6 ms·

Note, this isn't going to be a surprise attack. China is developing access to hold the infrastructure at risk as a retaliation/deterrent for an American attack

Note, this isn't going to be a surprise attack. China is developing access to hold the infrastructure at risk as a retaliation/deterrent for an American attack on China. It is highly likely that the US has achieved similar levels of penetration into Chinese critical infrastructure for its own use in conflict contingency. The actual deterrent effect of this is unlikely to, on its own, prevent the US from agitating a war on or within China. War is not inevitable, just structurally likely, due to the so called "Thucydides Trap." China's rise in economic and military power in an of itself critically endangers US security interests of being uncontested dominant power.

consumer451 2y ago
> retaliation/deterrent for an American attack on China. Just to be clear, what are we talking about here exactly? I am 99.99999%, no I am 100% sure, that even "US China hawks" do not want to invade China. The alternative sounds like "NATO invading Russia" irrational paranoia which serves to keep the local population in nationalist fervor, while there is no actual threat. It really sounds like we are calling the free-world's reaction to the possible CCP invasion of Taiwan, to be an attack on China? Is the USA training its population for war like China? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUaYNhzEq_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUaYNhzEq_E Please note that the YouTuber linked above, used to live in, and loved living in China, prior to the Xi Jinping take-over.
- opt-skept 2y ago
  > Just to be clear, what are we talking about here exactly? An ostensible war would be to set back China's growth and its trajectory of growth. The US has little interest in governing such a large country.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    I feel like we, as in our press and tbh all of us, repeat terms as they are presented by other countries as if they were peer Democracies, no questions asked. Putin is President of the Russian Federation. Not dictator, not authoritarian leader who murders his opponents, nope "President." Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China. Yup, it's a Republic. Not a single party state, and he is not the Emperor, whose opponents keep mysteriously dying. It's totally normal. He's just the "President" of China. Can anyone with journalism experience explain to me how this works?
    - opt-skept 2y ago
      I'm a bit confused about the question and how this relates to the topic. I don't know how many journalists are lurking non-front page HN stories, so you'll probably get a non-journalist answer to the question (if anyone ventures, I'll try). I think you may be trying to ask a question about structuralist/realist theories of international relations, vs constructivist theories of international relations. Basically "sure there's some structuralist arguments, re: Thucydides, that the US should be expected to agitate for conflict, but what about democracy vs non-democracy - can't that better or equally explain sources of conflict?" If that's what you mean you could look at the many places in the world where authoritarianism is recognized, accepted, even partnered with the United States (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, ...). In these cases you'll find the US partners with these allies, emboldens and arms them, due to shared structural/realist interests. As far as the naming of people's titles around the world. I very often read glib/vitriolic denigrations of the specific people you've mentioned in US press. These articles tend to be intended more for domestic catharsis/rallying than it is to be accurate/analytical, although sometimes the articles are very good and I assume the editors make those changes based on guidelines/policy. To learn more about governments around the world I would point to the CIA World Fact Book, which uses a taxonomic approach to classifying various systems. The CIA considers Russia to be a "semi-presidential federation" and indeed Putin is elected and extremely popular. (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#government