US Must Be Ready for Simultaneous Wars with China, Russia | Hacker News Reader

US Must Be Ready for Simultaneous Wars with China, Russia

usnews.com

23 pointsironyman20 comments

>The United States must prepare for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China by expanding its conventional forces, strengthening alliances and enhancing its nuclear weapons modernization program, a congressionally appointed bipartisan panel said on Thursday.

I wonder who is really pulling the strings here.

Rockleed Martin and friends

> we also believe the nation must make these investments

Interesting choice of words. Investment: the action or process of investing money for profit.

Yeah, if I'm not currently relaxing on the couch I'd look up members of this panel and see who's been donating to them/what companies are in their jurisdiction...

Edit: Well I did look it up for the committee chair: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/jack-reed/su...

Top 5 donators are all defense contractors...

I've heard three theaters spoken about more often: Europe, Asia, and Middle East

We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars.

Other democracatic countries that want to buy US weapons can do so, but we shouldn’t be spending billions of our own money supporting them if we are continually raising debt ceiling.

With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars.

The whataboutism in this line of thinking is not helpful.

Have you considered what happens if the US doesn't engage? This was the same stance before WW2, which the US eventually entered late, and cost more in the long run.

If America is to be great again, what would the previously great America have done in this situation?

Condoleezza Rice on Russia, China, and Great Power Conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA (2 parts)

> We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars.

When was the last time a US president did not have a war going on during their time in office?

As someone who lives in Europe I would prefer to remain a subject of the Great American Empire than get swallowed up by the Russians or the Chinese, and I doubt Europe alone will ever have the military might necessary to defend its sovereignty against a possible Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis. Even if the US decides to give up its role as the world's judge, jury, and executioner, how long would a absolute insular existence last, and what would life for Americans under those conditions be like?

> and I doubt Europe alone will ever have the military might necessary to defend its sovereignty against a possible Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis.

That's mostly a political/budget choice.

US: what, a bit over 300M people? EU: some ~550M? Both advanced economies.

US military might is a result of budget, raw manufacturing capability, and a glut of defense-related industry. Which (obviously) also sells their warez abroad.

No fundamental reason the EU couldn't obtain similar capabilities. But EU countries simply chose to outsource much defense design & manufacturing, apply a smaller budget, and rely on the US in several ways.

I'm sure some of this was regretted since Russia-Ukraine war started. Not sure if (given time) that's enough to bring EU up to military self-sufficiency.

I agree, and I don't think the EU will be able to militarize to the degree required in the coming years. The language differences and the individual militaries of the various EU countries make coherency on the field more complicated than it is for the US, and only a fraction of European soldiers participate in NATO exercises.

Both France and the UK have nuclear weapons. You'll be fine.

I'm assuming a purely conventional conflict since there's no telling how bad the shitshow will get if nukes start being exchanged.

We don’t know how well maintained Russia’s nukes are. US has invested a lot in deterrence of ICBMs and Missiles.

So if both Russia and US were to fire their ICBMs in quick succession (mutually assured destruction) scenario, it’s likely the US ones will be a lot more potent. Most Russians are clustered on the west near Moscow.

US cities would still be hit and it would be very devastating, but Russia and China would be obliterated.

Death toll would be in the billions.

> With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars.

This is a very naive take on the US economy (and borderline Russian propaganda). The western (and US economy in particular) relies on certain global security guarantees which for the time being are being held together by Team World Police™ to make sure shipping lanes are safe and open, underwater cables aren't being cut, rogue/terrorist states don't have too much of a say in the global economy, etc.. Like it or not, it's the world we live in. The USA cannot be isolationist and cannot abandon other democracies just like that, because it's 'someone else’s war'. It's just what happens when you're the de facto global power and your (and other) economy is based on this assumption.

You know who were paying for 'someone else’s wars' propaganda in the US during WW2? Take a guess.

Back in the day they called it a world war

They called the first one "The Great War" until they had the second one.

One reason we haven't had a third one was because the Allies went for unconditional surrender and post-war occupation, Germany and Japan are much better off today because of it. Containment of authoritarianism doesn't effect change, remains to be seen if it delays the inevitable.

Time to build more m1 Abrams tanks so they can sit in the desert unused. But don't worry, Ohio got jobs. Just think if the government created jobs programs that did things other then funnel money into the defence industry.

It's actually in the US national interest to maintain the capability - both in terms of tooling/production lines as well as know how - to produce our currently used main battle tanks. In addition, performing upgrades on older tanks, which is a large part of what the Ohio plant does, makes it possible to continue using existing tanks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com