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

Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

gao.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#51

Post by margalabargala »

nemomarx wrote: post #36
petcat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of nuance missing in public discourse about the US threats of leaving NATO, stopping direct arms support of Ukraine (except for intelligence), and generally scaring NATO members and Europe into funding their own defense. Every USA president since the fall of the Berlin Wall has implored NATO members take control of their own defense. The US has long since abandoned the two theater war doctrine. The US…

How's the Iran thing figure in, then? That's a lot of the stockpile used up before China starts.

The point made by the parent comment should not be taken to mean that the Trump administration strategically accomplished the aforementioned goals, just that they were, in a vacuum, accomplished.

If you're saying that it seems to you that the tactical goal was accomplished at the expense of the broader historical strategy, I would respond that yes, it does seem that way.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#52

Post by znort_ »

ifwinterco wrote: post #39
seydor wrote: post #5

Why is everyone preparing for war so hard

War is profitable and the people who profit run the US and Europe

that's one term of the equation. the other is that war is the tool of banking cartels.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#55

Post by nemomarx »

margalabargala wrote: post #51
nemomarx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's the Iran thing figure in, then? That's a lot of the stockpile used up before China starts.

The point made by the parent comment should not be taken to mean that the Trump administration strategically accomplished the aforementioned goals, just that they were, in a vacuum, accomplished. If you're saying that it seems to you that the tactical goal was accomplished at the expense of the broader historical strategy, I would respond that yes, it does seem that way.

I'm also personally a little skeptical that the current administration would actually go to war with China over, say, Taiwan or control of the South Sea or so on. Maybe they are keeping that in mind, maybe they're just isolationist in general?

Whether the admin would have done anything to Iran without being asked by Israel is a big open question for me here.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#56

Post by jandrewrogers »

Jalad wrote: post #33
jandrewrogers wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more. As time has passed, reality has not diverged from those models, so confidence in the conclusions have grown. It is worth noting that this pre-dates current political dramas, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, etc. The underlying strategic geopolitics drivi…

> A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more Do you have more information about this, or a source?

This has been discussed in strategic geopolitical circles for a long time. When surveying defense analysts and similar if they believe a "great powers conflict" will occur in the near future, the percentage that say yes has been rising rapidly (currently 40-50%). If you search for "probability of global war in $YEAR" you will find a lot of discussion of varying quality.

The major alignment is almost always assumed to be something like Russia/China vs Europe/US/Japan.

You can find circumstantial evidence for this in the change in military posture of many countries and rapid scaling of production capacity. Some random examples:

French General states that they are preparing for open war in "3-4 years" in 2025:

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-top-general-expects-s...

Sweden increases defense spending by 40% starting in 2021:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/15/sweden-...

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#57

Post by ceejayoz »

Someone1234 wrote: post #26
idiotsecant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is not an irrational actor. They know that the most effective way to take Taiwan is slowly, through soft power and political subterfuge. There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault.

> There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault. Perhaps, but in the last year China did build these: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/stairway-to-tai...

Unless China has some very interesting new anti-drone tech, those look like nice big targets.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#58

Post by [deleted] »

goalieca wrote: post #8
seydor wrote: post #5

Why is everyone preparing for war so hard

Because China has stated they will take Taiwan, they have been threatening Philippines sovereignty too. Japan and others are on edge too. China currently has been behaving very adversarial and has a huge fraction of the minerals under their control that this article is posting about. I think sovereignty is a good thing. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

[deleted]

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#59

Post by [deleted] »

goalieca wrote: post #8
seydor wrote: post #5

Why is everyone preparing for war so hard

Because China has stated they will take Taiwan, they have been threatening Philippines sovereignty too. Japan and others are on edge too. China currently has been behaving very adversarial and has a huge fraction of the minerals under their control that this article is posting about. I think sovereignty is a good thing. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN