Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hayvok | Hacker News Reader

Population is a single, low-resolution parameter into a theoretical ship-building-capacity equation, which really needs a basket of parameters. Raw resource availability, fuel capabilities, naval training, coastline details, etc.

Great Britain historically had a fraction of the population of France and other European powers, but consistently out-produced the rest in ships and projecting naval power.

View on HN

China produces 12 times as much steel as the US, per year.

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

During a peacetime economy. Don't forget during war time, your factories are being bombed. You're pre-war numbers don't indicate what your war time numbers will be. China's manufacturing tends to be focused around the easter coast and it's rivers. The USAs is spread throughout the country. The USA is pretty good at setting up factories. My understanding is China is more into single large factories. The USA is a net exporter of oil (that greases the entire machine). China is an oil importer (not good when you country is being sieged during war).

You seem to be having a kind of a blind bias. You argue that during war time China will be less productive; and the opposite will be for the US: more productive. As if China can't target/hit back at the US. Both have massive geography and given that the US is likely the attacker, China only has to play defense.

> The USA is a net exporter of oil (that greases the entire machine). China is an oil importer (not good when you country is being sieged during war).

This seems to be their largest risk (if you are playing defense). They seem to be going crazy on solar though.

Again, China's production is centered in a specific area, along the coasts in the east and associated coastal waterways. American production is spread throughout the country. The USA has a distributed highway system for transportation. China has a strong focus on shipping lanes. The USA has a long record of projecting military power. China does not. The USA has a strong 'get shit started' track record. China has a mass produce track record. The American dynamic is better situated to recover production during war time than China.

Solar is not going to fuel missiles, ships, and attack aircraft. It's not going to grease the machines in the factories.

I think the unspoken assumption here is that China is already producing at near-maximum capacity, while the United States is barely trying and has lots of headroom.

Is the assumption correct?

I haven't been able to find a study on America's plan for local naval production capacity given such a conflict, which is kind of stunning to me. Perhaps there are classified studies.

This conflict (assuming it lasts multiple years) would play out across the Pacific, possibly offering replays of old Pacific battles from WW2. Large numbers of naval assets and expeditionary forces squaring off across millions of square miles of blue-water ocean. Lots of naval tonnage attrition.

America is either guarding it's planned production capabilities close to the chest, or they anticipate winning such a conflict quickly without the tonnage attrition I just referenced.

Or my searching skills are weak.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com