https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#gov...). The CIA considers China to be a "communist party-led state" and indeed Jinping is the factually elected president of the single communist party. (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#government https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#gove...). Learning more about other leaders in these countries - their parliaments, their ministries, their election processes, their legislation drafting processes, etc - can help to abate some of the instincts to assume that political systems, because they aren't understood, are hostage/authoritarian situations. A good exercise is to learn at least ten other important officials from a given country and their roles for leading that country. I think trying this exercise yourself could help you answer your question above.
      - consumer451 2y ago
haburka 2y ago
I don’t think the US has a similar level of penetration. They don’t let people who smoke weed work for the federal government. Additionally, the pay and job is just worse than doing cyber security for big tech. This means any decent hackers stay very far away from working for the feds.
- CobaltFire 2y ago
  There are quite a few scary competent people working on this type of thing in various places in the federal government. Not everyone wants to work on the stuff that SV pays for, or the finance people pay for.
- Starman_Jones 2y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but let me offer a different perspective. There's a certain class of individual who loves the challenge of "breaking" something, but prefers the reduced problem space, risk mitigation, and formal validation that such a job provides. Look at the schools with the top cybersecurity competition teams, and you'll find fertile recruiting ground for such individuals. The NSA knows this, and actively recruits these individuals from these schools. Arguably, they provide a more comfortable working environment for those so inclined than your typical big tech job would provide. With regards to the effectiveness, the recent Kaspersky hacks should show that the feds have some capability in this regard.
wumeow 2y ago
This is some wild mental gymnastics. The US is not the one agitating a war.
- opt-skept 2y ago
  Could you add some more information about what steps of reasoning you find unsound, or what reasons you believe China would have to agitate for a conflict? The "Thucydides Trap" and its application to Sino-American conflict is not something that I've made up or is a personal opinion. I've merely captured what US defense and security analyst perspective here for those wanting more context on the article. Namely China wants to avoid conflict because it is the weaker power, and the US wants to create conflict now while China is a weaker power, to prevent China from becoming a stronger competitor in the future. There are certainly some US security analysts who argue against the "Thucydides Trap" being the right framework to analyze Sino-American relations. However most of those criticisms are just pointing out that conflict isn't inevitable - that there's nuance. For example the US might become distracted with other priorities (domestic political issues, for example), and never initiate a conflict. Or perhaps China will see a slow down in the growth of its own power, and the US will no longer perceive it as a threat (much the same happened with Japan in the 90's, when Japan was considered a top security threat).
  - wumeow 2y ago
    China needs to do two things to avoid war with the US: don’t invade Taiwan, don’t start fights with US allies in the Pacific. So far, they have been agitating for both of those things.
    - opt-skept 2y ago
      While I disagree with this on its own merit, its important to point out this does not address the question/topic. Asked above was: (a) What steps of reasoning do you think are unsound? (b) What reasons do you believe that China has to agitate a conflict with the US? You answered (c) here is how China could avoid a conflict with the US I'm sure you have questions about why this is disagreeable. But could we first resolve the open questions (a) and (b)?

