4 ms·

Even if the US doesn’t do this, you can bet some other countries like China will have no scrupples with investing in capabilities. US military dominance shouldn

Even if the US doesn’t do this, you can bet some other countries like China will have no scrupples with investing in capabilities. US military dominance shouldn’t be taken for granted. I would expect China to eventually surpass the US given the people advantage, more top down decision making across the board (protesting unpopular decisions is less tolerated), and China’s rapid progress in technology. I don’t think this is as simple of a decision as some tend to make it out to be. Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres.

mr_spothawk 8y ago
> US military dominance shouldn’t be taken for granted. Should it be taken as positive on the whole, though? Dominance is a reality that we live with, and one that the US certainly benefits in some ways from. However, there are another 7b (or so) people on the planet who suffer the consequences of our military dominion (their backyards), national interests (their natural resources), etc... > Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres. there's a bias on HN towards blaming "the tech" for all "the things"... how about: social unrest, resource extraction, and empire building? these are much less tech-centric, yet real and studied causes for geopolitical reshapement.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I bet if you looked at all the possible universes following World War 2, the Marshall Plan and ensuing US hegemony sorts fairly high even when accounting for the entire world.
  - mr_spothawk 8y ago
    "sorts fairly high" from whose perspective? Certainly that worked out well for the US, Allies, etc... what about the Palestinians? the Syrians? The Yememi? The Chileans? The Colombians? The Vietnamese? The North Koreans? take a look at a history of US meddling in the world... and consider sort of world we might have it the US military and its industry (and those of its allies) hadn't nosed it's way into all corners of the world pushing for hegemony of "Democracy", the US dollar, and their economic interests.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      I said sorts fairly high even when accounting for the entire world. to begin with, I didn't edit that in or anything. In a whole bunch of possible outcomes you have Soviet failure everywhere.
      - mr_spothawk 8y ago
        yes, there are lots of instances of technological progress, improved medicine, etc... > In a whole bunch of possible outcomes in a whole bunch of actual outcomes, you have US failure everywhere
    - briandear 8y ago
      “We are the ally of the US not because they are powerful, but because we share their values. I am not surprised by anti-Americanism; but it is a foolish indulgence. For all their faults and all nations have them, the US are a force for good; they have liberal and democratic traditions of which any nation can be proud. I sometimes think it is a good rule of thumb to ask of a country: are people trying to get into it or out of it? It’s not a bad guide to what sort of country it is.”
      - 3131s 8y ago
        - Tony Blair
- Bahamut 8y ago
  My comment on military dominance was a neutral one - I was making no judgment on it being a good or bad thing. However, if you are an American, you almost certainly would rather have it where your country is in command versus the other possibility (Note: I am a first generation American who has served in the Marine Corps as an infantryman). My comment on technology is not just confined to electronics - there is a long history of military technology affecting battles, and perceived advantages/disadvantages of countries, which results in decisions being made according to that calculus. One small slice of that history is the introduction of guns to Native Americans. I purposefully did not say it was the only cause, and it is a complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise.
  - mr_spothawk 8y ago
    to your point... there are ~350m "Americans" and all the rest of +7b humans aren't. Whatever the desire of Americans in their country, democracy would suggest that +7b people want something that looks like their country in a dominant position. > complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise. great... I didn't say otherwise.
  - kazagistar 8y ago
    There is a lot of money being dumped into war capabilities, and as an American I would rather it go into making lives directly better rather then killing for unclear overall benefits.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ourmandave 8y ago
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!" ~ General 'Buck' Turgidson #DrStrangelove
sriram_sun 8y ago
> more top down decision making across the board (protesting unpopular decisions is less tolerated) Maybe they'll get pretty good at playing catch-up with this strategy. Also note that this suppresses intellectual freedom. US will have "people advantage" for the foreseeable future because of diversity and education. For e.g. A chance meeting between myself and an elementary school principal for a school in rural Oklahoma led to a (free) "Intro to South Indian Classical Music" Skype session with some kids and my sister who lives in India! This scenario is possible in China as well, but more probable in America now and the foreseeable future. The point is that exposure to this kind of diversity sparks creativity. Google "chinese education rural vs. urban" to see the gap. This gap is not so great in America. So coupled with diversity and better education, US students are much better placed to forge the future!
kazagistar 8y ago
What's the point of being "ahead of china" in terms of war? Isn't one of the great benefits of MAD that it provides an upper bound on needed destructive capabilities, beyond which you are just wasting time?
- dx87 8y ago
  The point in being ahead of China is that MAD is the upper bound, but there is still a lot of destructive room to grow between current capabilities and nuclear apocalypse. If a country has nukes but a weak conventional military then you can be sure that the world will do everything it can to control your nukes, and even then the weaker country knows that if it uses nukes, it'll be wiped off the Earth in retaliation. A good example country is North Korea; they have nuclear weapons, but there conventional military is so weak compared to their neighbors that the only thing nukes get them is food aid.
  - scottLobster 8y ago
    There's also the matter of limited warfare and not being able to use nukes for every defensive purpose. A nukes-only approach to national security means that you nuke over the slightest provocation, which will earn you short-term victory at the cost of international condemnation and likely intervention. No one likes a nuclear powder keg. For a practical example, let's say we never bothered to invest in point defense for our destroyers and they were completely vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles. One day China sinks a destroyer as a show of force. Should we nuke Beijing? Or would it be better to have a strong Navy/Air force in place to respond conventionally by taking out the missile launchers?

