Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

We aren't going to go to war vs the owners of Facebook any time soon. But maybe for the owners of TikTok.

China's Navy is already more numerous than the USA's Navy, and they include advanced stealth destroyers and probably Hypersonic Missiles.

I don't want to be a racist asshole like some others online. But there is a geopolitical reality coming towards us and we need to start preparing for it. Nothing against the Chinese people or their culture or whatever, but their leaders have some goals that conflict with the USAs goals, and it could turn hot over the next 10 years.

View on HN

> We aren't going to go to war vs the owners of Facebook any time soon

Speak for yourself! From my perspective, entrenched business interests have very much been at war with the people of this country for a long time.

A growing military competitor notwithstanding, the real issue we're facing here is that we've based our society around this fiction that wealth makes right - under an assumption that the wealthy will compete amongst themselves to grow their own wealth in a straightforward (short term) manner. This framework is utterly unprepared for dealing with large (extremely wealthy) actors that push in more structured and less immediately profitable directions, with the goal of reaping dividends decades in the future.

I recognize that we use the word "war" with much hyperbole here in the USA.

But when I'm using "War with China", I'm talking about true war, like the kind going on in Ukraine. I'm talking about vicious weapons designed to kill hundreds, or thousands, in the blink of an eye, and at risk of escalation into Nuclear Armageddon.

In this context, I am not taking the word "war" with any amount of whimsy or hyperbole. This isn't a "class war", or "war on poverty" or "war on drugs". What we're unfortunately preparing for is a true war.

---------

With any luck, China will back down and keep the tenuous peace and status quo.

It's not the fault of China that America waged decades of war while its industrial base was decimated by the same people waging those wars.

I'm talking about Taiwan. If China attacks Taiwan, it will be as obvious as Russia attacking Ukraine.

And the USA should support Taiwan. Not only because we get AMD, Apple, NVidia, Qualcomm, automobile chips, and F35 RADAR chips from that island... But also because Taiwan is our ally from WW2 days and we have a long history of friendship with them.

-------

Let me be clear, once again. Taiwan manufactures Xilinx FPGAs that are in direct support to the F35 project.

There is a geopolitical reality here that cannot be ignored.

The United States recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. This is known as the "One China policy".

The United States needs China for industrial and consumer goods. Our economy is brittle and will quickly break without them. This is the logical result of US policy. China clamping down on Taiwan from the official US position is effectively China more tightly controlling thwir existing territory.

Not even close to what happened in Russia vs. Ukraine situation.

The US One China Policy does not at all say that Taiwan is part of the PRC, it rather states that both PRC and Taiwan view China as one.

> It also because Taiwan is our ally from WW2 days and we have a long history of friendship with them.

Taiwan during World War II, was part of the Japanese Empire...

The Kuomintang were our allies in WW2, and were forced to retreat to Taiwan in 1949.

When the famous WW2 Pilot Doolittle did his famous raid on Japan and crash-landed in China, it was the Kuomintang who saved those pilots and returned them safely to the USA, despite the Japanese atrocities that were occurring. (Well, Imperialist Japan did capture some of those pilots... but the Kuomintang did what they could)

Communist China then took over most of China and forced Kuomintang to retreat to Taiwan by 1949. And we call those people "Taiwanese" today. Historically, they are the rightful owners of China, though they lost the civil war.

Today, we're strategically ambiguous to try to not piss off China about our different viewpoints of history. But we're quickly coming to the point where ambiguity no longer helps. We're likely heading for war unfortunately.

If only Intel hadn't spent the last 8 years buying and slowly starving the only Xilinx competitor that could have matched it for capability.

> it could turn hot over the next 10 years.

It could, but it really looks to me like it's the US that is trying to make things turn hot, not China.

China has built hundreds of Naval ships and is beginning to overtly threaten Taiwan with flyovers.

We all see where this is going. We know Xi wants Taiwan. Selling weapons to Taiwan so that they can better defend themselves is the moral thing to do.

Its the same thing as how the Russians blame USA for "extending" the war in Ukraine. Erm, yeah. That's the point. When we see evil and decide to do something to stop it, it makes it harder for evildoers to do what they want to do. And I think its a good thing to make Taiwan harder to get taken over.

-------

All China has to do, to avoid the war... is to not start it. Its not like Taiwan is in any position to attack China right now or anytime in the foreseeable future.

True, China's plans for Taiwan are hardly a secret. I was speaking about the larger situation, though, not just Taiwan.

Shooting down a spy balloon won't start a war. And similarly, sending a spy balloon over won't start a war either. Both sides (USA and China) are smarter than that.

The only thing that really has a chance to start a war is this Taiwan situation. I don't see any room for diplomacy anymore.

I never mentioned balloons. In any case, all of this is far above my pay grade.

