Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If we care at all about our future and the generations to come, we must oppose China at all costs.

They extinguish dissent. Not just locally, but abroad. They censor our domestic companies that want a foothold in their market (Disney, Blizzard, the NBA, Apple).

We need to stop taking their money, and we need to move manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Africa. Strategic manufacturing (medical and tech) needs to be re-onshored.

They're flexing their muscles because they know they will be on top. If we continue the status quo, it's only a matter of time.

We will wind up just like them if we continue to let this cancer grow.

It will be incredibly painful, but we need to stop importing. Now.

We can play hard. Militarize Japan. Strengthen our partnership with Vietnam. Offer US statehood to Taiwan and build a base there. Dispute the South China Sea takeover, start building oil rigs, and police the area.

Be a better ally to Europe and our democratic partners.

edit: Here come the anti-US downvotes. We're overrun with the enemies of democracy. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal of conservative - we have to unite to protect our precious, priceless freedom.

I don't see this going down the path of "we wind up just like them". I see this going down the path of WW III. What we need is another cold war. Any hot war will be unimaginably costly and drawn out.

MAD basically assures no hot war, it will be infrastructural hacks, IP theft, economic warfare, etc. moving forward.

Hypersonic weapons changes that. Hypersonic weapons are very difficult to confuse with nuclear weapons. Combine that with cyber warfare and drone/robotic warfare... And it is now possible to have an all out conventional warfare style war again. MAD no longer applies here. MAD was relevant when "destruction" required nuclear weapons. It didn't really mean "you destroy me I destroy you." It meant, you launch nuclear weapons (which will destroy me) and I have enough left over to destroy you. That warfare no longer presents the likely scenario as would unfold between two superpowers.

I dont understand. Both ear sides want to win. If loosing side has nuclear weapons, they will use them eith the goal to win. Why would they NOT use it?

There are different degrees to losing a war. The end result of losing a conventional war could be (IMO "would be") much better than the result for that same side if it let loose nukes. A direct war between two nuclear powers need not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Of course it's only rational to fear such a result.

If tou could give an example (hipothetical scenario), maybe I would get what you mean.

How I see it. Let's say, russia dared to enter a real multi-battle direct war with usa, to take alaska, and is winning a bit more each day. When would usa say "we give up, please take the alaska, we will not use our nukes?". - Immediately after the start while there are no casualties? - after 1k casualties on both sides? - after going to total war mode, when each side bombs industry complex'es and later cities on the other side?

Backing down would say "nukes are not deterant anymore. Same thing can be done to us again."

btw. Nukes can be used, not only on cities, but also on fleets and divisionsand camps.

So the only way nukes would be not used if victory would be very instantaneous and total, which does not seem probable.

> MAD basically assures no hot war

Wait, wait, wait.

That's not a fact, and in fact a known piece of propaganda.

First. Even, an all out nuclear exchange in between superpowers, in an unrealistic scenario without counterstrikes, and zero nuclear attrition, a superpower like US, Russia, or China will "only" loose a low single digits of population.

Communist countries not only wouldn't hesitate to do so, but have a history doing that to themselves.

USSR killed at a minimum 10% of its own population with fully intentional punitive starvation. Mao did the same, and Pol Pot have beaten both.

Second. Even after a nuclear exchange, both superpowers would have at least a half of its military functioning, and very, very angry.

Third, after exhausting all nukes, and high-tech weaponry, both countries would proceed to a long, and exhausting conventional war, which will kill way more people than any nukes can.

America has enough nukes to take out every population center in Asia before the day end tomorrow. It’s sad but true that nuclear power is so incredible that people haven’t dared move against it.

That was not possible even with cold war number of missiles in service, let alone now.

> What we need is another cold war.

I agree, but we need to show teeth. We have to shut down their domestic growth engine, crater nationalistic confidence, and make them understand they have no path forward but to concede to international pressures.

The Chinese people deserve freedom and liberty. The Uyghurs and Tibetan people deserve self-determination should they themselves choose it.

Look what playing nice and friendly has gotten us.

There is zero chance we'll shut down their domestic growth. They're self sufficient. There is no international pressure that can be brought to bear that will be of consequence. The only thing I see being effective is providing technology to their citizens to fight their way out of it. Provide them ways to communicate and disrupt, providing resources and broadcasting their message and documenting their efforts to the world, so they don't die in the dark and their government doesn't respond with impunity. Combined with the private wealth creation already happening, I see that as a feasible way forward. Then they can join us in living in a self directed democracy mediated by the dark money of corporations and uber wealthy individuals lol.

> There is zero chance we'll shut down their domestic growth. They're self sufficient.

China imports food and energy. They don't produce enough to meet their own needs.

Their population is largely male, old, and they're not having children. As more reach retirement age, growth will be diverted to take care of the elderly.

Their domestic economy is a mystery. Investing in Chinese companies is a risk. They like to show positive numbers, but can they be trusted?

Shut off their imports and stop buying from them, and they'll have lots of trouble.

Do we need that? These cold wars run at the expense of 3rd world countries who experience them as a hot war. Good for you that no one in your country dies, but people in mine will.

Thing is, U.S. and all of the civilised world does not have enough resources for a cold war with China. It will be simply defeated the way Soviet Union was defeated - just run out of money and overall steam.

It's time to adapt to Chinese leadership and extract benefits of democracy and freedom which they don't have. Too late to keep trying to oppose it.

Example: Chinese military shipbuilding delivers more tonnage per year than the rest of the world combined. And they don't even try all too hard.

China will simply own the world in the XXI century, probably concentrating the majority of worldwide economic output in every sector of production and consumption, in as little as a generation from now.

What's left to be done is to cave in - try to be as little dependent on them as possible, make hot war unattractive to them - by being as little of a threat to them as possible, and by having little of interest for them to take too, and in general self-isolate.

On the good side of things, Chinese are very unlikely to proselytize the way U.S. does or the way Soviet Union did: they understand very well that Maoism is linked to the traits of Chinese national character and will not work outside of East/Southeast Asia. They just seek to become, and will become what they always seen themselves as being: the Middle Kingdom where all interesting things happen, with the rest of the world being just a side story. Think 1960 USA. 30 years down the road, we will for sure see it happen.

> Maoism is linked to the traits of Chinese national character

A virulent strain of communism, a disease that plagued Europe for close to a century, and even managed to put up roots of its more violent forms in the New World.

You say Maoisim-Communism is only a Chinese problem?

Not convincing at all.

Soviet Communism (Bolshevism) WAS a virulent strain: millions upon millions of even comfortably living people in developed countries wholeheartedly believed in it, and developing world submitted to it without a second thought. Soviets did not take Africa by force in 1960s - they didn't have nearly enough long range force projection capability - they made Africans want communism. Same in Southeast Asia.

Maoism is nothing like that. It is despised by everyone including China's closest neighbours both culturally and geographically - even by Vietnamese who are sort of Commies themselves. Vietnam is willing to ally with the U.S. - who it lost millions of people fighting with 50 years who and who's completely opposite to it ideologically on paper - only to avoid Chinese bullying.

But, it seems to be a good way of government for China. It works there. Nothing at all worked in China in the previous 150 years of trying, nothing else allowed to marry industrial civilisation and Chinese national character. KMT figured an alternative but only when they were already stuck to Taiwan, and only with the massive U.S. aid (which would be insufficient for Chinese mainland even under best assumptions), and only because most of Taiwanese are part Japanese and their culture had a strong Japanese influence.

Ofc, Dick Nixon also helped a lot.

Maoism:

DPRK, Indonesian Maoist insurgency, Malaysian Maoist subversion, Singapore coup attempt, Burma, Laos, Campuchia, Nepal, India Naxalite insurgency, Albania, South Yemen, South Peru insurgency, Brazil Araguaia Guerrilla War, ~10 African countries

Vanilla communism: USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba, 5 African countries.

Compare.

Yuck.

I am not from the US or from China. I sincerely feel like your opinion is born of propaganda, but not only that, your call to action is itself propaganda.

A call to any action is propaganda.

OP is calling to resist China’s rise unless they become the world’s leading power while also simultaneously being an opponent of free expression.

Many in the world do not support free expression, they have their propaganda.

Some in the world support free expression, they have their propaganda.

The likely equilibria of human behavior is the former, due to human tendency for wanting to control ones neighbor’s behavior.

Liberal democracy on the 10,000 year arc of history is more than likely a blip that disappears.

Yeah. I kind of wish people held your viewpoint more.

I actually see a lot of things happening domestically and globally as a regression to the mean of human civilization.

On only a 10000 year arc sure but kind of hoping we buck the inborn tendency at some point. Humans won't make it very long (relatively of course) without that.

Sure, doesn't change that China is a threat on an international level. Look at their land projects for instance.

To be clear, China isn’t censoring these companies - the traitors running the companies are censoring them on behalf of China.

We have met the enemy and it is us.

>"Offer US statehood to Taiwan and build a base there"

>"police the area."

So you basically want to start a process that will most likely lead to a "hot" war. And you of course would not mind countless lives lost as the result on either side.

It is nice to know we have such peaceful and rational thinkers here on HN.

I don't agree with statehood, but you could just as well argue that putting a base there is the best way to _avoid_ a war* between China and Taiwan. Doing so could be a _peaceful_ action.

*typo: "way" -> 'war"

You can not put a base in a single day. This will be a process which you can not hide from China. You think they'll just swallow it and will not attack Taiwan at the first hint of event? In my opinion it is not a _peaceful_ action but an act of a lunatic who does not give a shit about human lives.

Of course you can't hide it. And of course it's possible they may decide to attack Taiwan if it were attempted. It's also possible that not doing so _guarantees_ an attack by China. It's all a balance of probabilities. One could very well rationally decide the likelihood of China attacking Taiwan decreases by putting a base there. I'm not saying that conclusion is guaranteed correct, or that you should agree with it, but you should have the intellectual honestly to admit it's possible. Pretending such an act is lunacy is ridiculous.

>"It's also possible that not doing so _guarantees_ an attack by China."

Pissible and _guarantees_ - You can pretty much shorten it to "possible". There is no guarantee in here.

Opening US base will be much closer to guarantee. But this is mute. I think/hope that US/Taiwan are not that stupid and do not start their morning routine by planning what's the best way to provoke war with China.

Offer statehood first. If China attacks a US state, they've declared war.

Please stop taking HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, or any flamewar. We've had to ask you this many times. It's starting to get not cool.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: this is worse than I thought. You've been posting tons of comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25700845. HN is not a site for nationalistic flamewar. If you keep doing this we're going to have to ban you. No (to address the objection someone is bound to come up with), I'm not a communist foreign agent. I'm just trying to spare this site from descending further into hell—or at least to stave that off a little longer: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....

I don't think it's a good idea to nurse this idea for the following reasons:

1. I don't believe Taiwanese want to be part of the US. They already have their own country. 2. The US shouldn't counter the Chinese imperialist ambitions of annexing Taiwan by doing something that could be viewed as the same thing. 3. It's not really necessary for what you want. The US could enter an open alliance with Taiwan if it wanted to making a Chinese declaration of war against Taiwan a declaration of war against the US. 4. The US should make a stand that the independent country of Taiwan has a right to exist and support that right alone not precondition on joining the US.

I could go on, but I think this "Taiwan becomes a US state" thing that I see repeated a lot is just plain silly.

and if china offers statehood to hawaii?

the chinese will view it as a declaration of war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com