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

Nowhere is safe

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 329 posts

Re: Nowhere is safe

#51

Post by poszlem »

brianjlogan wrote: post #15

Hmm... Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict. Despite the proxy wars we've had a relatively peaceful world since WW1/WW2. Please humor me here, I'm not saying the world is horror free. The emphasis I would hope would also be for improved negotiation tactics, better resource sharing and goal alignment between groups of people. Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peac…

I think the reason we can imagine conflict easier than peace is pretty structural. Wars usually happen because of disequilibrium, and we're sitting right in the middle of a big one.

The world order we know was built by and for the US when it was the uncontested superpower. Thats just not the case anymore. Countries that spent decades being the West's cheap labor pool have risen up, industrialized, built real militaries, and they are not going back to where they were. But the West isnt going to voluntarily get poorer to make room for them either. Both sides have real competing interests, this isnt some misunderstanding that better diplomacy can fix. Its a genuine redistribution problem.

Thats why peaceful outcomes are so hard to picture. They require everyone to accept losses and nobody is lining up for that.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#52

Post by stavros »

throw310822 wrote: post #49
stavros wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who did the US bomb before 9/11? Iraq, during the Gulf War. > Who did the US bomb before Pearl Harbor? Japan, though the US didn't bomb them, it instituted an oil embargo and asset freeze. > Who did the US bomb before its embassies in East Africa were attacked Iraq, during the Gulf War. > Who did the US bomb before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103 ? Tripoli and Benghazi, Iran Air Flight 655. I don't…

The US are also the major enabler of Israel's colonial expansion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. This was clearly expressed by Bin Laden himself as one of the motives behind the 9/11 attacks. > Were you thinking the US was just minding its own business and some bad guys came and attacked it As I remember, this was exactly the way the US explained 9/11: "they hate us for our freedom".

Sure, but I'd hope any commenter here would be smart enough to not believe such a facile explanation.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#55

Post by ACCount37 »

poszlem wrote: post #51
brianjlogan wrote: post #15

Hmm... Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict. Despite the proxy wars we've had a relatively peaceful world since WW1/WW2. Please humor me here, I'm not saying the world is horror free. The emphasis I would hope would also be for improved negotiation tactics, better resource sharing and goal alignment between groups of people. Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peac…

I think the reason we can imagine conflict easier than peace is pretty structural. Wars usually happen because of disequilibrium, and we're sitting right in the middle of a big one. The world order we know was built by and for the US when it was the uncontested superpower. Thats just not the case anymore. Countries that spent decades being the West's cheap labor pool have risen up, industrialized, built real militari…

I don't think there are major unresolved economic tensions between US and Iran or the likes. US isn't, somehow, mad because Iran or Venezuela are suddenly very rich and prosperous and independent - that simply isn't true.

The closest to your dynamic would be that between US and China, and those two aren't at war as of yet. Iran is vaguely supported by China, but it's a low level of support, and it isn't China's proxy.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#56

Post by YZF »

surgical_fire wrote: post #32
gmuslera wrote: post #25

There is a layer over this that should be noticed. Nowhere is safe, because international order is a joke. You can conduct invasions for land, to exterminate population, to whatever Trump is doing, every instrument of international law was just useless, or even cooperative with the stronger offender. Which will be the ones taking advantage of this situation? China, Brazil? Everything is forgotten or accepted with the…

Precisely. I think it's sort of laughable when people try to invoke international law about the strait being closed when the country closing it was being bombed in the first place. Once your civilian infrastructure is being attacked all gloves are off. What people fail to understand is that international order being respected favors the stronger and more developed countries first. Those are the countries that depend…

[flagged]

Re: Nowhere is safe

#57

Post by throw310822 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #13
josefritzishere wrote: post #7

I find this vaguely analogous to the proliferation of cheap handguns in America. If drones are a response to asymmetrical power, the solution would be diplomacy. It undermines existing power paradigm, the solution isnn't complicated. Don't pick needless fights with your neighbors and allies. Maybe drones ultimately make better neighbors.

This is the "people are more respectful when everyone is armed" theory.

Yes, it's called MAD. It doesn't work for very large groups with many unstable individuals but seems to have worked so far for the small group of nations.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#58

Post by gmueckl »

gmuslera wrote: post #25

There is a layer over this that should be noticed. Nowhere is safe, because international order is a joke. You can conduct invasions for land, to exterminate population, to whatever Trump is doing, every instrument of international law was just useless, or even cooperative with the stronger offender. Which will be the ones taking advantage of this situation? China, Brazil? Everything is forgotten or accepted with the…

The same line of reasoning leads to constitutions and laws being jokes, too.

The simple fact is that rules matter if and only if they are enforced effectively by a community. And power is the ability to direct and control that enforcement.

The international order has declined in the past one or two decades because the UN security council was hamstrung by the enormously powerful veto rights held by Russia, China and the U.S. This has slowly emboldened those countries to de-value the UN and pursue their own interests.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#59

Post by throw310822 »

esseph wrote: post #38
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #20

We (United States) should have gone to war with Israel in 2006

The government of Israel can fight its own wars, it sure as hell doesn't need US help.

Then it should stop getting $3 billion/ year from the US. Maybe also give back the $14 billion gift from a couple of years ago.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#60

Post by krisoft »

carlosjobim wrote: post #18
Legend2440 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In orbit? Probably not. No country has operational satellites designed to attack ground targets. They would need to launch missiles or send drones. In a total war you absolutely do target factories and industry. But this is easier said than done; they tend to be deep inside enemy territory. And drones are made out of commonplace consumer electronics parts, which could be made in thousands of factories around the worl…

> No country has operational satellites designed to attack ground targets. Why are you so sure of that? It would be very surprising if at least the United States and Russia didn't have orbital weapons. They've been in sending large stuff to space for decades. Of course they wouldn't have told you or anybody else who isn't supposed to know. > In a total war you absolutely do target factories and industry. And that's w…

> It would be very surprising if at least the United States and Russia didn't have orbital weapons. They've been in sending large stuff to space for decades.

Depends on what you mean by “orbital weapons”. I assume you are not thinking of the sidearms of astronauts, or anti-satelite satelites.

If you are thinking about nukes pre-positioned in space then the 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space. And this is not just paper prohibition. The reality of space based nukes is that the time between deorbiting and touch-down is so short that nuclear armed states would treat their launch (the time when they are placed into orbit) as an attack and launch in retaliation against the launching country.

Basically if you try to sneak them into orbit and the enemy finds out about them you will be anihilated. This is just simple MAD doctrine. So the strategic balance which is preventing you from launching your ground based warheads is the same which is preventing you from launching your future space based warheads into orbit.

> Of course they wouldn't have told you or anybody else who isn't supposed to know.

I wouldn’t assume that you or me would learn about it. But it is almost given that the peer nations would figure it out. They spend considerable resources trying to figure out if you are doing this. And then they get MAD and your country is no more.

Post reply on HN