, casinos and go go dancers. Capital flight from corrupt officials' relatives will feed lobby machines and eventually quell these Western Dalai Lammy cliques worldwide

Protect their trade, from what threats?

Maybe US and Phil can build some islands and locate nuclear warheads and missile defence systems there. After all USA have to protect their global trade.

Well firstly, China is not locating nuclear warheads on those islands - that's an exaggerated and irrelevant point.

Also, using US as an example is incredibly hypocritical since they have a large military presence all over the world - in way more regions than China.

Why is the US doing this? Could it be to 'protect trade'?

Just their presence is threatening to Philippine and Vietnamese fishing boats and other vehicles. They patrolling around the area opens up for harassments against civil boats from these nearby countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com