Live data from Hacker News

Why war is coming, in our lifetime

sudoscript.com

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#21
As long as the world is looked this way: Socialism is still an enemy which talks about income equality (Fair share of goods and services) Capitalism is still a friend which brings the income inequality (Winner takes it all)

We are not human anymore. We are the crazies who put end to a planet much faster than any other animal can do. may be thats what human really means.

Find the planet faster which is immune from crazies Build those rockets quicker which can fly my kid to a safer place.

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#22
This analysis doesn't seem to take into account the existence of nuclear weapons. Military escalation has a very definite endpoint. Use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable if a nation feels genuinely threatened. Wars will remain limited and proxy until there is an effective counter to nuclear weapons.

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#23
post #18

As a nationalist, I can certify that the author gets their understanding of our motivations completely wrong. Indeed, every time Trump or Le Pen are dismissed as "crazies", our resolve only gets stronger. The abject refusal of the Left to even so much as attempt to understand this incipient uprising is shocking.

> Indeed, every time Trump or Le Pen are dismissed as "crazies", our resolve only gets stronger.

Of course, that's entirely expected. I doubt this is a criticism meant to weaken your resolve. Like most political posturing, it's not directed at the enemy, but at the home base. If it also strengthens the enemy's resolve that's just an added bonus.

> The abject refusal of the Left to even so much as attempt to understand this incipient uprising is shocking.

The article takes a decent stab at trying to understand your motivations. I would summarize them like this:

You feel your way of life is under attack, the very foundations of society are threatened by the erosion of religious morals. You feel that your nation, once destined for true and unique greatness, might become nothing but a weak and unrecognizable shadow in a larger political landscape. You feel that traditional roles of gender, class, and race, are becoming irrelevant, degrading society into a chaotic free-for-all where only the weak and perverted thrive, and poor people are getting a free ride. You feel that forces beyond your control are taking away your liberties while at the same time giving too many liberties to classes of people you don't like. You feel that education and science are unnaturally superseding righteous decisions made by people who simply know in their guts what's right and what's wrong. You feel you live in the unbroken tradition of like-minded and wise people who have endured through thousands of years, and now it's your generation's turn to keep this tradition alive, which is at this moment facing the greatest threat it has ever known.

Of course, this is a huge list of grievances, and you very likely don't share every single one of them. But your concerns are in there, right? If not, I'd be very eager to hear them!

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#24
post #13

War is coming, but military power is also more asymmetric than ever. The US fared relatively poorly in the skirmish-like proxy wars of the last 50 years, but that's a different type of warfare than another world war would be. The goals aren't to win and hold territory, the goals are to create a stable environment. All the opponent has to do is create chaos with guerrilla warfare and the US loses. When you're talking…

what happens when the power is in the hands of crazies who dont know what button to press when!

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#25
post #13

War is coming, but military power is also more asymmetric than ever. The US fared relatively poorly in the skirmish-like proxy wars of the last 50 years, but that's a different type of warfare than another world war would be. The goals aren't to win and hold territory, the goals are to create a stable environment. All the opponent has to do is create chaos with guerrilla warfare and the US loses. When you're talking…

You're thinking about the old kind of war. If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#26
post #25
post #13

War is coming, but military power is also more asymmetric than ever. The US fared relatively poorly in the skirmish-like proxy wars of the last 50 years, but that's a different type of warfare than another world war would be. The goals aren't to win and hold territory, the goals are to create a stable environment. All the opponent has to do is create chaos with guerrilla warfare and the US loses. When you're talking…

You're thinking about the old kind of war. If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

> If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

The USSR tried to pursue a softer version of this strategy, often highlighting racial tensions in the U.S. and poor civil rights for Black People in the U.S. However, it really wasn't all that successful. It turns out despite poor conditions for many racial groups, a shared national identity wins out.

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#27
post #22

This analysis doesn't seem to take into account the existence of nuclear weapons. Military escalation has a very definite endpoint. Use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable if a nation feels genuinely threatened. Wars will remain limited and proxy until there is an effective counter to nuclear weapons.

You underestimate the power of the dark side. While most people think nuclear war is loose-loose, some may think differently, especially when anger is overflowing. From the logical point of view Hitler should have never started the war, yet he did.

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#29
post #26
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking about the old kind of war. If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

> If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart. The USSR tried to pursue a softer version of this strategy, often highlighting racial tensions in the U.S. and poor civil rights for Black People in the U.S. However, it really wasn't all that successful. It turns ou…

> It turns out despite poor conditions for many racial groups, a shared national identity wins out.

And it's not clear how much of that is present in China.

> If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.

Two can play at that game. (Although the long-term consequences might be unpleasant, as the U.S. has learned about its support of Afghanistan's mujahideen after the U.S.S.R. invaded in 1979.)

Re: Why war is coming, in our lifetime

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at what Mark Zuckerberg consumes, not what he earns! I disagree; what one person hoards isn't available for others to consume. Both wealth and consumption are worth examining.

That's not how the economy works. Without savings/investments you cannot produce goods or services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_savings_rate

> Without savings/investments you cannot produce goods or services.

Savings \neq investments. It's been said that one reason the U.S. economy hasn't picked up as much as we'd like in the past few years is that gun-shy banks and corporations were sitting cash instead of investing it.

In theory the optimal economic policy is one that balances (1) creating incentives for investment against (2) encouraging demand for the products of that investment. The latter isn't a given, by the way: The "if you build it, they will come" notion that demand will always exist --- and, therefore, supply-side incentives for investors are supposedly all that's needed --- rests on the "no problem, we'll just assume we have a can opener" assumption that Homo economicus normally behaves rationally, with a view to optimizing his or her economic position. Those assumptions have been widely and, it seems to me, justly criticized (as the author of the post seems to agree).

Post reply on HN