3 ms·

They do this because there’s no way to ever compete in an actual battlefield with our military, we’re too far ahead. But in the arena of elections and social me

by atonse 3y ago

They do this because there’s no way to ever compete in an actual battlefield with our military, we’re too far ahead. But in the arena of elections and social media, a free society like ours where we can’t just stop the flow of information (like China), is terribly vulnerable. So they’re exploiting it. Don’t know what the solution is. Apart from kneecapping social media companies.

tivert 3y ago
> They do this because there’s no way to ever compete in an actual battlefield with our military, we’re too far ahead. Don't get cocky. As an American, I think there's reasonably large chance that the US military is a paper tiger (at least in relation to China), because we lack the industrial base and production capacity to sustain a fight. China is the workshop of the world now, not the US, and that means that things could be really bleak once the stockpiles of missiles, etc. are exhausted. US policy vis-a-vis Ukraine has pushed Russia into a closer relationship with China, and that could also mitigate some of China's weaknesses (e.g. Russia going to sell them oil, not embargo them, if there's a hot war with the US).
- rayiner 3y ago
  This is an underestimated point. The US navy grew from 350 ships in the 1930s to almost 7,000 by 1945. The army was down to 200,000 troops right before the war. It’s not clear whether China’s industrial capacity is as great as the US was then. But the relatively small size of the Chinese military now isn’t necessarily indicative of much.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    >It’s not clear whether China’s industrial capacity is as great as the US was then PRC shipbuilding passed 40 million deadweight tons a couple years ago, that's comparable to peak 1944 US production during WW2, but sustained during peacetime and still growing. But IMO, industrial capacity worth tracking is the harder count highend ordnances that can be stockpiled enmass. CCTV7 showed off automated factories that produce 1000 cruise missle components a day. A few weeks of production = enough theatre cruise missiles to satuate entire US+co hardware in region. Ultimately, peer war boils down to making things go boom and and magazine depth at scale.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > CCTV7 showed off automated factories that produce 1000 cruise missle components a day. Do you have a link for that which is not this terrible Youtube video with a text-to-speech narration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoObgUTsZ0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoObgUTsZ0M.
      - maxglute 3y ago
        https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1634y1g7KR/?from=search https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1634y1g7KR/?from=search Not better quality, but full documentary "forging flying swords" in mandarin about history of PLA missile development. Factory is the the final segment.
- atonse 3y ago
  It's not about being cocky. I'm not trying to play some silly "My superhero is stronger than your superhero" debate. It's about aligned incentives and raw experience. While it is correct that when it comes to an actual Navy, we have numbers to prove that China is building ships way way faster, etc, to say that the US military is a paper tiger is simply not true, not in the way Russia's military was. That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). Don't get me wrong, there ARE countless stories about old equipment and such (and bloat like with the F-35), but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience. Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. Ultimately we all have to hope that our shared economic co-dependence keeps things generally in check like they have for the past few decades.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). It's not like China is standing still, either. Their military technology is getting more advanced, and not being at the cutting edge means it's much easier for them to catch up. > but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience.... > Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. The US hasn't really been testing those technologies in battle either, despite all its wars. Those were fought against weak, unsophisticated adversaries like Iraq and the Taliban. Ukraine is, just now, giving it a little taste against a peer/near-peer adversary (Russia), but it's not like those lessons will be all one-way. > Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. My understanding is China might have better capabilities in the "virtual theaters" area in both skill and quantity. I vaguely recall hearing that Chinese hackers were dominating a lot of hacking competitions until their government withdrew them several years ago for security reasons. I think it's also quite possible that Chinese hackers maybe more willing to fight for the government than US hackers (given stereotypes). I recall reading years ago the US weapons development suffers because US scientists tend to boycott for moral reasons, forcing it to lean too heavily on engineers, while Chinese scientists have no such qualms.

by atonse 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

> They do this because there’s no way to ever compete in an actual battlefield with our military, we’re too far ahead. Don't get cocky. As an American, I think there's reasonably large chance that the US military is a paper tiger (at least in relation to China), because we lack the industrial base and production capacity to sustain a fight. China is the workshop of the world now, not the US, and that means that things could be really bleak once the stockpiles of missiles, etc. are exhausted. US policy vis-a-vis Ukraine has pushed Russia into a closer relationship with China, and that could also mitigate some of China's weaknesses (e.g. Russia going to sell them oil, not embargo them, if there's a hot war with the US).

rayiner 3y ago
This is an underestimated point. The US navy grew from 350 ships in the 1930s to almost 7,000 by 1945. The army was down to 200,000 troops right before the war. It’s not clear whether China’s industrial capacity is as great as the US was then. But the relatively small size of the Chinese military now isn’t necessarily indicative of much.
- maxglute 3y ago
  >It’s not clear whether China’s industrial capacity is as great as the US was then PRC shipbuilding passed 40 million deadweight tons a couple years ago, that's comparable to peak 1944 US production during WW2, but sustained during peacetime and still growing. But IMO, industrial capacity worth tracking is the harder count highend ordnances that can be stockpiled enmass. CCTV7 showed off automated factories that produce 1000 cruise missle components a day. A few weeks of production = enough theatre cruise missiles to satuate entire US+co hardware in region. Ultimately, peer war boils down to making things go boom and and magazine depth at scale.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > CCTV7 showed off automated factories that produce 1000 cruise missle components a day. Do you have a link for that which is not this terrible Youtube video with a text-to-speech narration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoObgUTsZ0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoObgUTsZ0M.
    - maxglute 3y ago
      https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1634y1g7KR/?from=search https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1634y1g7KR/?from=search Not better quality, but full documentary "forging flying swords" in mandarin about history of PLA missile development. Factory is the the final segment.
atonse 3y ago
It's not about being cocky. I'm not trying to play some silly "My superhero is stronger than your superhero" debate. It's about aligned incentives and raw experience. While it is correct that when it comes to an actual Navy, we have numbers to prove that China is building ships way way faster, etc, to say that the US military is a paper tiger is simply not true, not in the way Russia's military was. That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). Don't get me wrong, there ARE countless stories about old equipment and such (and bloat like with the F-35), but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience. Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. Ultimately we all have to hope that our shared economic co-dependence keeps things generally in check like they have for the past few decades.
- tivert 3y ago
  > That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). It's not like China is standing still, either. Their military technology is getting more advanced, and not being at the cutting edge means it's much easier for them to catch up. > but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience.... > Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. The US hasn't really been testing those technologies in battle either, despite all its wars. Those were fought against weak, unsophisticated adversaries like Iraq and the Taliban. Ukraine is, just now, giving it a little taste against a peer/near-peer adversary (Russia), but it's not like those lessons will be all one-way. > Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. My understanding is China might have better capabilities in the "virtual theaters" area in both skill and quantity. I vaguely recall hearing that Chinese hackers were dominating a lot of hacking competitions until their government withdrew them several years ago for security reasons. I think it's also quite possible that Chinese hackers maybe more willing to fight for the government than US hackers (given stereotypes). I recall reading years ago the US weapons development suffers because US scientists tend to boycott for moral reasons, forcing it to lean too heavily on engineers, while Chinese scientists have no such qualms.