3 ms·

How long do you think that would last given the prime strategic location? Do you think any other countries would like a large base 1/2 way between Asia and the

by cronix 5y ago

How long do you think that would last given the prime strategic location? Do you think any other countries would like a large base 1/2 way between Asia and the US mainland? It's sure a lot easier to take over an existing stable island than build your own, which China has been doing. https://www.newsweek.com/china-south-china-sea-islands-build-military-territory-expand-575161 https://www.newsweek.com/china-south-china-sea-islands-build...

sudosysgen 5y ago
Lol, there is zero chance that China can take Hawaii. This is meaningless fearmongering. The Chinese are going to have a hell of a tough time if they tried to invade Taiwan, 200km away (but they might succeed), what makes you think Hawaii, 10,000km away would be feasible? Also, before taking Hawaii, they'd have to take Guam, which they don't even remotely plan to. Absolute bollocks. The Chinese are never going to be economically or militarily dominant enough to pull it off. For the US to do it, they had to get in a position where they were >40% of the global economy. Even if every Chinese citizen was three times richer and that the average American didn't get any richer, they still wouldn't get to that kind of dominant position.
- cronix 5y ago
  I'm sure once upon a time no one in their right mind considered Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a realistic possibility (as in "zero chance" to use your words), yet it happened. Doesn't have to be China at all - I just used it as an example of a country currently building artificial islands for military purposes and how taking an island with no military presence (US has left, remember) would be easier than building your own. It's a very strategic location. If the US left it, I don't think you can say with a high degree of confidence that someone else wouldn't be interested in taking it over. It's a relatively small place in the middle of a big ocean that is totally dependent on the outside for survival. Again, it doesn't have to be China. And I'm not advocating for the US keeping Hawaii. Just pointing out a simple realistic possibility that if the US left Hawaii, like the OP I was replying to suggested, that likely someone else will take it for themselves. > Also, before taking Hawaii, they'd have to take Guam, Why would the US Territory of Guam come into play if the US gave up Hawaii and it was no longer a part of the US to defend?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    > I'm sure once upon a time no one in their right mind considered Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a realistic possibility (as in "zero chance" to use your words), yet it happened. Doesn't have to be China at all - I just used it as an example of a country currently building artificial islands for military purposes and how taking an island with no military presence (US has left, remember) would be easier than building your own. It's a very strategic location. The attack on Pearl Harbor only worked because they managed to do it in secret. It would have been suicidal and a disaster otherwise. The US overestimated it's intelligence capabilities, but they were right to think it was an improbable attack. Nowadays this wouldn't work. China's islands are very close to it's territory, and were preceded by 50 years of claims in that area. > Again, it doesn't have to be China Who else? > Why would the US Territory of Guam come into play if the US gave up Hawaii and it was no longer a part of the US to defend? For multiple reasons. Firstly, it's going to be impossible for the Chinese to actually hold Hawaii if Guam and it's related island chain is under US control and operational militarily. Fully impossible. Second, if the Chinese indeed managed to fully take Hawaii, Guam becomes completely indefensible. So the US is essentially obliged not to let Hawaii come into Chinese hands or it's entire military position crumbles. Thirdly, an invasion would be obvious and Guam is in a really good position to deny it.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Who else? The Mexican/LATAM drug cartels together with the cryptocoinian seasteaders, finally founding their freehaven cybercharter city, and be THE magnet for cruises from all around the world?
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Taking Hawaii isn't really in China's interest, but denying it to the US is, because that would help it achieve its goals in Taiwan.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > Lol, there is zero chance that China can take Hawaii. While it's part of the US? Yes. If it were independent? Things get a lot iffier. Enough "investment" money can corrupt small governments a lot more readily than a small government in a big one, and a full takeover may be unnecessary for quite some time. This is, of course, orthogonal to the problem of whether it ought have such independence in an abstract, principled sense of things. The good news would be that they would no longer be subject to the Jones Act and could freely trade with the US mainland using normal boats like everyone else does.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Also if it's independent. There's plenty of independent countries by china in strategic locations, and they remain independent
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Why? Doesn't the US have normal boats? What's the problem?
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Hmm...I remember this same logic being used before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8 Just because someone else would steel it, does not mean it belongs to you. What is this...kindergarten level morality.
- cronix 5y ago
  > What is this...kindergarten level morality. It could be because I didn't make that claim of keeping it because someone else might take it. I only pointed out that someone will likely want it absent a US presence due to its strategic location.
CyanBird 5y ago
Ahh yes, the classic hackernews with its US jingoism, "if we weren't an imperial power, then others would take our imperial holdings!!" Right...

