Hacker News Reader

Comment by brookst | Hacker News Reader

IMO that’s also a kneejerk response.

There are dangers to our already-declining reliance on China, but also benefits. The big one is that countries with deeply entangled economies rarely go to war with each other. A world where we don’t rely on China for anything is a world where we are more likely at war with them.

“Security means not depending on anyone else” is just off-the-grid survivalism writ large. It’s true in some very narrow sense, but it is also naive to think it’s even possible, especially while continuing to pursue any other goals.

View on HN

I might've agreed with you had Russia not invaded Ukraine. Your assumption is the same assumption we all made, but they invaded Ukraine anyway.

What did Russia depend on Ukraine for?

Russia did not think it was attacking Europe. It is not a remotely analogous situation to US/China. China is much more mutually dependent on the US, and much more sane.

>Russia did not think it was attacking Europe.

Do you really think Putin and his generals thought that everyone would stand by and watch as they invaded Ukraine and do nothing? That's absurd.

>It is not a remotely analogous situation to US/China.

China-Taiwan and Russia-Ukraine are eerily similar, actually.

>China is much more mutually dependent on the US, and much more sane.

Their massive military build up and itchy trigger finger aiming at anyone who even tries to insinuate that Taiwan isn't part of the PRC says otherwise. Not to mention their posturing in the South China Sea, which has perturbed not only Taiwan but Vietnam and the Phillipines too.

>much more sane

Are you sure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...

Around 40 people died in these skirmishes. And 40 is a conservative figure btw. India claims that more than 30 Chinese soldiers died, whereas China claims 4 died. US intelligence has the number at 20-35.

I admire your strength of feeling on this topic but you’ve really mistaken my point.

My point: countries with economic interdependence are less likely to go to war, which is a fact to consider when advocating for reduction of interdependence among nuclear powers.

I think you took that to be a claim that any economic interdependence absolutely eliminates any chance of war.

I’m not arguing that China is great or any of the other things you seem yo have read into my relatively straightforward point.

>My point: countries with economic interdependence are less likely to go to war,

And my point is: Russia broke this `rule' indirectly (meaning going to war with a country that they know would be protected by countries that they are interdependent on), so China could too. Russia and Europe were strongly intertwined, yet Putin and his generals still went to war knowing that there would be dire economic consequences. The only thing that would make China wary of doing the same is if Ukraine wins.

>which is a fact to consider when advocating for reduction of interdependence among nuclear powers.

Nuclear weapons are more of a deterrent of war than trade among nuclear powers over than anything else.

>I’m not arguing that China is great or any of the other things you seem yo have read into my relatively straightforward point.

That's not what I gleaned from your posts. What I got was a lack of urgency about China and her aspirations in the world.

I’d like to encourage you to reflect on how you read a statement about probability as being a “rule”. That’s not a leap people make in good faith.

I used the wrong word. I should've used `fact', which is what you used for your own clause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com