> ... we see evil and decide to do something to stop it ...

Hilarious. Do you actually believe US foreign policy has anything to do with "good and evil," and if so, could you explain how this drove the decision to, oh I dunno, bomb Guatemala city? Or annex Hawaii? Or arm Saudi Arabia to the teeth? Or pick virtually any foreign intervention since WWII, really.

Be that what it may, I'd say that China trying to conquer Taiwan would be an Evil act.

You can try to use whataboutism to detract from this point. But the question at hand is: what are we going to do about the Taiwan situation.

I point out that your moral posturing is pure bullshit, and you reply with more moral posturing about Evil, an accusation of "whataboutism," and demand a solution to "the Taiwan situation." Sorry, I'm not equipped to handle this.

I'm not entirely sure what Saudi Arabia, Hawaii, or Guatemala have to do with Taiwan.

I see that you're pissed off about these other world events, but I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the subject matter. As such, I conclude you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism", where you detract from the primary discussion point by talking about unrelated subjects. The way I try to defeat this is by simply staying focused and avoid trying to be distracted by the obvious red herrings.

> Sorry, I'm not equipped to handle this.

Are you equipped to talk about Taiwan in any capability? Do you have any perspective worth sharing on that subject? I recognize that various people of the world have anti-American views, good or bad, worth sharing.

But with regards to this topic (TikTok ban), its clear that Taiwan and the military situation stands front and center.

> the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism"

We're so fucked.

Can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately and we have to ban such accounts because we're trying to be a different kind of site than that, and would prefer not to burn to a crisp. Scorched earth isn't ineresting. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

> I conclude you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism"

Please don't take HN threads further into political/national flamewar, and please follow the HN rule against calling names in arguments a little more broadly. The epithet "whataboutism" qualifies as the latter—it's a label that's used to silence argument rather than respond to it. If someone brings up an example that's not relevant, a counterargument should explain what the difference is that makes it irrelevant—not simply denounce it based on what side it's on.

Past explanations here if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRan...

I mean, I could use the term "non-sequitur" (ie: an argument that is ultimately irrelevant in the current discussion, designed to distract rather than inspire) but it feels like you're just following it up with the fallacy-fallacy.

At some point, describing the opponent's argument style in what I feel is going on is important. Its a meta label. If you think "whataboutism" is a poor term, then I'll substitute non-sequitur from here on out. But I don't think my discussion point changes.

It is a fallacy to distract from an argument by posting irrelevant stuff. If I make a challenge with whataboutism (or non-sequitur), the correct response is the same. The opponent should better describe why their words are relevant to the discussion. Or alternatively, change their argument's form so that it is relevant to the discussion.

------------

You're right that over use of fallacies / labels can lead to a fallacy, ie: the fallacy-fallacy. That is, someone using fallacies could be making a good point and still be contributing to the discussion. And its a mistake to focus on their poor form rather than their good points.

But the labeling of points / fallacies / and naming of those points is very useful at speeding up debates in my experience and in the typical case. It concisely describes my opinion and sets up a pattern of understanding. So I don't think its a bad thing. It very much depends on the situation.

That is to say: its only a "fallacy fallacy" if I'm ignoring the good points and killing the debate. I'm not sure if I've committed this sin in this case. The other poster seems to have simply stated "What about Hawaii?" without much elaboration on why or how Hawaii could be even relevant to Taiwan... or Tiktok.

I think you already made that core point in your first sentence. There wasn't any need to add further epithets, and when you stoop to 'you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism"' that's definitely pouring unwanted fuel on an unwanted fire, as well as arguably a personal attack, or at least something that's pretty likely to land as such with the other person.

Okay. I'll keep that in mind moving forward.

Appreciated!

> China's Navy is already more numerous than the USA's Navy

By number of ships, most of which are close-to-shore patrol boats. By volume of ships, the US Navy is more than twice as large.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

The USA's count of China's ships ignores the 224 close-to-shore coast guard ships.

China has 351 surface combat ships, against the USA's 294. Yes, our Navy is still superior by capabilities, but China continues to mass produce ships, including large cruisers and carriers. They are not a threat to take lightly anymore.

If we include the 224 coast guard ships, then China's fleet is well over 575 ships as of 2022. I'm talking only of the 351 combat ships that would likely play a role in a hypothetical Taiwan confrontation.

I mean, the US has 243 coast guard ships, if you want to be pedantic (ignoring the 1400+ boats less than 65' long).

But yes, China keeps producing ships. I have no idea what will happen in a Taiwan Straight conflict where we've escalated to open conventional war looks like. I imagine that the air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missiles will be the determining factor.

But there's also a major difference. The US has a blue-water navy that can project power globally - enough power that it's an open question if the largest country in the world with the second-highest GDP can stand up to it in their back yard. There's no symmetric threat to the US where the Chinese Navy can get close enough to the West Coast have a similar threat.

Taiwan is not a symmetric threat situation.

US Navy will have to expose itself to Chinese missiles and Chinese Air Force, and those small Missile Patrol Boats, to defend Taiwan.

China isn't thinking about attacking Hawaii or the West Coast. What China is trying to do in the near term is complete its takeover of ... well... what it believes to be part of China.

And because various F35 chips are made in Taiwan, its a threat we cannot afford to ignore. (Along with all of our video game consoles, GPUs, AI Tensor processors, and other strategic level computer systems)

Yes, the US Navy is unrivaled. But in a local, regional conflict... especially supported by the largest Airforce in the world (China has a lot of airplanes), and some of the largest ground-based missile forces in the world (China also has a lot of advanced missiles), the US Navy very well could lose the fight to defend Taiwan.

I'm pretty sure the US Navy will park on the far side of Taiwan and attack stuff outside line of sight. Missiles and air force attacks I can see. Those Patrol boats will be barely different than land-based missile launch platforms.

> supported by the largest Airforce in the world (China has a lot of airplanes)

The US Navy has more aircraft than the Chinese Air Force does. The US Air Force has like 4 times as many, and can stage a good chunk of them over the Straight as well.

South Korea and Japan combined have about as many planes as China, and I have no idea if they (or India) get involved.

But yeah, I have no idea what happens if it stays conventional, and I have no idea how likely it is that it stays conventional (and obviously WMDs mean no one knows what happens). Given the number of fast options (e.g. missiles) to sink ships, I imagine we'll know who will win the fight quickly, but it might take months to actually slog it out.

They don't really need to park themselves between mainland and China, they already have enough forces amassed on the Ryukyus, they don't even need to bother using aircraft carriers.

You probably should look at the maps of how far Chinese missiles can go.

https://i2.wp.com/missilethreat.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/...

The YJ-21 is 1500km, more than enough to strike Japan's mainland let alone the nearby Ryukyus. If the US Navy wishes to support Taiwan, we will be open to those missiles.

So? You don't think the USA has the same missiles in Japan and Korea ready to go as well? If China wants to launch missiles at Japan, what would stop the USA from launching similar missiles at China?

China isn't going to launch missiles at Japan.

But they have the capability to launch missiles at a US Carrier Strike Group who has retreated towards Japan. That means that our Navy will be within Chinese missile range during Taiwanese defense operations.

We aren't going to support Taiwan from Japan or Korea. We're going to use our Supercarriers to sail closer and then support Taiwan in a more direct fashion. But that means our carriers have a high chance of being shot at, and possibly sunk, by these missiles. And we'll need to sail very far away (far in excess of Japan) before our CSG is safe from the Chinese missile range.

I absolutely expect our Carriers to be attacked, and possibly even sunk, in the upcoming fight.

-----------

There's still a lot of ocean to hide in when our CSGs enter that missile range. It will be a matter of killing the Chinese sensors (ex: drones, spycraft, and avoiding satellites) which are looking for our carriers.

We're gonna need our Carriers to be closer so that there's a reasonable response time to scramble and defend Taiwan. If it takes 2-hours for our airplanes to launch from a Carrier and support Taiwan (because they're cowards and hiding in Japan), then our airplanes simply will be too late to help with the defense. I don't know how fast the Chinese can scramble and attack Taiwan, but they have gross advantages in terms of distance. Only a Carrier can even the odds, and that carrier needs to be physically close to Taiwan. That's just how the fight will go.

Yes they do. And so does the USA. The only question is how far China is willing to go to take Taiwan, and how far the USA is willing to counter them over the island. Technically speaking, the USA is already in the region, they placed a bunch of resources in the Ryukyus specifically as a deterrent to China invading Taiwan, and why they don't need to be in Taiwan proper for that deterrent to be effective.

The USA does not need carriers anywhere near Taiwan when China invades. They can handle everything from island airstrips. And we totally would support Taiwan from the Ryukyus, thats the whole reason we are there to begin with.

Projected Marine MLR deployment in Ryukyus and whatever JP is throwing to fortify is nowhere near "mass". It's not close to replacing sortie/fires output of carrier groups. Ryukyus is TW "alternative" in terms of peacetime PRC containment, i.e. stationing signit, dragging sosus infra, stationing some irbms, but it's just as much a deathtrap as TW proper during hot war. The argument for Ryukyus is that even if TW falls, US has comparable geographic access to 1st island chain containment, not that it's really significant/survivable forward stationing during war. Dissenting analysis (imo the more reasonable assessment) of Ryukyu posture is boils down to, marines need a reason to justify defense pie in IndoPac, but rationale not not great because island groups that close to PRC are unsuppliable death sentence once shooting starts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com