35 ms·

It's something I've stated repeatedly: The most dangerous part of China is not its military or nukes (they're actually hardly an offensive threat at all). It's

It's something I've stated repeatedly: The most dangerous part of China is not its military or nukes (they're actually hardly an offensive threat at all). It's how effective their global propaganda, cultural warfare, and data harvesting techniques are. You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the population however you want. Even better because they gave you this information voluntarily

bredren 5y ago
This is why I suspect the attack on the 2016 US election was the most cost-effective intelligence operation in history.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  Are you referring to the response to the election results and the years long investigations?
bboylen 5y ago
Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? I don't think it would come to that at any rate, at least not in an all out war sense
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? By CCP propagandists and agency leaders trying to retain or increase their funding, sure lol. China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience, or quality tech necessary to challenge the US in direct conflict. They have virtually no original military R&D. It's just poorly reverse engineered tech from incomplete stolen plans. Remember China has an interest in trying to convey how "good" its military tech is on the global stage. The US does not. Any time you find out about some "new" scary Chinese military capability, just remember it's decades old stolen garbage from a nation that is better off holding its cards close to its chest.
  - dpark 5y ago
    > China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience… You mean the country that manufacturers virtually everything Americans buy can’t handle supply chain logistics? > Remember China has an interest in trying to convey how "good" its military tech is on the global stage. The US does not. You seriously don’t think the US has an interest in impressing the rest of the world with its military might? Why do you imagine we keep building aircraft carriers?
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      >You mean the country that manufacturers virtually everything Americans buy can’t handle supply chain logistics? Yes, there's a massive difference in military logistics and shipping the latest knock off kitchen appliance via a third party. Global economic sanctions on China would be far more detrimental to China than the US. There's plenty of alternatives. >You seriously don’t think the US has an interest in impressing the rest of the world with its military might? Why do you imagine we keep building aircraft carriers? You're right, we should just declassify everything the second a contract is awarded and it enters development. I'm talking about new R&D, not aircraft carriers. The US is very slow to unveil military capabilities on the global stage. Meanwhile China unveils their F-35 copy the second they can to try to "beat" the US.
      - dpark 5y ago
        > Yes, there's a massive difference in military logistics and shipping the latest knock off kitchen appliance. Shrug. All evidence is that the Chinese have managed to create plenty of military tech. Stolen IP or not. > You're right, we should just declassify everything the second an contract is awarded and it enters development. This is a hell of a non sequitur.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        >Shrug. All evidence is that the Chinese have managed to create plenty of military tech. Stolen IP or not. They really haven't. There's no original R&D. It's just rushed, terrible copies. Yes, there's a massive difference in military logistics and shipping the latest knock off kitchen appliance. > This is a hell of a non sequitur. I don't think this means what you think it means. Most of China's military capabilities presented on the global stage are rushed to the public eye as soon as possible. That's the point. The US has no interest in doing this because of adversarial nations like China. They have no need to prove they're ahead of the game or unveil what they're capable of, it's just accepted that they are and have private capabilities that far exceed what is publicly known (because that's the case).
ir123 5y ago
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - ir123 5y ago
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - ir123 5y ago
        I wasn't trying to argue or debate, I was trying to put your exaggerated comment into context >You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the population however you want. Your comment seems so silly, when USA has routinely destabilised countries throughout history. It's not even comparable actually. You think that the existence of some black lives matter activists proves the moral superiority of USA?
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        [flagged]
  - toiletfuneral 5y ago
    [dead]
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how bad another comment is or you feel it is. It only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Insinuating astroturfing or shillage without evidence is strictly against the rules. Overwhelmingly (and that's an understatement), this is a marker of a bad HN comment. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... Also, tired internet tropes (and canned arguments) like 'whataboutism' are intrinsically unsubstantive. Please don't do that either. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRan...

bredren 5y ago

This is why I suspect the attack on the 2016 US election was the most cost-effective intelligence operation in history.

defaultprimate 5y ago
Are you referring to the response to the election results and the years long investigations?

bboylen 5y ago

Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? I don't think it would come to that at any rate, at least not in an all out war sense

defaultprimate 5y ago
>Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? By CCP propagandists and agency leaders trying to retain or increase their funding, sure lol. China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience, or quality tech necessary to challenge the US in direct conflict. They have virtually no original military R&D. It's just poorly reverse engineered tech from incomplete stolen plans. Remember China has an interest in trying to convey how "good" its military tech is on the global stage. The US does not. Any time you find out about some "new" scary Chinese military capability, just remember it's decades old stolen garbage from a nation that is better off holding its cards close to its chest.
- dpark 5y ago
  > China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience… You mean the country that manufacturers virtually everything Americans buy can’t handle supply chain logistics? > Remember China has an interest in trying to convey how "good" its military tech is on the global stage. The US does not. You seriously don’t think the US has an interest in impressing the rest of the world with its military might? Why do you imagine we keep building aircraft carriers?
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    >You mean the country that manufacturers virtually everything Americans buy can’t handle supply chain logistics? Yes, there's a massive difference in military logistics and shipping the latest knock off kitchen appliance via a third party. Global economic sanctions on China would be far more detrimental to China than the US. There's plenty of alternatives. >You seriously don’t think the US has an interest in impressing the rest of the world with its military might? Why do you imagine we keep building aircraft carriers? You're right, we should just declassify everything the second a contract is awarded and it enters development. I'm talking about new R&D, not aircraft carriers. The US is very slow to unveil military capabilities on the global stage. Meanwhile China unveils their F-35 copy the second they can to try to "beat" the US.
    - dpark 5y ago
      > Yes, there's a massive difference in military logistics and shipping the latest knock off kitchen appliance. Shrug. All evidence is that the Chinese have managed to create plenty of military tech. Stolen IP or not. > You're right, we should just declassify everything the second an contract is awarded and it enters development. This is a hell of a non sequitur.
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        >Shrug. All evidence is that the Chinese have managed to create plenty of military tech. Stolen IP or not. They really haven't. There's no original R&D. It's just rushed, terrible copies. Yes, there's a massive difference in military logistics and shipping the latest knock off kitchen appliance. > This is a hell of a non sequitur. I don't think this means what you think it means. Most of China's military capabilities presented on the global stage are rushed to the public eye as soon as possible. That's the point. The US has no interest in doing this because of adversarial nations like China. They have no need to prove they're ahead of the game or unveil what they're capable of, it's just accepted that they are and have private capabilities that far exceed what is publicly known (because that's the case).

ir123 5y ago

defaultprimate 5y ago
[flagged]
- ir123 5y ago
  http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - ir123 5y ago
      I wasn't trying to argue or debate, I was trying to put your exaggerated comment into context >You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the population however you want. Your comment seems so silly, when USA has routinely destabilised countries throughout history. It's not even comparable actually. You think that the existence of some black lives matter activists proves the moral superiority of USA?
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        [flagged]
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  [dead]
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how bad another comment is or you feel it is. It only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Insinuating astroturfing or shillage without evidence is strictly against the rules. Overwhelmingly (and that's an understatement), this is a marker of a bad HN comment. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... Also, tired internet tropes (and canned arguments) like 'whataboutism' are intrinsically unsubstantive. Please don't do that either. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRan...