Hacker News Reader

Comment by thoughtstheseus | Hacker News Reader

The U.S. military is principally an expeditionary force. It’s designed to travel far distances. Not homeland defense. The PRC is concentrated instead on its own borders. Only recently have they sought more expeditionary capabilities. The PRC is significantly safer from kinetic attacks compared to the U.S. Our military commanders recognize this and note that a conflict with the PRC would likely reach the U.S. homeland…

View on HN

I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would likely reach US homeland. Don't those two contradict each other?

No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.

Which is a (apologies for the insult) brain-dead claim.

The US is practically impossible to invade, even if it did not have a massive navy. The only ways into the US are Eastern Ocean, Bigger Western Ocean, Economically dependent southern nation and Economically dependent northern nation.

Then you look at US army bases, and realize that China's nearest feasibly supply-line for such an invasion would have to be in Western Africa [1] or the Solomon Islands [2].

> US defense is weaker

Even if the net-size of the US forces are smaller, the US has a significantly stronger Navy. China doesn't even come close. For all my complaining about highways, they do allow the US to mobilize land-forces to any geographical location on continental USA near instantaneously. Hell, I doubt China's ability get out of the South China Sea with American bases surrounding it in a maritime war, let alone reach another continent.

[1] https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/139073240788038042...

[2] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...

That’s a red herring.

Why would the PRC invade the USA? That seems ludicrous on its face. Who is claiming this? An attack (likely to be some gray zone situation) is not an invasion.

The panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda.

> Who is claiming this?

I was replying to the grandparent comment that was claiming exactly this.

> panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda

It's a map of US and China's bases. It's publicly known information, I just wanted to pick a pretty infographic. Does it matter if I get the weather in Moscow from Putin, if it is trivially verifiable ?

No that's not what was meant. China has nowhere near enough amphibious lift capacity to stage a ground invasion of the US homeland. It's just impossible.

But they do have a large and growing inventory of long-range conventional missiles which could be used to strike the US homeland if the US were to, let's say, intervene in a conflict over Taiwan. US cities and military facilities in Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland West Coast would be at risk.

Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of:

- Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine)

- half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades

- Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources

Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups.

I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?

In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.

But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?

If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.

In a hundred years this will likely not be relevant, since the periodic elections will eventually have to go giving way to more flexible and internet-enabled mechanisms, and it's not given that mainland China will be lacking those.

I'm not sure you can call yourself choosing the direction of your society if "reuniting with mainland" is the direction you are not allowed to choose.

So Taiwan/China can reunite as long as the Taiwanese democratically vote in favor of this. Seems fine to me, as long as that’s the condition. I’m not sure what the Internet has to do with elections, nor how it is going to solve the problem of an autocratic Chinese state, but speculative fiction seems fine on HN.

Huh? There's no evidence that periodic elections will have to go.

The "overthrow" of Yanukovych in 2014 was hardly by force. Yanukovych fled because his Parliament expressed no confidence in him, and because he didn't feel like dealing with some protests. It would be like Biden fleeing America because Congress condemned him and some Trump supporters with a few guns camped out in DC. More of an abdication than a coup.

This is not true - the opposition together with three ministers of international affairs has crafted an agreement which would allow him to peacefully transfer presidential power (already violating rights of his voters), and then the protesters has continued overthrowing him regardless.

Even if he just flew for no apparent reason as you say, this does not a stable and peaceful democracy make.

None of that contradicts what I pointed out. He fled because he doesn't care about Ukraine. He now has his dream, pampered and anonymous somewhere in Russia. He never says a word.

What's a country supposed to do when its leader doesn't feel like working anymore? Doesn't sound like a coup to me.

When your (twice) democratically elected president does not care about your country, does that make a democracy?

Certainly does in case of early XXI century USA, where these claims fly around concerning both sides of political spectrum

Whenever I point out the reality of 2014 Ukraine on HN, it always degenerates with the other person making some kind of weak, petty counterclaim like this. Nobody can ever admit a simple point.

Why do you care so much about this coup narrative that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny?

So, Yanukovich ruled as a democratically elected president and then just decided he does not want that anymore and called quits?

Totally unrelated to the street violence in the capital at the time?

I'm not sure how your narrative may even stand on its own.

As I said,

> It would be like Biden fleeing America because Congress condemned him and some Trump supporters with a few guns camped out in DC. More of an abdication than a coup.

No national leader this weak and incompetent can reasonably expect to remain in power. When your people hate your decisions and protest, you have to do something to satisfy them, or they might become ungovernable. That's on you, not on them or on foreigners.

Unsurprisingly, large majorities of Ukrainians regard Yanukovich as the worst leader they've ever had.

> national leader this weak and incompetent

The question is, does having a democratically elected national leader so weak and incompetent a stable democracy make?

An obvious answer is "no", in this sense, Ukraine have always been a failure politically. Some outside parties may benefit from Ukraine's sorry state, but that's it. I wonder if you are able to draw a different picture.

And before you ask, it seems that American democracy is in a bad condition too, but not nearly as bad yet.

Seems to me that Putin thought he could benefit by invading Ukraine at a point of weakness.

The weakness of Russian imperialism will be clear to all before the end.

It is obvious that when you have points of weakness, bad things happen to you (Russia knows it like no other), so the point of a stable democratic countries is to not have significant points of weakness.

But that is not the case with Ukraine.

boots on the ground in the US would be met with extremely fierce resistance.

I don’t think that a conflict would go farther afield than Okinawa before the US used nuclear weapons. I do not believe the US is willing to lose in a way that matters.

There is an obvious answer. The military needs to be mainly focused on Homeland defense, as it was intended. Being world police is stupid and wastefull. Its bankrupted us just like every empire that over extends itself (and debases its currency).

Seems non-obvious to me. The world currency is the dollar presently. We protect the trade routes around the world. Remove that protection, those trade routes will no longer be in our favor. Whoever controls them will set up tariffs to massively hurt the US and benefit themselves.

Put another way, how do you think the US would fare long term if China and Russia controlled all international trade?

> We protect the trade routes around the world.

From whom exactly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com