Hacker News Reader

Tokyo, Seoul, Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe would very much be on the front-lines of a war involving North Korea, which is way too distressingly possible (NK's rulers aren't exactly known for their rationality in foreign policy).

Pakistan and India have gone to war no fewer than 4 times since their independence not 7 decades ago. It was considered basically a miracle that the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai didn't spark a war, and the tensions between the two countries remain the most likely potential nuclear war. That gets you Karachi, Mumbai, Delhi (Kolkata is on the wrong side of the country).

Cairo, Istanbul, and Tehran could become war zones in a future Middle Eastern conflict, although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does seem to have declined in importance to the Arab region as a whole. The risk of a World War III involving China or Russia is probably understated--especially given Putin's responses to the increasing failure of the Russian economy since the 2008 financial crisis.

It is also worth pointing out that many of the megacities that people are concerned about don't exist yet--the number of megacities is expected to grow, predominantly in Africa, a region not known for stability of governments. You might say that solid middle-class countries would help to stabilize the governments, but the Syrian and Libyan civil wars really ought to be clear signs of the fallacy of that belief.

In many respects, though, the main point of a military is not to fight wars--it's to figure out how to, and be prepared to, fight the next war. Acting as if wars won't happen won't guarantee you peace--indeed, WWII, the bloodiest war in history, was so bloody precisely because its principal actors refused to believe that is was going to happen.

North Korea is about as capable of landing in Tokyo, as they are on the moon.

Most of their navy can't even get from their west coast to their east coast, never mind supporting an invasion of Tokyo, over 300 miles of water.

> You might say that solid middle-class countries would help to stabilize the governments, but the Syrian and Libyan civil wars really ought to be clear signs of the fallacy of that belief.

Neither the Libyan nor Syrian civil war was caused by a failure of the middle class or institutions. In both cases the wars were fomented by external state actors who sought geopolitical advantages at the expense of these nations. In any case your sample size of 2 is insufficient to prove anything

If a war broke out in Tehran no prizes for guessing which nation would start it.

hint: U S A

We haven't had a great-power conflict in the last 70 years. That doesn't mean we will never again have one.

Historically, wars have happened because the balance of powers of nations becomes ambiguous. Thanks to natural human over-confidence, each believes they could win it, and so they go to war even though in reality everyone loses. The U.S. has been the undisputed global power since WW2, but there's a ticking demographics time-bomb that's pretty apparent in your list of cities.

You wouldn't invade and occupy a city of over 10 million. An insurgency would threaten the city and the region and you would be invited in to help control it.

Imagine 1% of that 10 million joined an insurgency. That is 100,000 people. I think this is a distinct enough possibility for a military to prepare for. In fact, the US already works on both ends. Supporting insurgencies in Libya and Syria while helping fight them in Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan. These aren't mega cities but the possibility still remains.

    > For what plausible reason
    > would you invade and occupy
    > a city with a population of
    > over 10 million?

Of your list, what, 50% have been occupied in the last 100 years?

I would reckon not all (even most?) on the list had +10million inhabitants 100 years ago.

Wikipedia claims that "In 1950, New York City was the only urban area with a population of over 10 million."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity#Growth

Even today, NYC's Five boroughs are <9 Million[0].

1920 Tokyo: 3.7 million[1]

1950 Shanghai: 6.2 million[2]

1971 Mumbai: 5.9 million[3]

1921 Greater London: 7.5 million[4]; Inner London: 4.9 million

Terms like Metro-area and Megalopois are different stories...

[0]https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...

[1]http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.ht...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shanghai

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai#Demographics

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London

I wonder how much did they have population back then?

For what plausible reason would you invade and occupy a city with a population of over 10 million?

Surely this is a failure of imagination, rather than a complete impossibility?

In the last few years we have seen:

The US Airforce providing aircover for Iranian militias.[1]

Turkey shoot down a Russian fighter/bomber over Syria[2] and then become close (?) allies[3]

The Philippines win a ruling against Chinese actions in the South China sea[4], then decide to ally with China and accept Chinese ambitions in the South China sea[5], and then return to their original position (maybe?)[6]

The world's most populous Islamic nation has a Christian governor of its capital city[7].

The UK voted to exit the EU, but no one is quite sure how it will happen

And Donald Trump won the US election.

So yeah.. I have no idea why the US would want to invade and occupy a 10M+ population city. But it is entirely possible something like that could happen.

[1] https://warisboring.com/american-coalition-is-providing-clos...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37045724

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

[5] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/philippines-duterte-ch...

[6] http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2016/11/13/ro...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basuki_Tjahaja_Purnama

Well, it seems somewhat shortsighted to imagine that just because it would be categorically awful to fight another conventional war in densely populated urban centers, that it will never happen again or that it isn't something you should think about and prepare for.

I agree that the MIC is a toxic influence on policy, but lets not let that blind ourselves to conducting healthy analysis on what warfare might look like in the future.

If only to better know why it should be avoided

Rio de Janeiro is a war zone. Drug traffickers control large parts of the city and thousands are killed every year. They use military police units to bring law and order. Similar situation for Karachi.

>They use military police units to bring law and order.

Considering the level of corruption from top to bottom in Rio, do they really bring "law and order"?

Military thinkers think far out.

I'm sure they have scenarios where an armed sectarian revolt in 2040 Los Angeles-San Diego needs to be suppressed by force. The region is potentially vulnerable and critical for food security.

The US obviously isn't going to be fighting in Japan (past experiences notwithstanding), Russia (ditto), China, or South Korea; but what about the Islamic megacities, especially the Pakistani ones?

And, for that matter, what about NYC and LA? Another round of civil war in the US is unlikely but not impossible, and the military wouldn't want to be caught on the hop.

> what about the Islamic megacities, especially the Pakistani ones?

Pakistan has nukes. Please don't invade countries with nukes. And if there's one thing that Syria has taught us, or at least should have: urban fighting ultimately destroys cities leaving a near-empty ruinous shell and creates huge numbers of refugees which are both an economic burden and political dynamite that sees ultra right-wing leaders and policies voted in.

A city is a city because it's where a vast amount of people live. You're bringing deadly conflict to people's doorsteps and creating tomorrow's terrorist. This is fundamental, not something that can be solved with technology or hip new ways of thinking.

Army planning isn't about deciding if something is a good idea, it's about planning how they would fight if they were in that situation.

Imagine we decide to become closer allies with India then Pakistan, and something like Mumbai happens, only worse. India gets very, very pissed off, and decides that they've had enough.

Straight-up invasion isn't the only option. Either of those countries could erupt in civil war. Most of the time in Iraq wasn't about invading and subjugating it, but protecting the embattled government from groups like the Sadrists. The kind of scenario could happen many places, and the us could be involved.

Aside from outright civil war, there's also national guard involvement similar to the Rodney King riots where at least there were defined combatants, sort of, and going further there was Katrina vs New Orleans where crazy rando undefined combatants were shooting at fire trucks and ambulances.

I get your point but it's not unfeasible to think that a western nation may be involved in a conflict that requires operating in one of these megacities - particularly some of the Asian and African cities near existing conflict zones.

Cities can grow, you know.

> future warfare