4 ms·

I don't see this going down the path of "we wind up just like them". I see this going down the path of WW III. What we need is another cold war. Any hot war wil

I don't see this going down the path of "we wind up just like them". I see this going down the path of WW III. What we need is another cold war. Any hot war will be unimaginably costly and drawn out.

echelon 6y ago
> What we need is another cold war. I agree, but we need to show teeth. We have to shut down their domestic growth engine, crater nationalistic confidence, and make them understand they have no path forward but to concede to international pressures. The Chinese people deserve freedom and liberty. The Uyghurs and Tibetan people deserve self-determination should they themselves choose it. Look what playing nice and friendly has gotten us.
- patagonia 6y ago
  There is zero chance we'll shut down their domestic growth. They're self sufficient. There is no international pressure that can be brought to bear that will be of consequence. The only thing I see being effective is providing technology to their citizens to fight their way out of it. Provide them ways to communicate and disrupt, providing resources and broadcasting their message and documenting their efforts to the world, so they don't die in the dark and their government doesn't respond with impunity. Combined with the private wealth creation already happening, I see that as a feasible way forward. Then they can join us in living in a self directed democracy mediated by the dark money of corporations and uber wealthy individuals lol.
  - echelon 6y ago
    > There is zero chance we'll shut down their domestic growth. They're self sufficient. China imports food and energy. They don't produce enough to meet their own needs. Their population is largely male, old, and they're not having children. As more reach retirement age, growth will be diverted to take care of the elderly. Their domestic economy is a mystery. Investing in Chinese companies is a risk. They like to show positive numbers, but can they be trusted? Shut off their imports and stop buying from them, and they'll have lots of trouble.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
MAD basically assures no hot war, it will be infrastructural hacks, IP theft, economic warfare, etc. moving forward.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- patagonia 6y ago
  Hypersonic weapons changes that. Hypersonic weapons are very difficult to confuse with nuclear weapons. Combine that with cyber warfare and drone/robotic warfare... And it is now possible to have an all out conventional warfare style war again. MAD no longer applies here. MAD was relevant when "destruction" required nuclear weapons. It didn't really mean "you destroy me I destroy you." It meant, you launch nuclear weapons (which will destroy me) and I have enough left over to destroy you. That warfare no longer presents the likely scenario as would unfold between two superpowers.
  - nytgop77 6y ago
    I dont understand. Both ear sides want to win. If loosing side has nuclear weapons, they will use them eith the goal to win. Why would they NOT use it?
    - CogitoCogito 6y ago
      There are different degrees to losing a war. The end result of losing a conventional war could be (IMO "would be") much better than the result for that same side if it let loose nukes. A direct war between two nuclear powers need not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Of course it's only rational to fear such a result.
      - nytgop77 6y ago
        If tou could give an example (hipothetical scenario), maybe I would get what you mean. How I see it. Let's say, russia dared to enter a real multi-battle direct war with usa, to take alaska, and is winning a bit more each day. When would usa say "we give up, please take the alaska, we will not use our nukes?". - Immediately after the start while there are no casualties? - after 1k casualties on both sides? - after going to total war mode, when each side bombs industry complex'es and later cities on the other side? Backing down would say "nukes are not deterant anymore. Same thing can be done to us again." btw. Nukes can be used, not only on cities, but also on fleets and divisionsand camps. So the only way nukes would be not used if victory would be very instantaneous and total, which does not seem probable.
greatgirl 6y ago
Do we need that? These cold wars run at the expense of 3rd world countries who experience them as a hot war. Good for you that no one in your country dies, but people in mine will.

I don't see this going down the path of "we wind up just like them". I see this going down the path of WW III. What we need is another cold war. Any hot war will be unimaginably costly and drawn out.

echelon 6y ago

> What we need is another cold war. I agree, but we need to show teeth. We have to shut down their domestic growth engine, crater nationalistic confidence, and make them understand they have no path forward but to concede to international pressures. The Chinese people deserve freedom and liberty. The Uyghurs and Tibetan people deserve self-determination should they themselves choose it. Look what playing nice and friendly has gotten us.

patagonia 6y ago
There is zero chance we'll shut down their domestic growth. They're self sufficient. There is no international pressure that can be brought to bear that will be of consequence. The only thing I see being effective is providing technology to their citizens to fight their way out of it. Provide them ways to communicate and disrupt, providing resources and broadcasting their message and documenting their efforts to the world, so they don't die in the dark and their government doesn't respond with impunity. Combined with the private wealth creation already happening, I see that as a feasible way forward. Then they can join us in living in a self directed democracy mediated by the dark money of corporations and uber wealthy individuals lol.
- echelon 6y ago
  > There is zero chance we'll shut down their domestic growth. They're self sufficient. China imports food and energy. They don't produce enough to meet their own needs. Their population is largely male, old, and they're not having children. As more reach retirement age, growth will be diverted to take care of the elderly. Their domestic economy is a mystery. Investing in Chinese companies is a risk. They like to show positive numbers, but can they be trusted? Shut off their imports and stop buying from them, and they'll have lots of trouble.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

MAD basically assures no hot war, it will be infrastructural hacks, IP theft, economic warfare, etc. moving forward.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
patagonia 6y ago
Hypersonic weapons changes that. Hypersonic weapons are very difficult to confuse with nuclear weapons. Combine that with cyber warfare and drone/robotic warfare... And it is now possible to have an all out conventional warfare style war again. MAD no longer applies here. MAD was relevant when "destruction" required nuclear weapons. It didn't really mean "you destroy me I destroy you." It meant, you launch nuclear weapons (which will destroy me) and I have enough left over to destroy you. That warfare no longer presents the likely scenario as would unfold between two superpowers.
- nytgop77 6y ago
  I dont understand. Both ear sides want to win. If loosing side has nuclear weapons, they will use them eith the goal to win. Why would they NOT use it?
  - CogitoCogito 6y ago
    There are different degrees to losing a war. The end result of losing a conventional war could be (IMO "would be") much better than the result for that same side if it let loose nukes. A direct war between two nuclear powers need not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Of course it's only rational to fear such a result.
    - nytgop77 6y ago
      If tou could give an example (hipothetical scenario), maybe I would get what you mean. How I see it. Let's say, russia dared to enter a real multi-battle direct war with usa, to take alaska, and is winning a bit more each day. When would usa say "we give up, please take the alaska, we will not use our nukes?". - Immediately after the start while there are no casualties? - after 1k casualties on both sides? - after going to total war mode, when each side bombs industry complex'es and later cities on the other side? Backing down would say "nukes are not deterant anymore. Same thing can be done to us again." btw. Nukes can be used, not only on cities, but also on fleets and divisionsand camps. So the only way nukes would be not used if victory would be very instantaneous and total, which does not seem probable.

greatgirl 6y ago

Do we need that? These cold wars run at the expense of 3rd world countries who experience them as a hot war. Good for you that no one in your country dies, but people in mine will.