Hacker News Reader

What allies?

The Philippines already crossed over to China;s side.

Vietnam, which just 2 years ago invited the US Navy to use the ports at Da Nang, has been miffed by the loss of TPP.

Obama worked hard to build a coalition confronting China to prevent the war from ever happening. Trump's incompetence is destroying it.

And free trade has kept China peaceful by establishing that any resource the Chinese want, from any other country, they can compete for by bidding for it, rather than having to fight for it. Now Trump is threatening that.

This loudmouth moron is goading China into war and making it more likely they will win.

The TPP was a significant issue in the election, and helped get Trump elected. It even divided the Democratic party, and Hillary finally switched sides and was against it. The TPP had way too much input from Obama's corporate masters, particularly in the entertainment industry. It was a good idea at first, I think, but it was ruined by the details. It wasn't a good deal for regular Americans, only the corporations.

So it's not just Trump's incompetence at work here, it's Obama's incompetence too. He could have made a much more limited TPP that didn't give so much power to Hollywood and the copyright cartels.

All true. But it takes a president with an attention span longer than 90 seconds to fix these issues.

If instead we have a guy who just nixes TPP, then we have to take note that we do not have allies in the west Pacific in a war with China.

If a from-scratch refactor is what the TPP needs, then nixing it is the first step...

That's assuming the other parties to the negotiation will be cool with it.

We have a president who doesn't seem to understand we don't get to dictate terms to other countries.

> ... we don't get to dictate terms to other countries.

Of course not; it's a negotiation. And power plays are a very legitimate tactic to use during a negotiation. And the US happens to have a large amount of both economic and militaristic power.

And using it in this particular fashion is poor form if your intent is to secure another nation's commitment to send their soldiers and sailors to die alongside yours.

In what particular fashion is that? Nixing a deal you don't agree with? That's just a failure of negotiation, not a power play.

I don't get it. Trump isn't the only one nixing the TPP. Sanders was going to nix it too, and so was Hillary (unless she was lying). Have you forgotten that Hillary came out against the TPP too?

There was no choice for a candidate who was pro-TPP in this election, except earlier on during the GOP primaries. If you're pro-TPP, the best you could have gotten was Hillary who, considering what she said about it, might have tried to amend it instead of nixing it altogether.

Yes. Sanders also decided to sacrifice TPP, meaning no coalition in East Asia to check China.

However, Sanders has no intention of goading China into war.

You're not going to convince average voters that they need a trade agreement which makes things worse for them just to "check China". This is a big part of why Trump won.

OP Here, my whole point was America's power would get them a better trade deal. My whole point was China would not want war, and neither do we, so a restructuring makes sense.

Yet I get downvoted by idiots who hate opinions they don't have. And I replied to you to agree with you - Trump one because giving lopsided deals makes NO SENSE - Unless you're a billionaire wanting cheaper labour in the 70s...

>So it's not just Trump's incompetence at work here, it's Obama's incompetence too. He could have made a much more limited TPP that didn't give so much power to Hollywood and the copyright cartels.

If you feel a need to make a sinister choice between a war between nations and a war on the working class, you've done something very, very wrong.

This sort of statement is useless without context.

What would be the objective of such a war? Regime change? Iraq and Afghanistan are both much smaller, yet the US wasn't too good with that.

Sure, the US could probably protect itself from any nation's military. But there's no universe where a successful incursion into China leads to anything apart from massive pain for everyone involved

If we could deal with Japan and Germany, why not China? What makes China more comparable to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted there's obviously some issue with the question which I'd love to hear. What makes the situation more comparable to our recent quagmires and not more "traditional" and, in my mind comparable, situations with Germany and Japan?

Nuclear weapons and ICBMs to deliver them are the most obvious difference. The world in general is just so different than it was 70 years ago that it doesn't make sense to take the stance of "assume things are the same unless given an explicit reason not to" anymore.

My point is that a war with China would resemble a more traditional war as opposed to an insurgent conflict as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why would we assume fighting a proper nation state would resemble fighting random lots of terrorists with varying agendas?

You're assuming that what made the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions different from previous wars was the opponent rather than the advance of technology.

> You're assuming that what made the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions different from previous wars was the opponent

Is that not the case? What does technology have to do with these cases?

