Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome to the Decade of Concern

scholars-stage.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#21

Post by torstenvl »

paulz_ wrote: post #17

I have no knowledge of this field. Certainly not enough to know if the article is accurate (haven't ever heard of this blog till now). But many of the claims seem well cited. If this is true...how maddening. How can you spend more than the next 10 countries combined and still mismanage your way into this predicament? Is there anything lumbering bureaucracy cannot destroy?

I'm not going to claim that everything in the DoD is well-managed, but don't discount the advantages China has in gaining more advantages. The PLA never has to cut its budget due to a lack of political will, and China has no qualms about riskier espionage that may get more agents killed or captured but results in being able to steal more advancements in military tech.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#22

Post by dirtyid »

ohazi wrote: post #9
phtrivier wrote: post #6

Is taiwan the Sudètes of someone ? What happens if taiwan just gets invaded, like crimea was, and no one balks ?

There have been unsubstantiated rumors for years that the Taiwanese military has outfitted TSMC fabs with explosives that can be rigged to go off in the event of a mainland invasion in order to deny China access to TSMC capabilities. The rumor doesn't actually need to be true in order to act as a deterrent -- it just needs to be leaked to Chinese officials and considered credible. It also assumes that access to TSMC…

TSMC still requires inputs from global supply chains to function, so doesn't matter of PRC captures it intact, disassembles fabs and reshores on mainland. US can sanction down the supply chain to kill fabs anyway. In the meantime, it's a source for uncomfortable détente between US/CN/TW.

If CN were forced to move in 10/15 year timescale is "quarantining" Taiwan as summarized in another recent Greer article: All Measures Short of a Cross Straits Invasion [0], and hold access to TSMC hostage. Essentially PRC can blockade TW ports and airspace and exploit period where TSMC production still has substantial leverage, and I can see uncomfortable détente continuing to ensure continued supply of chips.

[0] https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/03/all-measures-sho...

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#23

Post by ilaksh »

maxrev17 wrote: post #8

Hmm, wish countries would poll their citizens with regards to wanting a war... I wonder how many would happen?

Wars are strategic but motivated by emotional propaganda. In this case, American news is full of discussion about genocide in China. China will use it's incredibly effective propaganda machine to promote theories about heinous American acts (about Covid, Taiwan, anything).

(Just to clarify I am not saying there aren't heinous acts going on anywhere. But what I will say is that there are actually horrific circumstances in many parts of the world (such as for example, where wars were already "successfully" initiated). It just so happens that the press and the moral outrage coincidentally tend to be extremely ramped up when and where they are needed to motivate war.)

It's not possible for military or economic planners to say "look, we need to go to war or else we will no longer be able to get computers" or "our money will disintegrate" or "we need to access this area to maintain strategic dominance" or whatever it is. So whatever type of moral story is necessary to justify mass killing is propagated. Not because those people are evil liars, but because without the stories there would be no war, and the strategic objectives would fail and have very real consequences.

And it's not hard for a human to rationalize anything really. People are happy to have a moral reason to defend their ability to procure the next gadget or whatever threat there may be to their standard of living. Which often those are actually very real threats and not just about trivial things like gadgets.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#24

Post by PicassoCTs »

dragontamer wrote: post #19
sbierwagen wrote: post #18

>How did this happen? It started with a Clinton era decision to focus on upgrading legacy platforms instead of developing or purchasing new ones: >By the end of the Bill Clinton administration, the Pentagon had laid out a strategy to update and replace the Reagan-era fleets... Strange not to mention the USSR collapsed two years before Clinton took office. Hard to justify new weapons systems when you're the global heg…

If China attacks Taiwan with its newly minted aircraft carriers and large fleets of smaller ships, who will defend them? Now, I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. China is far closer and therefore has more nearby support: in particular, air support and cruise missiles. In a neutral fight, keeping our fleets outside of…

China could simply cut off North Korea, collapse it into the south and bring that behemoth to fall.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#25

Post by toiletfuneral »

paulz_ wrote: post #17

I have no knowledge of this field. Certainly not enough to know if the article is accurate (haven't ever heard of this blog till now). But many of the claims seem well cited. If this is true...how maddening. How can you spend more than the next 10 countries combined and still mismanage your way into this predicament? Is there anything lumbering bureaucracy cannot destroy?

I also liked this article but then remembered the F-35 and have a super hard time thinking we need more investment. Blame the bureaucrats all you want (I'm with you), but I'm no longer sure we even know how make the right things.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#27

Post by refenestrator »

torstenvl wrote: post #21
paulz_ wrote: post #17

I have no knowledge of this field. Certainly not enough to know if the article is accurate (haven't ever heard of this blog till now). But many of the claims seem well cited. If this is true...how maddening. How can you spend more than the next 10 countries combined and still mismanage your way into this predicament? Is there anything lumbering bureaucracy cannot destroy?

I'm not going to claim that everything in the DoD is well-managed, but don't discount the advantages China has in gaining more advantages. The PLA never has to cut its budget due to a lack of political will, and China has no qualms about riskier espionage that may get more agents killed or captured but results in being able to steal more advancements in military tech.

'Lack of political will to shovel money through the DoD' doesn't seem to be an issue in the US.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#28

Post by refenestrator »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18

>How did this happen? It started with a Clinton era decision to focus on upgrading legacy platforms instead of developing or purchasing new ones: >By the end of the Bill Clinton administration, the Pentagon had laid out a strategy to update and replace the Reagan-era fleets... Strange not to mention the USSR collapsed two years before Clinton took office. Hard to justify new weapons systems when you're the global heg…

Additionally, it kills me to see the Pentagon whining about not having enough money.

They have more money than the next several militaries combined, and every weapons program for 20 years has been a gigantic cluster-fuck. They got a blank check for the littoral combat vessel, the F-35 and these new ford-class carriers. If that stuff is worthless within 1,000 miles of China because it turns out missiles are a thing, that's on the Pentagon and they should own up to it.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#29

Post by BelenusMordred »

dragontamer wrote: post #19
sbierwagen wrote: post #18

>How did this happen? It started with a Clinton era decision to focus on upgrading legacy platforms instead of developing or purchasing new ones: >By the end of the Bill Clinton administration, the Pentagon had laid out a strategy to update and replace the Reagan-era fleets... Strange not to mention the USSR collapsed two years before Clinton took office. Hard to justify new weapons systems when you're the global heg…

If China attacks Taiwan with its newly minted aircraft carriers and large fleets of smaller ships, who will defend them? Now, I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. China is far closer and therefore has more nearby support: in particular, air support and cruise missiles. In a neutral fight, keeping our fleets outside of…

Nuclear armed countries fighting direct hot wars will be decided in a few hours. It's astounding to think that some people still subscribe to this idea of a gentleman's battle with both sides agreeing to not use their full capability while the other is killing their own.
Post reply on HN