Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonblack | Hacker News Reader

but I think it's a very real possibility.

I'm classing it as a certainty. Have a read of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and work out what it necessitates, and that to be done very soon.

Even so, I believe the US has 'missed the bus'. It needed to have initiated vigorous conflict earlier this year to be sure of victory in that coming war. It can't start anything worthwhile now until at least the next Spring-Summer campaign season. By then China will have had another 12 months of growth, and the US another 12 months of decline.

View on HN

What does victory mean in the era of mutually assured destruction? I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked.

> I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked.

There is only one country in the world which is reliably able to afford being nuked, and has "surviving first, and second strike" as part of its many doctrines.

The only major country against which MAD is not so assured is China.

You’re talking about killing millions because of a disagreement in management styles

Mao is reputed to have said regarding a nuclear war.

"Kill 300 million Chinese, still got a billion Chinese left. Kill 300 million Americans, no more America."

I'd say US, and China's contradictions are by far greater than "disagreement in management styles"

USA talks TikTak, but the world hears "the overall political arrangement of China"

Invasion on Iraq led to many deaths and was based on false premises and similar "disagreement in management styles". War with China would be a terrible calamity. I don't understand why, but the US is turning into a bad actor, and the most scary thing is that it's convinced it's a good actor.

Which is why nobody will push the button, even if they're being invaded, they'll just accept being occupied and mount a resistance. MAD always relied on a fiction of natural insanity that doesn't actually exist. I don't think any tactician takes widespread nuclear exchanges seriously as a likely outcome to any contemporary global conflict.

The numerous instances of near-misses which were only averted by crew disobeying direct orders contradicts your narrative.

You think we have all rational players in the game right now?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com