6 ms·

I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would

I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would likely reach US homeland. Don't those two contradict each other?

victorbjorklund 4y ago
No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of: - Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine) - half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades - Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups. I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - kelipso 4y ago
      In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        In a hundred years this will likely not be relevant, since the periodic elections will eventually have to go giving way to more flexible and internet-enabled mechanisms, and it's not given that mainland China will be lacking those. I'm not sure you can call yourself choosing the direction of your society if "reuniting with mainland" is the direction you are not allowed to choose.
        nradov 4y ago
        Huh? There's no evidence that periodic elections will have to go.
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        So Taiwan/China can reunite as long as the Taiwanese democratically vote in favor of this. Seems fine to me, as long as that’s the condition. I’m not sure what the Internet has to do with elections, nor how it is going to solve the problem of an autocratic Chinese state, but speculative fiction seems fine on HN.
- chillwaves 4y ago
  boots on the ground in the US would be met with extremely fierce resistance.
- nradov 4y ago
  No that's not what was meant. China has nowhere near enough amphibious lift capacity to stage a ground invasion of the US homeland. It's just impossible. But they do have a large and growing inventory of long-range conventional missiles which could be used to strike the US homeland if the US were to, let's say, intervene in a conflict over Taiwan. US cities and military facilities in Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland West Coast would be at risk.
- screye 4y ago
  Which is a (apologies for the insult) brain-dead claim. The US is practically impossible to invade, even if it did not have a massive navy. The only ways into the US are Eastern Ocean, Bigger Western Ocean, Economically dependent southern nation and Economically dependent northern nation. Then you look at US army bases, and realize that China's nearest feasibly supply-line for such an invasion would have to be in Western Africa [1] or the Solomon Islands [2]. > US defense is weaker Even if the net-size of the US forces are smaller, the US has a significantly stronger Navy. China doesn't even come close. For all my complaining about highways, they do allow the US to mobilize land-forces to any geographical location on continental USA near instantaneously. Hell, I doubt China's ability get out of the South China Sea with American bases surrounding it in a maritime war, let alone reach another continent. [1] https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1390732407880380420/photo/1 https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/139073240788038042... [2] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20220507_CNM979.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
  - thoughtstheseus 4y ago
    That’s a red herring. Why would the PRC invade the USA? That seems ludicrous on its face. Who is claiming this? An attack (likely to be some gray zone situation) is not an invasion. The panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda.
    - screye 4y ago
      > Who is claiming this? I was replying to the grandparent comment that was claiming exactly this. > panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda It's a map of US and China's bases. It's publicly known information, I just wanted to pick a pretty infographic. Does it matter if I get the weather in Moscow from Putin, if it is trivially verifiable ?

victorbjorklund 4y ago

No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.

mschuster91 4y ago
Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of: - Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine) - half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades - Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups. I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelipso 4y ago
    In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?
      - matthewdgreen 4y ago
        If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        In a hundred years this will likely not be relevant, since the periodic elections will eventually have to go giving way to more flexible and internet-enabled mechanisms, and it's not given that mainland China will be lacking those. I'm not sure you can call yourself choosing the direction of your society if "reuniting with mainland" is the direction you are not allowed to choose.
        nradov 4y ago
        Huh? There's no evidence that periodic elections will have to go.
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        So Taiwan/China can reunite as long as the Taiwanese democratically vote in favor of this. Seems fine to me, as long as that’s the condition. I’m not sure what the Internet has to do with elections, nor how it is going to solve the problem of an autocratic Chinese state, but speculative fiction seems fine on HN.
chillwaves 4y ago
boots on the ground in the US would be met with extremely fierce resistance.
nradov 4y ago
No that's not what was meant. China has nowhere near enough amphibious lift capacity to stage a ground invasion of the US homeland. It's just impossible. But they do have a large and growing inventory of long-range conventional missiles which could be used to strike the US homeland if the US were to, let's say, intervene in a conflict over Taiwan. US cities and military facilities in Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland West Coast would be at risk.
screye 4y ago
Which is a (apologies for the insult) brain-dead claim. The US is practically impossible to invade, even if it did not have a massive navy. The only ways into the US are Eastern Ocean, Bigger Western Ocean, Economically dependent southern nation and Economically dependent northern nation. Then you look at US army bases, and realize that China's nearest feasibly supply-line for such an invasion would have to be in Western Africa [1] or the Solomon Islands [2]. > US defense is weaker Even if the net-size of the US forces are smaller, the US has a significantly stronger Navy. China doesn't even come close. For all my complaining about highways, they do allow the US to mobilize land-forces to any geographical location on continental USA near instantaneously. Hell, I doubt China's ability get out of the South China Sea with American bases surrounding it in a maritime war, let alone reach another continent. [1] https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1390732407880380420/photo/1 https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/139073240788038042... [2] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20220507_CNM979.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
- thoughtstheseus 4y ago
  That’s a red herring. Why would the PRC invade the USA? That seems ludicrous on its face. Who is claiming this? An attack (likely to be some gray zone situation) is not an invasion. The panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda.
  - screye 4y ago
    > Who is claiming this? I was replying to the grandparent comment that was claiming exactly this. > panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda It's a map of US and China's bases. It's publicly known information, I just wanted to pick a pretty infographic. Does it matter if I get the weather in Moscow from Putin, if it is trivially verifiable ?