I would say the biggest effect is that modern media makes America much more sensitive to casualties, in contrast to the past where broadcast-style media like TV and newspapers were essentially hijacked for uncontested government propaganda. I'm sure if an expert thought about it for a while he/she would come up with more stuff around homemade explosives/IEDs, small arms, and the like, but I think media is the main one.

So your theory is that lack of political buy-in from the populace, exacerbated by our access to technology and thus free information?

If that is the case, again, I contest that the real issue was fighting an unwinnable war for no real reason. Having a true, blue enemy to fight is an important difference. A war with China would be a Nazi Germany situation, whereas Iraq / Afghanistan were clearly a Vietnam.

Your point falls through either way. A traditional full-out war is an improbability, because of any number reasons (balance of power between Russia/China/US, destructive capability of respective nuclear arsenals for MAD). With a proxy war more like recent conflicts (korean war, vietnam), a pyrrhic victory or an uncertain resolution is the most likely outcome. There's no point arguing who wins a global war in the 21st century because WW3 ends in irradiated hell on earth for all involved and would usher in the rise of whichever country was insignificant/uninvolved enough to avoid the ICBMs

If we could deal with Japan and Germany, why not China?

America "dealt with" Japan and Germany by being a few months ahead in the nuclear arms race. That specific asymmetry was what ended WWII. America doesn't have anything like that advantage over China.

To be fair, we dealt with Germany through conventional warfare, but that "we" included the Soviet Union, and required millions of deaths on both sides.

America dealt with Germany in a conventional manner, and could have done so to Japan in a conventional manner. At the time America decided it would be expedient to use a brand new destructive device that the world has more or less collectively decided not to use in a first-strike capacity.

The intent in asking the question is why does the preceding commenter feel a war with China would look like an Afghanistan as opposed to a Germany?

And what would the US do without daily imports of thousands of cargo containers of goods? How would the US engage in sustained war when a significant percentage of goods used to propagate the war come from China? How would the US "technological superiority" deal with supply lines thousands of miles long (e.g. invasion). How would the US "technological superiority" deal with being outnumbered 2 to 1?

It's difficult to just wave away these problems.

If the US' continuing presence in the Middle East and other areas demonstrates anything, it's that maintaining supply lines is not an issue for US military logistics.

And technological superiority is exactly how you fight and win a war with a 1:2 manpower disadvantage... So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at there.

How on earth do you define "win"?

How exactly can you "decimate" someone in nuclear capability? The earth can only be destroyed (for purposes of supporting human life) once. US being able to destroy it five times over and China once doesn't really help in real life. It is not like you can trade one US nuke 1:1 to stop one China nuke.

>How exactly can you "decimate" someone in nuclear capability?

That's easy: you destroy 1/10 of their forces.

If you mean anything else by using the term "decimate", you're using it wrong.

This is pedantic, pointless and wrong.

Pedantic, perhaps. Wrong? Definitely not. Look it up. "Decimation" was a term invented by the Romans, and was a method of punishing Army units who failed in battle. All the men would line up, and every 10th man would be executed. That's why it's called "decimation": "deci" is Latin for 10.

Modern uses of the word are simply wrong and nonsensical if you understand that "deci" means 10, which should be obvious to any competent English speaker who knows of the word "decimal" and understands our numbering system.

Linguistic prescriptivism is pedantic and wrong.

Did you look it up before saying "look it up"?

No, but Wikipedia backs me up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29

The only other entries in the disambiguation page are about signal processing and a comic book.

The meaning of words changes over time. The meaning of decimate has changed from its original meaning. Sorry you can't handle that fact.

Oh, and that is not to mention that the original meaning of "decimate" was "tithe," not "kill on in ten soldiers."

Wrong. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29:

"The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth"."

> Sorry you can't handle that fact.

I like how buddy proves to you he's right, and you have the gall to act like you're right.

Besides, this argument is over pedantics. My original comment stands. China is weak compared to US. No war necessary, restructuring in favour of US WILL TAKE PLACE.

Dude, this is not another DEFCON game. All your confidence is based on fact that nobody will touch north American area. Good luck with this 'strategy'.

All of my "confidence" is based on stockpiles of nuclear arnaments, nuclear submarine capabilities, missile shields, nuclear destination sites for both parties, potential first strike responses, allied coalitions, global trade, and internal strife.

China loses. Plain and simple. So, given that China obviously knows what I know, a trade restructuring is the best way for both sides to Win.