consumer451 2y ago

> retaliation/deterrent for an American attack on China. Just to be clear, what are we talking about here exactly? I am 99.99999%, no I am 100% sure, that even "US China hawks" do not want to invade China. The alternative sounds like "NATO invading Russia" irrational paranoia which serves to keep the local population in nationalist fervor, while there is no actual threat. It really sounds like we are calling the free-world's reaction to the possible CCP invasion of Taiwan, to be an attack on China? Is the USA training its population for war like China? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUaYNhzEq_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUaYNhzEq_E Please note that the YouTuber linked above, used to live in, and loved living in China, prior to the Xi Jinping take-over.

opt-skept 2y ago
> Just to be clear, what are we talking about here exactly? An ostensible war would be to set back China's growth and its trajectory of growth. The US has little interest in governing such a large country.
- consumer451 2y ago
  I feel like we, as in our press and tbh all of us, repeat terms as they are presented by other countries as if they were peer Democracies, no questions asked. Putin is President of the Russian Federation. Not dictator, not authoritarian leader who murders his opponents, nope "President." Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China. Yup, it's a Republic. Not a single party state, and he is not the Emperor, whose opponents keep mysteriously dying. It's totally normal. He's just the "President" of China. Can anyone with journalism experience explain to me how this works?
  - opt-skept 2y ago
    I'm a bit confused about the question and how this relates to the topic. I don't know how many journalists are lurking non-front page HN stories, so you'll probably get a non-journalist answer to the question (if anyone ventures, I'll try). I think you may be trying to ask a question about structuralist/realist theories of international relations, vs constructivist theories of international relations. Basically "sure there's some structuralist arguments, re: Thucydides, that the US should be expected to agitate for conflict, but what about democracy vs non-democracy - can't that better or equally explain sources of conflict?" If that's what you mean you could look at the many places in the world where authoritarianism is recognized, accepted, even partnered with the United States (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, ...). In these cases you'll find the US partners with these allies, emboldens and arms them, due to shared structural/realist interests. As far as the naming of people's titles around the world. I very often read glib/vitriolic denigrations of the specific people you've mentioned in US press. These articles tend to be intended more for domestic catharsis/rallying than it is to be accurate/analytical, although sometimes the articles are very good and I assume the editors make those changes based on guidelines/policy. To learn more about governments around the world I would point to the CIA World Fact Book, which uses a taxonomic approach to classifying various systems. The CIA considers Russia to be a "semi-presidential federation" and indeed Putin is elected and extremely popular. (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#government https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#gov...). The CIA considers China to be a "communist party-led state" and indeed Jinping is the factually elected president of the single communist party. (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#government https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#gove...). Learning more about other leaders in these countries - their parliaments, their ministries, their election processes, their legislation drafting processes, etc - can help to abate some of the instincts to assume that political systems, because they aren't understood, are hostage/authoritarian situations. A good exercise is to learn at least ten other important officials from a given country and their roles for leading that country. I think trying this exercise yourself could help you answer your question above.
    - consumer451 2y ago

haburka 2y ago

I don’t think the US has a similar level of penetration. They don’t let people who smoke weed work for the federal government. Additionally, the pay and job is just worse than doing cyber security for big tech. This means any decent hackers stay very far away from working for the feds.

CobaltFire 2y ago
There are quite a few scary competent people working on this type of thing in various places in the federal government. Not everyone wants to work on the stuff that SV pays for, or the finance people pay for.
Starman_Jones 2y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but let me offer a different perspective. There's a certain class of individual who loves the challenge of "breaking" something, but prefers the reduced problem space, risk mitigation, and formal validation that such a job provides. Look at the schools with the top cybersecurity competition teams, and you'll find fertile recruiting ground for such individuals. The NSA knows this, and actively recruits these individuals from these schools. Arguably, they provide a more comfortable working environment for those so inclined than your typical big tech job would provide. With regards to the effectiveness, the recent Kaspersky hacks should show that the feds have some capability in this regard.

wumeow 2y ago

This is some wild mental gymnastics. The US is not the one agitating a war.

opt-skept 2y ago
Could you add some more information about what steps of reasoning you find unsound, or what reasons you believe China would have to agitate for a conflict? The "Thucydides Trap" and its application to Sino-American conflict is not something that I've made up or is a personal opinion. I've merely captured what US defense and security analyst perspective here for those wanting more context on the article. Namely China wants to avoid conflict because it is the weaker power, and the US wants to create conflict now while China is a weaker power, to prevent China from becoming a stronger competitor in the future. There are certainly some US security analysts who argue against the "Thucydides Trap" being the right framework to analyze Sino-American relations. However most of those criticisms are just pointing out that conflict isn't inevitable - that there's nuance. For example the US might become distracted with other priorities (domestic political issues, for example), and never initiate a conflict. Or perhaps China will see a slow down in the growth of its own power, and the US will no longer perceive it as a threat (much the same happened with Japan in the 90's, when Japan was considered a top security threat).
- wumeow 2y ago
  China needs to do two things to avoid war with the US: don’t invade Taiwan, don’t start fights with US allies in the Pacific. So far, they have been agitating for both of those things.
  - opt-skept 2y ago
    While I disagree with this on its own merit, its important to point out this does not address the question/topic. Asked above was: (a) What steps of reasoning do you think are unsound? (b) What reasons do you believe that China has to agitate a conflict with the US? You answered (c) here is how China could avoid a conflict with the US I'm sure you have questions about why this is disagreeable. But could we first resolve the open questions (a) and (b)?