7 ms·
> If we ever did get in a war with them is that normal to think like this? do most americans think like this?
by suraci 2y ago
> If we ever did get in a war with them
is that normal to think like this?
do most americans think like this?
- gustavf 2y agoIn an article about naval shipbuilding I would say thats a normal thought.
- relaxing 2y agoDefense planners think like this.
- vuurmot 2y agolooking at this from the other side of the world, it feels like americans are so insecure, as if they are constantly frightened
- plastic3169 2y agoAnd who would ever even attack the US? Massive military spending and they are isolated from all the potential enemies behind two huge oceans. Average american should worry about civil war or maybe nukes. Nothing else will ever reach them.
- antalis 2y agoThey may not attack the US directly like the Japanese did, but China may want to take over its neighbours to expand. Just like Russia could.
- plastic3169 2y agoI appreciate the worry for everyone else. Truly it makes a huge difference in global politics. Like parent I am still surprised how paranoid the US seems. It’s almost like growing up overprotected you become extremely fearful. There is almost no practical cost to US with going into war so the result is that US is constantly fighting and makes it the core focus of the society (along with innovation and more positive sides of US culture) Pearl Harbor was devastating and Hawaiians probably have plenty of reason to worry about the defense going forward. Then again I looked up where it is and I am shocked how remote the islands are. I think it was first and foremost symbolic attack. Not a real threat to west coast.
- suraci 2y ago[flagged]
- ethbr1 2y agoThe rest of the world should be very scared if the US isn't ready to go to peer-state war. - Europe has under-invested in its military for 30 years. - Japan by constitutional decree. - South Korea is rapidly building out an armaments industry, but they're also still at war. - The UK is gutted and unable to afford much of anything. - India and Pakistan are laser focused on each other. If China or Russia feel in an expansionist mood, who other than the US has the capability to stop them? Historical echoes of the above dynamic are why Americans bristle at criticism of their military spending. Sure, everyone's a pacifist until someone invades...
- specialist 2y agoYes and: Pax Americana protects the global maritime order. I believe, but cannot prove, that hegemony and "forever war" are inextricable. a la "if you want peace, prepare for war". -- I'm not justifying or defending Pax Americana or American exceptualism. IMHO, there is no justice, fairness, ethical, or moral defence. Statecraft, world affairs, empire, hegemony are amoral. And while the status quo sucks, for some a lot more than others, I think we'll miss it when it's gone.
- philwelch 2y agoIndia is much more concerned with China these days. > I was struck on this trip by how clearly India’s chosen rival is no longer Pakistan, but China. It does not matter if we are talking in military, technological, economic, or even cultural terms. The default comparison Indians make is with China. https://scholars-stage.org/observations-from-india/ https://scholars-stage.org/observations-from-india/
- vaccineai 2y agoChina and Russia are already expanding as we speak, being allied in the invasion of Ukraine
- 2y ago
- lupusreal 2y agoFWIW, Japan attacked a military base in am American territory, not then a state, and never had serious plans to invade America proper. They thought they could knock America out of the fight before America realized it was even in a fight with a decisive demoralizing victory that would leave Americans feeling that ceding control of the Pacific to Japan was rational and practical. Obviously that theory didn't work for Japan then, but there's nothing to say nobody else couldn't make the same mistake again. The mentality of the American public may have changed considerably since WWII, maybe Americans are already demoralized and no longer certain of their own righteousness. Maybe the would-be attacker has some reason to believe they can influence the mentality of the American public using control of mass media popular with Americans. Or maybe they're just so certain of themselves and their advantages they think America will back down when push comes to shove because if the positions were reversed, they would back down and they project that onto America.
- themaninthedark 2y agoI think that the events that played out after September 11th show that Americans still have the same reaction.
- pfdietz 2y agoSarah Paine makes this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM
- lupusreal 2y agoThere are reasons they might think this would be different. That would be (probably) 30+ years in the past, in that case American civilians were targeted, on American soil, using flights full of American civilians as the weapons. I do think that America would probably go to war if US military bases or carrier groups were attacked by the Chinese, but I think it's plausible that China might come to believe otherwise.
- briandear 2y ago9-11 is a counter example. Asymmetric warfare is a constant threat.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoA one-off terrorist attack (one that required years of planning) isn't a war, and cannot scale to a war.
- hindsightbias 2y agoIt was enough for us to work with, invade a few countries and spend a few trillion.
- jjk166 2y agoFear of invasion creates massive military spending Massive military spending creates peaceful times Peaceful times create low military spending Low military spending creates fear of invasion Also the Canadians are the only ones who ever burned down DC.
- aylmao 2y agoIt doesn't always work this way, and very much hasn't in the USA. It's been more akin to: Fear of invasion creates massive military spending Massive military spending creates a need for justification, and ability to invade The need for justification, and ability to invade create wars abroad Wars abroad create enemies and fear of invasion
- jjk166 2y agoHas there ever been a period in history where the dominant military power said "okay, no one can challenge us, let's roll back our military spending" and the peace remained? I can think of a lot of previous hegemons who got complacent and lost everything.