mr_spothawk 8y ago

> US military dominance shouldn’t be taken for granted. Should it be taken as positive on the whole, though? Dominance is a reality that we live with, and one that the US certainly benefits in some ways from. However, there are another 7b (or so) people on the planet who suffer the consequences of our military dominion (their backyards), national interests (their natural resources), etc... > Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres. there's a bias on HN towards blaming "the tech" for all "the things"... how about: social unrest, resource extraction, and empire building? these are much less tech-centric, yet real and studied causes for geopolitical reshapement.

maxerickson 8y ago
I bet if you looked at all the possible universes following World War 2, the Marshall Plan and ensuing US hegemony sorts fairly high even when accounting for the entire world.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  "sorts fairly high" from whose perspective? Certainly that worked out well for the US, Allies, etc... what about the Palestinians? the Syrians? The Yememi? The Chileans? The Colombians? The Vietnamese? The North Koreans? take a look at a history of US meddling in the world... and consider sort of world we might have it the US military and its industry (and those of its allies) hadn't nosed it's way into all corners of the world pushing for hegemony of "Democracy", the US dollar, and their economic interests.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I said sorts fairly high even when accounting for the entire world. to begin with, I didn't edit that in or anything. In a whole bunch of possible outcomes you have Soviet failure everywhere.
    - mr_spothawk 8y ago
      yes, there are lots of instances of technological progress, improved medicine, etc... > In a whole bunch of possible outcomes in a whole bunch of actual outcomes, you have US failure everywhere
  - briandear 8y ago
    “We are the ally of the US not because they are powerful, but because we share their values. I am not surprised by anti-Americanism; but it is a foolish indulgence. For all their faults and all nations have them, the US are a force for good; they have liberal and democratic traditions of which any nation can be proud. I sometimes think it is a good rule of thumb to ask of a country: are people trying to get into it or out of it? It’s not a bad guide to what sort of country it is.”
    - 3131s 8y ago
      - Tony Blair
Bahamut 8y ago
My comment on military dominance was a neutral one - I was making no judgment on it being a good or bad thing. However, if you are an American, you almost certainly would rather have it where your country is in command versus the other possibility (Note: I am a first generation American who has served in the Marine Corps as an infantryman). My comment on technology is not just confined to electronics - there is a long history of military technology affecting battles, and perceived advantages/disadvantages of countries, which results in decisions being made according to that calculus. One small slice of that history is the introduction of guns to Native Americans. I purposefully did not say it was the only cause, and it is a complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  to your point... there are ~350m "Americans" and all the rest of +7b humans aren't. Whatever the desire of Americans in their country, democracy would suggest that +7b people want something that looks like their country in a dominant position. > complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise. great... I didn't say otherwise.
- kazagistar 8y ago
  There is a lot of money being dumped into war capabilities, and as an American I would rather it go into making lives directly better rather then killing for unclear overall benefits.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

ourmandave 8y ago

"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!" ~ General 'Buck' Turgidson #DrStrangelove

sriram_sun 8y ago

> more top down decision making across the board (protesting unpopular decisions is less tolerated) Maybe they'll get pretty good at playing catch-up with this strategy. Also note that this suppresses intellectual freedom. US will have "people advantage" for the foreseeable future because of diversity and education. For e.g. A chance meeting between myself and an elementary school principal for a school in rural Oklahoma led to a (free) "Intro to South Indian Classical Music" Skype session with some kids and my sister who lives in India! This scenario is possible in China as well, but more probable in America now and the foreseeable future. The point is that exposure to this kind of diversity sparks creativity. Google "chinese education rural vs. urban" to see the gap. This gap is not so great in America. So coupled with diversity and better education, US students are much better placed to forge the future!

kazagistar 8y ago

What's the point of being "ahead of china" in terms of war? Isn't one of the great benefits of MAD that it provides an upper bound on needed destructive capabilities, beyond which you are just wasting time?

dx87 8y ago
The point in being ahead of China is that MAD is the upper bound, but there is still a lot of destructive room to grow between current capabilities and nuclear apocalypse. If a country has nukes but a weak conventional military then you can be sure that the world will do everything it can to control your nukes, and even then the weaker country knows that if it uses nukes, it'll be wiped off the Earth in retaliation. A good example country is North Korea; they have nuclear weapons, but there conventional military is so weak compared to their neighbors that the only thing nukes get them is food aid.
- scottLobster 8y ago
  There's also the matter of limited warfare and not being able to use nukes for every defensive purpose. A nukes-only approach to national security means that you nuke over the slightest provocation, which will earn you short-term victory at the cost of international condemnation and likely intervention. No one likes a nuclear powder keg. For a practical example, let's say we never bothered to invest in point defense for our destroyers and they were completely vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles. One day China sinks a destroyer as a show of force. Should we nuke Beijing? Or would it be better to have a strong Navy/Air force in place to respond conventionally by taking out the missile launchers?