Lopsided deals from the 70s, when Kissinger gave our millionaires cheap labour from China - Doesn't work anymore.

In any all-out war between two nuclear nations there will be no winner, just two losers.

Well, we better get pretty good at shooting down missiles because North Korea has a bit of the crazy and nuclear weapons. I get the feeling that someone has looked at the Aegis combined with XR standard missiles.

I'm not worried about China. I'm worried about the last days of a dictator.

Shooting down one missile is a lot easier than shooting down a hundred. The US has had the ability to defend against an attack from North Korea since the W Bush administration. That capability would barely dent a Chinese attack.

I wasn't talking about China, just the "any" nuclear power is hopefully becomes a false statement given NK's instability.

Do you have a source on the "The US has had the ability to defend against an attack from North Korea since the W Bush administration." for ballistic missiles?

This is the system in question:

https://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html

The interceptors are expensive, so there aren't very many. That's why it can defend against a country like North Korea but not China.

Ok, but why do you keep mentioning China, I said I wasn't worried about China. I'm worried about the crazy folks (e.g. NK) with limited launch capability. China is pretty stable.

Because the overall context here is China, the potential for war with China, and the devastation that would result. I want to be clear that our defenses would not prevent that.

Fine, but that wasn't the parent message I was responding to and had nothing to do with my original reply.

Really, you think "In any all-out war between two nuclear nations there will be no winner, just two losers" in a discussion about war with China wasn't talking about China?

I provided a counter-example that is much more likely and frankly a lot more worrisome. Plus, I specifically mention what I was worried about. Comments on HN expand out from the topic all the time, and I was pretty specific in my response.

Ok. I responded to what you said and tied it in to the larger conversation. I don't get what your problem is here.

Not necessarily. It depends on defensive capabilities. It's very possible that two countries get into a conflict thinking it is a mutual assured destruction scenario, only to find out one country is better at neutralizing attacks in-transit.

As a resident of Seattle, I'd really rather not have the US' missile defenses tested.

Actually that's naive. Missile sites, response times, stockpiles, missle tech, defensive shields Nuclear submarines.

I get discouraged talking strategy with people who have no clue about modern capabilities.

Russia VS US would be game over. Pakistan VS India would decimate 50-70% of World Population - but not game over.

China has a very small stockpile of missiles. Also, All of them would get shot down, while Nuclear Subs of the coast of China would destroy every population center.

Not to mention, first strike with this capability by the US could mean no war... Just absolute and total victory.

So again, per my original point. Trade will be restructured. China KNOWS this!

A direct war between the US and China would be over in a matter of hours.

And the only "winners" would be any nations in the southern hemisphere who had the good sense to sit the war out. My money would be on Indonesia and Brazil in the short term. Longer term, South Africa would be the big winner. That'd be my guess.

I agree we would clearly win, but it would still be a worse outcome by far, even in winning, than the status quo, or virtually any othe non-war situation (even a trade war or Cold War).

Yes; I'm worried about those in power on the American side. The fact that China would lose a war against the United States doesn't mean it would be a good thing for the US; the best we could do is lose less.

A war between the US and China is most likely to result in a stalemate. China may not have the capabilities to threaten continental US possessions to any degree, but it does have the ability to deny amphibious invasion. The coast of China would be an active war zone, with neither side able to move with impunity.

Beyond that, it's hard to say what would happen without knowing who would be involved in the way, which depends a lot on how the war was started. The main land routes into China are either via Russia (unlikely to permit staging of US troops), Kazakhstan (ditto), Kyrgyzstan via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (aka the Silk Road, and dubious due to enough tensions between those countries), Burma (again dubious permission), Vietnam (which might prefer to try to remain neutral), and North Korea (which would only happen in the context of a North-South Korea war). The passes over the Himalayas from Pakistan, India, and Nepal are insufficient quality to maintain an armed front. Recall the difficulties of supplying Chinese forces in WWII.

You don't know that.

You think you know something based on what you can see, but that is all.

I find it baffling that you can speak about open conflict between two nuclear superpowers so confidently.

Nuclear exchange would mean, best case, collapse of civilization with a possible extreme worst case of human extinction. Why in God's name would you even tamper with the possibility? Or do you think that nukes would never be used, no matter how desperate either side got?

I apologize for my ignorance. How do people know of this stuff? Do the branches of military publish peer reviewed papers?