by cronix 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

Lol, there is zero chance that China can take Hawaii. This is meaningless fearmongering. The Chinese are going to have a hell of a tough time if they tried to invade Taiwan, 200km away (but they might succeed), what makes you think Hawaii, 10,000km away would be feasible? Also, before taking Hawaii, they'd have to take Guam, which they don't even remotely plan to. Absolute bollocks. The Chinese are never going to be economically or militarily dominant enough to pull it off. For the US to do it, they had to get in a position where they were >40% of the global economy. Even if every Chinese citizen was three times richer and that the average American didn't get any richer, they still wouldn't get to that kind of dominant position.

cronix 5y ago
I'm sure once upon a time no one in their right mind considered Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a realistic possibility (as in "zero chance" to use your words), yet it happened. Doesn't have to be China at all - I just used it as an example of a country currently building artificial islands for military purposes and how taking an island with no military presence (US has left, remember) would be easier than building your own. It's a very strategic location. If the US left it, I don't think you can say with a high degree of confidence that someone else wouldn't be interested in taking it over. It's a relatively small place in the middle of a big ocean that is totally dependent on the outside for survival. Again, it doesn't have to be China. And I'm not advocating for the US keeping Hawaii. Just pointing out a simple realistic possibility that if the US left Hawaii, like the OP I was replying to suggested, that likely someone else will take it for themselves. > Also, before taking Hawaii, they'd have to take Guam, Why would the US Territory of Guam come into play if the US gave up Hawaii and it was no longer a part of the US to defend?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  > I'm sure once upon a time no one in their right mind considered Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a realistic possibility (as in "zero chance" to use your words), yet it happened. Doesn't have to be China at all - I just used it as an example of a country currently building artificial islands for military purposes and how taking an island with no military presence (US has left, remember) would be easier than building your own. It's a very strategic location. The attack on Pearl Harbor only worked because they managed to do it in secret. It would have been suicidal and a disaster otherwise. The US overestimated it's intelligence capabilities, but they were right to think it was an improbable attack. Nowadays this wouldn't work. China's islands are very close to it's territory, and were preceded by 50 years of claims in that area. > Again, it doesn't have to be China Who else? > Why would the US Territory of Guam come into play if the US gave up Hawaii and it was no longer a part of the US to defend? For multiple reasons. Firstly, it's going to be impossible for the Chinese to actually hold Hawaii if Guam and it's related island chain is under US control and operational militarily. Fully impossible. Second, if the Chinese indeed managed to fully take Hawaii, Guam becomes completely indefensible. So the US is essentially obliged not to let Hawaii come into Chinese hands or it's entire military position crumbles. Thirdly, an invasion would be obvious and Guam is in a really good position to deny it.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Who else? The Mexican/LATAM drug cartels together with the cryptocoinian seasteaders, finally founding their freehaven cybercharter city, and be THE magnet for cruises from all around the world?
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Taking Hawaii isn't really in China's interest, but denying it to the US is, because that would help it achieve its goals in Taiwan.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
> Lol, there is zero chance that China can take Hawaii. While it's part of the US? Yes. If it were independent? Things get a lot iffier. Enough "investment" money can corrupt small governments a lot more readily than a small government in a big one, and a full takeover may be unnecessary for quite some time. This is, of course, orthogonal to the problem of whether it ought have such independence in an abstract, principled sense of things. The good news would be that they would no longer be subject to the Jones Act and could freely trade with the US mainland using normal boats like everyone else does.
- 8note 5y ago
  Also if it's independent. There's plenty of independent countries by china in strategic locations, and they remain independent
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Why? Doesn't the US have normal boats? What's the problem?

dukeofdoom 5y ago

Hmm...I remember this same logic being used before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8 Just because someone else would steel it, does not mean it belongs to you. What is this...kindergarten level morality.

cronix 5y ago
> What is this...kindergarten level morality. It could be because I didn't make that claim of keeping it because someone else might take it. I only pointed out that someone will likely want it absent a US presence due to its strategic location.

CyanBird 5y ago

Ahh yes, the classic hackernews with its US jingoism, "if we weren't an imperial power, then others would take our imperial holdings!!" Right...