- aylmao 2y agoI can't think of a period in history where most nations were democracies either, where most women could vote, or where most people had access to public education. But alas, here we are.
- jjk166 2y agoAnd I can't think of a period in history where I can use a tiny device in my pocket to order a coat with same day delivery, but somehow invading Russia in winter still seems like a bad idea. I see no reason to believe that democracies with women's suffrage and public education are immune to military competition. I certainly wouldn't want to risk massive upheaval of the world order which jeopardizes the existence of all those things to find out.
- foldr 2y agoThere’s a pretty realistic China/US war scenario. China invades Taiwan and then the US responds militarily. I’m not saying that this is a particularly likely scenario, but it’s far from impossible.
- suraci 2y agoChina reunifies Taiwan: 100% US responds militarily: not likely but possible
- jonnybgood 2y agoThe only way the US will not respond militarily is if Taiwan chooses unification. By all accounts, Taiwan will not choose that. The US military has not been strategically shifting to the Indo-Pacific for more than 10 years now for no reason.
- lupusreal 2y agoIf China acted quickly in disabling American military assets in the region, it is conceivably possible that Taiwanese people could be demoralized and surrender to the PRC before America has a chance to muster more forces to the region. Even if this definitely wouldn't be possible, it's still possible that the PRC thinks otherwise and will try it, as Japan once did.
- ethbr1 2y agoAny Chinese move on Taiwan starts with plastering Guam. :(
- spacemanspiff01 2y agoThe counter to this is that it might make more sense for China to _not_ attack the United States with the anticipation that they sit it out. China attacking US forces/ naval bases makes it much harder for a president to sit back and say not our problem/ focus on economic sanctions. Imagine if Russia started the invasion of Ukraine by bombing polish railways, so that the Ukrainians would not be able to get supplies/resources from the EU. I would think that the EU/Nato response to that would be much more severe than what happened in reality. While Guam might be considered different, as most Americans cannot place it on a map and it is on the other side of the world, seeing caskets of all the US troops dying makes it pretty hard to politically shrug off as not our problem.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoThat's because we're constantly frightened. They work pretty hard to keep us that way.
- philwelch 2y agoThat’s a funny statement because the other side of the world from the US includes places like Ukraine and central Africa (which is currently gearing up for a Third Congo War). Enjoy the Pax Americana while it lasts. You won’t like what comes next.
- scandox 2y agoWell if you look at history it is a story of almost continuous war so it would be very optimistic indeed not to consider it.
- suraci 2y agoamerican history
- baseballdork 2y agoTheir role in the Punic wars was fairly small.
- wffurr 2y agoThe returns to warfare changed significantly with the Industrial Revolution. Greater economic growth is now possible in times of peace rather than war. The Paradox game Victoria 2 does a good job simulating this dynamic. Highest score is possible by sitting out ww2. https://acoup.blog/2021/08/20/collections-teaching-paradox-victoria-ii-part-ii-the-ruin-of-war/ https://acoup.blog/2021/08/20/collections-teaching-paradox-v... Is a nice write up.
- nickff 2y agoThe general advice with respect to conflict strategies is to base your plans on what your (current or potential) adversary is capable of, not what you believe their intentions are.
- bigbacaloa 2y agoThis kind of strategic, war is always possible, thinking is deeply embedded into US institutional-governmental culture and in US education. It's part of the quasi-fascistic thinking that was assimilated by the entire population - independent of political leaning - during the Cold War.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- briandear 2y agoThe Chinese certainly think like this. The North Koreans are certainly on a constant war footing. The world is an extremely hostile place.
- suraci 2y ago[flagged]
- davemp 2y ago> even the most hawks Americans can only think about how to defend and A2/AD if the Chinese intervene in taiwan Works both ways.
- suraci 2y agoi don't know which one is more crazier you don't know where taiwan is or you know it well but still think it's totally normal and reasonable to do that
- jabl 2y agoPerhaps Xi Jinping and his henchmen should also look at a map? In case they have trouble understanding, here's a hint: Taiwan belongs to that large part of the globe which is "not China".
- Ekaros 2y agoJust like Panama and Greenland?
- jabl 2y agoYes. Or sort-of, at least. China is making serious military investments that seem targeted at achieving a capability to invade Taiwan while fending off US efforts to foil such an invasion. In contrast, I've seen no indication that the US is seriously considering taking Panama or Greenland by force except for the bluster from the chief blowhard. Still, that mark of shame will take a long time to wash off.
- __loam 2y agoWe have a saying, "speak softly and carry a big stick"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lost_womble 2y agoAmericans can speak softly?
- ethbr1 2y agoOnly by comparison to Italians.
- oldpersonintx 2y ago[dead]