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

The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

usni.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#451

Post by Spooky23 »

ramblenode wrote: post #441
Spooky23 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US shipbuilding died because the industry died. Modern shipping is a fundamentally different industry. It wasn’t killed by foreigners, it was killed, just like the railroads, by the interstate highway system and trucks. We don’t need 150 piers and train freight/ferry terminals in NYC because we can stage trucks from a limitless number of truck terminals. Less capital cost, less labor, less wasted inventory, less chok…

> Less capital cost, less labor, less wasted inventory, less chokepoints I don't think this is a fair comparison without considering the subsidies that go to trucking, which are substantial: the interstate highway system, manufacturer and consumer auto subsidies, municipal tax codes and development that favors single family homes (further bolstering auto and road industries). Consider that most of the damage done to…

I agree, but shipping is cutthroat. They care about out of pocket cost.

In the case of NYC and other cities, it shows the edges/limits of your argument. The entire waterfront and west side was dedicated to rail, industry and shipping to support the city and the port. The meat packing district was… a bunch of slaughterhouses. We traded that infrastructure for highways. There’s good and bad aspects to that.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#452

Post by throw0101c »

ethbr1 wrote: post #435
throw0101c wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My theory is that Trump is playing the Nixon madman strategy w/ regards to trade. If everyone thinks he's crazy, he thinks he'll get better deals without having to do anything painful. Have you tried listening to his speeches at rallies? Not the clips or extracts, and not transcripts, but the full speeches from start to finish. Dude is all over the place. It's often hard to tell what planet he's on. During one of t…

I have and watched that full debate. It's weird though, because "he's crazy" seems overly reductionist. Or at least, he's crazy in the same way George W Bush was dumb. Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage.

> Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage.

I do not believe it is a façade in either case (Bush, Trump).

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#453

Post by ethbr1 »

throw0101c wrote: post #452
ethbr1 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have and watched that full debate. It's weird though, because "he's crazy" seems overly reductionist. Or at least, he's crazy in the same way George W Bush was dumb. Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage.

> Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage. I do not believe it is a façade in either case (Bush, Trump).

Bush W is one of only ~10 US presidents to have an advanced degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Un...

It's a mistake to ignore facts because they're inconvenient to what we want to believe.

And thinking Trump only won 2 elections because of other people is an difficult fit with reality.

Just because you or I dislike someone doesn't mean we should discount them.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#454

Post by einpoklum »

irrational wrote: post #426
einpoklum wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, before that war you expect to happen right in the US - current and future administrations will most likely sneak in anohter two, three, ten, fifty other wars, elsewhere.

You can't fit that many wars in during the next year.

I dread to ask this, but - which war is starting next year in the US? :-(

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#455

Post by jjk166 »

lupusreal wrote: post #447
jjk166 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A naval invasion of Taiwan would be among the largest military operations in history, requiring immense preparation both to produce the necessary equipment and to move it into position, to say nothing of moving and training all the participating forces. In the era of satellite surveillance, the US would know months if not years in advance. They would almost certainly preposition forces in proximity both as a deterren…

Chinese naval assets, most particularly their large transports and landing craft, would be extremely vulnerable to antiship missiles. They're building those anyway, which suggests they have some sort of plan to use them after the antiship missile threat has been eliminated in the region. The most plausible way to accomplish that is to paralyze the American response by having Taiwan capitulate very fast, before the in…

> They're building those anyway, which suggests they have some sort of plan to use them after the antiship missile threat has been eliminated in the region. The most plausible way to accomplish that is to paralyze the American response by having Taiwan capitulate very fast, before the invasion actually takes place.

There are a lot of very dumb assumptions baked into this. First, building something vulnerable to antiship missiles does not mean the plan is to use them under circumstances where anti-ship missiles aren't a threat. War necessarily involves casualties, and it is a perfectly rational strategy to endure some level of attrition. Next, wiping out american bases in close proximity does not eliminate the antimissile threat. Taiwan would be the ones firing anti-ship missiles, and after American forces are attacked they would have a nigh unlimited supply. Third, shocking Taiwan into a rapid capitulation is not a realistic strategy. Taiwan is a nearly unassailable fortress - with sufficient time and resources it could concievably be overwhelmed but the optimal strategy for Taiwan is to draw out the conflict as long as possible. Finally, if America is attacked, Taiwan's capitulation doesn't end the war. We have in the past fought to liberate allies who were capitulated by our enemies even when we ourselves were not attacked (see Kuwait in 1991), attack the US and the war goal changes to preventing an attack from every happening again.

Again, the reason you know they are building the invasion fleet is because we can see it from space. This isn't even something limited to the worlds' most elite intelligence agencies, anyone with a few hundred bucks can buy sattelite images of chinese shipyards. Before China is in a position to launch an invasion the US attack subs will already be in the strait of taiwan, there will be three carrier groups on permanent assignment to the pacific, and Taiwan will be sitting on top of an arsenal that could sink thousands of transport ships. America doesn't have to wait for war to break out to put these defenses in place. A chinese missile barage is not some new threat, every base in the region has been preparing for this scenario for decades now, and they still have several more years to make further preparations. Would America take losses if China launched a strike? Of course. Would we be caught with our pants down and have our military capability completely wiped out, unable to recover before the war was over? Not a chance.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#456

Post by aylmao »

lupusreal wrote: post #448
aylmao wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thus even if the US has a bigger military most of it won't be in theater on day 1 of a conflict, leading China to have every incentive to move as fast as possible and present a fait accompli to the West. I disagree. I've think we've seen and will continue to see China acting slowly on this, because their primarily incentivized to not attack. This, on three fronts: - China is not looking for a vassal state. It's loo…

A very quick war against American forces in the region followed by Taiwanese capitulation could leave the Taiwanese public largely untouched by the war, which would serve the CCP's goal of national reunification. This hinges on the US dropping out of the war and licking their wounds after Taiwan gives up on the first or second day, rather than continuing the war even though the Taiwanese government has now 'consented…

> The best time to do this is when Americans are demoralized and doubting their own righteousness in world affairs, doubting the competence and merit of their military leadership, with their own problems to worry about at home, with isolationist-inclined leaders.

I personally disagree with this read for two reasons:

1. I think this underestimates the USA's capacity to sway public opinion. Especially if it's helping on a war of defense (vs a war of attack) the USA government could IMO very much ease opposition. We saw this when Russia invaded Ukraine; a quick media and public response in support, various angles explaining why the USA/NATO should be involved (from fear to righteousness), Russophobia/Putin-phobia, etc. To this day, the main argument against the support of Ukraine I see widely and in public discourse isn't so much "is it the right thing to do", but rather just about the cost.

2. I think the USA can very much wage a war in spite of strong popular opposition too. We've seen this during the invasion of Iraq and the middle east. Most damningly perhaps we saw this during the Vietnam War. The war lasted 20 years, from 1955 to 1975, in spite of huge protests especially starting in the mid-sixties.

> A very quick war against American forces in the region followed by Taiwanese capitulation could leave the Taiwanese public largely untouched by the war [...]. This hinges on the US dropping out of the war and licking their wounds after Taiwan gives up on the first or second day, rather than continuing the war even though the Taiwanese government has now 'consented' to the invasion.

This personally sounds like a bad wager for China. They're betting a lot on "the best case". Would Taiwan quickly capitulate? Would the USA drop out of the war quickly too? Would the general population actually be largely untouched? How hurtful would it be to China if Taiwan and the USA don't act this way, or if the war on the ground actually causes major damage? Since IMO China is not in a hurry, I think it'd be smarter to simply wait; for it's own power to grow, for Taiwan's to diminish, and for the USA to lose interest and/or the capacity to fight in this possible war.

10 years doesn't sound too short a time for me haha. I'll avoid guessing time frames here, but if I had to make a prediction, I'd say it's quite possible we see reunification without an international war happening here at all.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#457

Post by aylmao »

jjk166 wrote: post #406
aylmao wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't always work this way, and very much hasn't in the USA. It's been more akin to: Fear of invasion creates massive military spending Massive military spending creates a need for justification, and ability to invade The need for justification, and ability to invade create wars abroad Wars abroad create enemies and fear of invasion

Has there ever been a period in history where the dominant military power said "okay, no one can challenge us, let's roll back our military spending" and the peace remained? I can think of a lot of previous hegemons who got complacent and lost everything.

I can't think of a period in history where most nations were democracies either, where most women could vote, or where most people had access to public education.

But alas, here we are.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#458

Post by ls612 »

jjk166 wrote: post #455
lupusreal wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese naval assets, most particularly their large transports and landing craft, would be extremely vulnerable to antiship missiles. They're building those anyway, which suggests they have some sort of plan to use them after the antiship missile threat has been eliminated in the region. The most plausible way to accomplish that is to paralyze the American response by having Taiwan capitulate very fast, before the in…

> They're building those anyway, which suggests they have some sort of plan to use them after the antiship missile threat has been eliminated in the region. The most plausible way to accomplish that is to paralyze the American response by having Taiwan capitulate very fast, before the invasion actually takes place. There are a lot of very dumb assumptions baked into this. First, building something vulnerable to antis…

The thing is that an amphibious invasion will likely not be the first move in the war. China will almost certainly strike hard to try and neuter US air and seapower close to the First Island Chain, and then impose a blockade to starve Taiwan into submission. The war would then center around the US and its allies trying to penetrate China's A2AD complex and keep food and supplies coming to Taiwan, while China builds up an invasion fleet after extensive use of airpower against Taiwanese ground installations that could threaten a beachhead.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#459

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ls612 wrote: post #458
jjk166 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're building those anyway, which suggests they have some sort of plan to use them after the antiship missile threat has been eliminated in the region. The most plausible way to accomplish that is to paralyze the American response by having Taiwan capitulate very fast, before the invasion actually takes place. There are a lot of very dumb assumptions baked into this. First, building something vulnerable to antis…

The thing is that an amphibious invasion will likely not be the first move in the war. China will almost certainly strike hard to try and neuter US air and seapower close to the First Island Chain, and then impose a blockade to starve Taiwan into submission. The war would then center around the US and its allies trying to penetrate China's A2AD complex and keep food and supplies coming to Taiwan, while China builds u…

That would be really hard considering that the Ryukyus reach almost adjacent to Taiwan.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#460

Post by ls612 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #459
ls612 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that an amphibious invasion will likely not be the first move in the war. China will almost certainly strike hard to try and neuter US air and seapower close to the First Island Chain, and then impose a blockade to starve Taiwan into submission. The war would then center around the US and its allies trying to penetrate China's A2AD complex and keep food and supplies coming to Taiwan, while China builds u…

That would be really hard considering that the Ryukyus reach almost adjacent to Taiwan.

Yeah taking some of the Ryukyus to build airbases and host anti ship missile forces would probably be an early objective to support the blockade. Depending on how bad the US is hit in the initial stages it wouldn’t even be out of the question to see an amphibious operation against Okinawa.
Post reply on HN