Comment by Terry_Roll | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Terry_Roll | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

AFAIK, there is only one nation on this planet that has dropped a nuke on another country, that can put the rest of the world on edge.

Besides you cant rush globalisation, cultural differences take time to evolve over generations, we haven't had the internet and other forms of communication for that many years in the scheme of things and there are still many people on this planet who have not even used or regularly use the internet.

Whose culture is right? What is right in the eyes of the law?

Are other satellites from other countries also coming under attack and they are not talking about it publicly, making the US seem a victim when many countries are victims but also aggressors?

We are rarely in complete possession of the facts with any govt or big business or anyone else for that matter! C'est la vie

On your point about something being unsustainable, when it comes to nukes, there is more to this than meets the eye, namely energy density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#List_of_materia...

So whilst Project Fear keeps populations in awe and fear with a big dangerous firework aka a nuke, its nothing near, religions have been putting the fear of god into people claiming things like thunderstorms and lightening are acts of God!

Sometimes its best to view the news as what are they trying to change here or get out of people.

Still interesting none the less.

> Whose culture is right? What is right in the eyes of the law?

Perhaps I’m the only one who feels this way based on the number of pro-China posts, but a Chinese hegemony would likely be a world of censorship and social credit. Compared to a flawed US democracy I’ll take the US democracy every time.

This is a good point. People often lose some perspective in their analysis of the U.S/Western European-based cultural, political and economic dominance that exists in the world today. And while it certainly is loaded with numerous flaws and misdeeds, the Chinese system of government, social control and cultural management is very easily far worse in so many ways (none of this is to even mention the absolutely grotesque modern political history of China, one on which the modern CCP is founded and still adamantly refuses to reject in any formal way). Choosing between two less-than-perfect options such as these, I have a hard time imagining any moderately rational person with a modicum of interest in basic individual and human rights choosing the Chinese state as their preferred global leader. All countries pay lip service to notions of human rights and dignity, but at least the western democracies somewhat take these concepts seriously, even if they often do so in a patchwork way.

This. I genuinely think that a China (CCP)-dominated world means the end of free thought, forget about free expression.

I'd take european democracy over US democracy any time

There is less freedom and space in old europe. 1940s 50s 60s US climbed up the power curve and then Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan happened.

There will never be a Chinese hegemony. The actual decision is between US hegemony and a duopolar or multipolar world. The latter are pretty obviously preferable if you're not American or not very closely allied.

The scale of China's economy and population is so massive that they're clearly capable of hegemony.

And as you say, it's good to be at the top.

It would be irrational of China's leadership to seek anything else.

No, they can never reach hegemony. The economy and population of the US would never have allowed it to reach hegemony if it wasn't for WW2 and it's extremely privileged position in North America. Geographically China will always have a lot of trouble projecting naval power internationally because of Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Malaccas. Thus, even if it had 2x the economy of the US, the US would still be able to have a larger general international military reach.

To be the hegemon, you need to have a clear advantage over everyone else. China will never have that over the US+Europe. And by the time the US and Europe seriously decline, China will start declining too.

China's leadership would be foolish to seek hegemony. It's just not feasible short of the US going into a civil war, and if you come at the king, you best not miss. Becoming a second king yourself instead of trying to take his place is much less risky and has most of the same rewards.

Another way to look at it is that China will never have the same advantage over the US as the US gained over the UK before taking the lead. The US passed the British in economy and population much before it became the hegemon. You need more than an advantage in prosperity.

What does it mean to be an hegemony on your terms? Economically China being number one is just a matter of time, military I wouldn't count on them stopping short before US. Good luck trying to convince +1B people being fed government propaganda that they're not entitled to everything when they keep pushing 2 digits growth every year for 30 years.

You're also missing the long game of China. Probably on our lifetimes the economic focus of the world is going to move to Asia and Africa based on opportunity of growth and demographics, looking from this perspective why would they care about conquering the west when they can just position themselves very well for the long term and have a nice view watching the decline of the west society?

Hegemony means you are able to act mostly uncontested in most of the world. That's what the US can do today.

The economic focus in the world moved to the US for about 70 years before the US gained hegemony.

You can be number one without being the hegemon.

> you need to have a clear advantage over everyone else. China will never have that over the US+Europe.

"never" is a strong word here.

Tech and military wise they're catching up really fast. They have a much fitter and controlled population. Their economy is doing real good, they're spreading their influence over Africa, &c.

The US is crumbling on virtually every aspect, Europe isn't doing much better, if China and the US stays on their respective courses your "never" will be more like "in 50-100 years".

In 50-100 years China risks demographic decline. China will have an economic advantage for sure, just not enough for a hegemony.

Multipolar is going to be the most likely future, with at least 4 poles: China, India, US, EU. Probably more in far future. Talking about US/China hegemony is just delusional fearmongering.

Have you read 1984? Do you think the world is becoming like that book? Brexit would contribute to that idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Because multipolar times have been sooo peaceful......

A duopolar system is the most stable.

Why is a Chinese hegemony impossible?

Because to have a true hegemony, you need to be able to project power around the globe mostly uncontested. This is very difficult for China as they are essentially boxed in by Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the nations of the South China Sea, even if they do take Taiwan. So they will never have fully uncontested access to the sea and thus to the world, even if they do surpass the US in military power abroad (which is doubtful).

China is culturally an ancient agrarian society focused more on defending farmland than conquering nations. This is not really comparable to the U.S. which is an ideology-based nation that inherited European imperialism traits. China is not interested in controlling or imposing beliefs in the same way it's rivals are so we shouldn't interpret their actions with the same lens.

> culturally an ancient society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

> China is not interested in controlling or imposing beliefs

China is extremely interested in controlling and imposing the beliefs that the CCP is the best and should never be opposed and never makes mistakes, and demonstrates this daily within the great firewall and through threat of sanction against international media companies, nevermind the regular disappearance of high-profile individuals that cause "problems"...you know, to have a nice months-long chat with them that isn't about controlling or imposing beliefs.

> China has not had the imperial history

There are a number of formerly, currently, and soon-to-be-no-longer sovereign countries that don't want to be part of China, but China pretends they're not occupying/colonizing them by insisting they have always been part of China.

Control of actions and beliefs of citizens absolutely. But again that's to maintain internal stability. You'd need to give specific examples for the latter point.

forcing US airlines to label Taiwan as China in their maps? annexing Tibet? all the power they have over Mongolia? Telco equipment sold way underprice to members of the Belt and Road initiative? the South China sea? the power they exert over Chinese students studying abroad? none of those are internal.

maybe you're right, depending on how you define citizens - though taking a page from the British empire, maybe everyone's a citizen!

Taiwan

I'm Taiwanese, I don't agree.

But isn't that through the lens of of self-determinism? China sees Taiwan as a domestic conflict between ROC/PRC, i.e. that Taiwanese are Chinese ( Han). They would never say the same about the U.S. or Russia for example. Not saying China is correct, just that it's pointless to explain their actions or intent based on the wrong model of their values.

No.

>China is culturally an ancient agrarian society focused more on defending farmland

is nonsense just like all the Chinese netizens who keep saying that "We Descendants of Yanhuang have 5000 years of history". Non-sense, PRC happened in 1949, and before that, it's a History of ethnicities from all over the land Conquer, Massacre, Annex and Integrate each other.

EDIT:

> China is not interested in controlling or imposing beliefs

There are 56 ethnic groups in China, they may have different culture even religion, what do you think how China managed to make sure all 55 other then Han stay under control?

"The estimated 1.4 billion Han Chinese people are mostly concentrated in the People's Republic of China (Mainland China), where they make up about 92% of the total population.[2] In the Republic of China (Taiwan), they make up about 97% of the population."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

Is that incorrect?

That does not means the 3% just go "Yeah let's become Chinese".

And this is off-topic. The idea is simple: "China is culturally an ancient agrarian society focused more on defending farmland than conquering nation" does not stand. Conquering happens a lot on that land way before PRC is a thing.

Are the Hans like the Smiths in the 5 eyes countries? https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/qqunho/most_com...

It reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nxqDHHORqg LOL

The people I know, who used to live in China, HK administrative region, or Taiwan, do not talk like you write.

China is an imperialistic hegemony. Just look at tibet or xinjiang. Completely with genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide and all. It is very easy to say that you are only interested in internal matters if you define as internal any territory your ppl had any interest in the last 2-3 millenia: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-china-bend... "Thus, Beijing’s narrative about its claims begins as early as the 2nd century BCE, when Chinese people sailed in the South China Sea and discovered some of the region’s land features."

Your response is some empty trite paragraph that doesn’t even make sense. “Don’t worry, it’s all fine”

I fear the US in war.

I fear China in peace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com