14 ms·

looking at this from the other side of the world, it feels like americans are so insecure, as if they are constantly frightened

plastic3169 2y ago
And 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 ago
  They 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        Yes 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 ago
        India 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 ago
        China and Russia are already expanding as we speak, being allied in the invasion of Ukraine
      - volkl48 2y ago
        Russia has basically burned up their entire ex-Soviet equipment + munitions stocks blundering around in Ukraine. They're not really in a position to open another front with any substantial state. I'd still be a bit worried if I was Georgia, possibly Moldova, maybe the Baltics if European defense commitments start looking even weaker, but to a large degree they're safer right now than they'd been with how badly depleted Russia is, not more at risk. Poland's spending heavily right now (2025 projection is 4.7% of GDP) and rapidly up-arming itself. In terms of conventional conflict they're going to be in a pretty decent position. I don't really see much in ways for Russia to be particularly "expansionist" beyond the places they're already an ongoing problem in. (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova).
    - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
      Symbolic? The point of the attack was to eliminate the US as a threat to Japan by taking out its carrier fleet. Regardless of whether or not Japan was a threat to the West coast, do you seriously expect a nation to stand by and simply shrug off something like that?
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    FWIW, 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 ago
      I think that the events that played out after September 11th show that Americans still have the same reaction.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Sarah Paine makes this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        There 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 ago
  9-11 is a counter example. Asymmetric warfare is a constant threat.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    A one-off terrorist attack (one that required years of planning) isn't a war, and cannot scale to a war.
    - hindsightbias 2y ago
      It was enough for us to work with, invade a few countries and spend a few trillion.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Fear 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 ago
    It 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 ago
      Has 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        And 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 ago
There’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 ago
  China reunifies Taiwan: 100% US responds militarily: not likely but possible
  - jonnybgood 2y ago
    The 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 ago
      If 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 ago
        Any Chinese move on Taiwan starts with plastering Guam. :(
      - spacemanspiff01 2y ago
        The 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 ago
That's because we're constantly frightened. They work pretty hard to keep us that way.
philwelch 2y ago
That’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.

plastic3169 2y ago

And 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 ago
They 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Yes 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 ago
      India 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 ago
      China and Russia are already expanding as we speak, being allied in the invasion of Ukraine
    - volkl48 2y ago
      Russia has basically burned up their entire ex-Soviet equipment + munitions stocks blundering around in Ukraine. They're not really in a position to open another front with any substantial state. I'd still be a bit worried if I was Georgia, possibly Moldova, maybe the Baltics if European defense commitments start looking even weaker, but to a large degree they're safer right now than they'd been with how badly depleted Russia is, not more at risk. Poland's spending heavily right now (2025 projection is 4.7% of GDP) and rapidly up-arming itself. In terms of conventional conflict they're going to be in a pretty decent position. I don't really see much in ways for Russia to be particularly "expansionist" beyond the places they're already an ongoing problem in. (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova).
  - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
    Symbolic? The point of the attack was to eliminate the US as a threat to Japan by taking out its carrier fleet. Regardless of whether or not Japan was a threat to the West coast, do you seriously expect a nation to stand by and simply shrug off something like that?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  FWIW, 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 ago
    I think that the events that played out after September 11th show that Americans still have the same reaction.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Sarah Paine makes this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      There 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 ago
9-11 is a counter example. Asymmetric warfare is a constant threat.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  A one-off terrorist attack (one that required years of planning) isn't a war, and cannot scale to a war.
  - hindsightbias 2y ago
    It was enough for us to work with, invade a few countries and spend a few trillion.
jjk166 2y ago
Fear 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Has 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        And 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 ago

There’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 ago
China reunifies Taiwan: 100% US responds militarily: not likely but possible
- jonnybgood 2y ago
  The 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Any Chinese move on Taiwan starts with plastering Guam. :(
    - spacemanspiff01 2y ago
      The 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 ago

That's because we're constantly frightened. They work pretty hard to keep us that way.

philwelch 2y ago

That’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.