4 ms·

Kinetic responses do nothing long-term. We just get deeper into a hole of response and counter-response to the point of war. We need to start negotiating a long

Kinetic responses do nothing long-term. We just get deeper into a hole of response and counter-response to the point of war. We need to start negotiating a long-term treaty that defines what's allowable and what's not. Whether we like it or not, China is a major player in cyber espionage, and we need to limit further conflict. This is a political issue and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

toss1 2y ago
When you are dealing with an aggressive authoritarian regime like CCP or Putin, agreements mean nothing. They all follow the algorithm described by Vladimir Lenin: — “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” They do this relentlessly until they face consequences too costly to continue. Negotiations and agreements are simply, and accurately seen as "I won, I can continue making bigger offenses, and the opponent will do nothing (they won't violate the agreement while I do)" . I mentioned sanctions first because they can often be more effective than kinetic and less escalatory. That does not mean they should be off the table, particularly kinetic responses with plausible deniability. But no, this is not a political issue. A political issue would be dumping goods onto the market at sub-production-cost or undercutting us on a deal with an ally. This is a violation of territory just as if they'd broken the locks on the buildings to come in and sit down at the keyboards.
- panarky 2y ago
  The US could announce that all Treasury securities held by China will not be redeemed and are now worthless.
  - anikom15 2y ago
    And tank its own economy in the process?
    - panarky 2y ago
      It's seldom possible to impose severe consequences on your adversary without suffering some pain yourself. It's as true for economic warfare as it is for kinetic conflict.
  - nolok 2y ago
    The US could destroy the one thing that make its economy unbreakable and ensure its ability to print infinite money at will without consequences? That's essentially the worst plan they could implement.

toss1 2y ago

When you are dealing with an aggressive authoritarian regime like CCP or Putin, agreements mean nothing. They all follow the algorithm described by Vladimir Lenin: — “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” They do this relentlessly until they face consequences too costly to continue. Negotiations and agreements are simply, and accurately seen as "I won, I can continue making bigger offenses, and the opponent will do nothing (they won't violate the agreement while I do)" . I mentioned sanctions first because they can often be more effective than kinetic and less escalatory. That does not mean they should be off the table, particularly kinetic responses with plausible deniability. But no, this is not a political issue. A political issue would be dumping goods onto the market at sub-production-cost or undercutting us on a deal with an ally. This is a violation of territory just as if they'd broken the locks on the buildings to come in and sit down at the keyboards.

panarky 2y ago
The US could announce that all Treasury securities held by China will not be redeemed and are now worthless.
- anikom15 2y ago
  And tank its own economy in the process?
  - panarky 2y ago
    It's seldom possible to impose severe consequences on your adversary without suffering some pain yourself. It's as true for economic warfare as it is for kinetic conflict.
- nolok 2y ago
  The US could destroy the one thing that make its economy unbreakable and ensure its ability to print infinite money at will without consequences? That's essentially the worst plan they could implement.