4 ms·

Which part of "stuff of fantasy" was unclear? Hell, there was a recent movie about a bunch of scrappy Americans playing guerilla against a successful Chinese b

Which part of "stuff of fantasy" was unclear? Hell, there was a recent movie about a bunch of scrappy Americans playing guerilla against a successful Chinese beachhead. (I don't remember the name; I just saw the trailer in theaters a bunch.) If you talk about invasion on home soil, virtually any American will bring up how it would be opposed by armed citizens at every step. > It would surely make more sense to fantasize about a more militaristic culture waging the war, no? Like who? Canada? Mexico? Our special relationship with the UK? France? Russia? There's no country where an invasion makes sense. At best, there's a reasonable fear of someone carpet-bombing all of our major cities with nukes.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Nothing about "stuff of fantasy" was unclear, but I'm surprised to see such a flagrantly inappropriate choice of villain to fill the role. Just like I'd be surprised to see Quakers filling the role of "oppressive religion" in a theocratic dystopia novel. Of the countries you mention, Russia has a long and recent history of aggressive expansion, and is physically quite close to the US (that is, Alaska). It's easily a more suitable candidate for invading. Mexico is probably the next most plausible. As you say, it's not particularly plausible in any event, but I'd expect that to mean that nobody bothered thinking about it at all.
- saraid216 13y ago
  You're presuming that the people who come up with these fantasies know anything about history besides "Jesus was born in 0 AD." Yes, I'm aware that 0 A.D. is not a thing.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Hi! I return bearing an HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7161044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7161044 Copied in full: > Time does not stand still, and to assume that China will is foolish. With wealth comes power, and China's military will likely be unrecognizable in 30 years. To underestimate one's enemy is simply stupid. Said fantasies: also on HN.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Nothing about "stuff of fantasy" was unclear, but I'm surprised to see such a flagrantly inappropriate choice of villain to fill the role. Just like I'd be surprised to see Quakers filling the role of "oppressive religion" in a theocratic dystopia novel. Of the countries you mention, Russia has a long and recent history of aggressive expansion, and is physically quite close to the US (that is, Alaska). It's easily a more suitable candidate for invading. Mexico is probably the next most plausible. As you say, it's not particularly plausible in any event, but I'd expect that to mean that nobody bothered thinking about it at all.

saraid216 13y ago
You're presuming that the people who come up with these fantasies know anything about history besides "Jesus was born in 0 AD." Yes, I'm aware that 0 A.D. is not a thing.
saraid216 13y ago
Hi! I return bearing an HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7161044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7161044 Copied in full: > Time does not stand still, and to assume that China will is foolish. With wealth comes power, and China's military will likely be unrecognizable in 30 years. To underestimate one's enemy is simply stupid. Said fantasies: also on HN.