Donald Trump and, frankly, those around him in general are what poor people think rich people are like, but I wouldn’t exactly be one to claim that the design language used by the Biden Administration, like switching to Calibri, are very tasteful either. In leftist popular culture there is a love for modernist style architecture, minimalism, and a disrespect for building beautiful things that cost a lot of money or time. Rightwing circles have their own problems here too, to be fair.
But mandating Greco-Roman architecture by the Trump administration for federal buildings was actually a huge win for taste and design. Though unfortunately many people have become confused about what good design is or the reason to choose that architecture style can’t be overcome by their distaste for President Trump or his administration, which is very arguably deserved based on their conduct, speech, or mannerisms.
When we take away formality or tradition from governmental institutions you take away pieces of civilization and governmental authority that we, really can’t afford to lose. When government buildings are designed to look like shit, for example, one might come to believe the government is shit too (Democrat or Republican run) and the next thing you know you’re running red lights or flipping off the court because the document they sent you in the mail doesn’t look scary and official.
Secretary Duffy was right too about airline travel. Well, there is another to unpack there. Flying is lame compared to rail unless you’re flying across the country, and being shaken down by the TSA is undignified and thus people dress to meet the lack of dignity and respect the government shows them at the airline terminal.
But he’s not wrong.
When you put more care into how you dress you instinctively put more care into how you treat others and how you dress impacts how others treat you. I’m not suggesting a mandate or anything, but I’ll fly in a suit and tie easily and comfortably all day long over stained sweatpants and bringing my comfort dog on to the flight to annoy everyone. Dress how you want, but if you can’t take care of the basics I’m not sure where else you think society is going other than downhill in a fashion.
I prefer the protestant restrained aesthetic. Spiritual over material. Governmental buildings should be tastefully humble. It is a signal that the government is a servant of the people.
I do find it faintly ironic that Sort Of Greek Or Roman Or Something architecture was the villain in Ayn Rand's novel.
Living here in DC I don't especially mind Federalist Architecture, even though it does look like somebody saw some photos of Rome and Athens and kinda mashed them together. But I don't love insisting that a 19th century view of the second century BC must forevermore be the only possible taste.
If you have another architectural style for western civilization which bases its institutions on Greece and Rome, I’d be interested in learning more about it. It’s not necessarily about a 19th century view of 2nd century BC architectural concepts (which itself is a bit of a farce of a comment) but more so about anchoring the longevity and legitimacy of governmental institutions to a historical heritage.
Similarly I wouldn’t recommend, say, that the Afghani people or Mongolia for example build federalist or Greco-Roman style architecture for their government buildings as it wouldn’t make much sense and wouldn’t have any basis in their history.
There’s also some science to it and we know the asymmetrical buildings and buildings which make entrances and other expected features hard to find cause measurable levels of stress and anxiety in the observer. Hostile architecture.
I don’t mind the overall point of your argument, but it’s funny to see a claim that Americans have more reason to use Greco-Roman architecture than a Middle Eastern country. Classical Greek art actually took a lot of influence from the Middle East, and I believe Alexander actually reached te area around Afghanistan (and a Hellenistic kingdom existed there for a while), unlike America.
Because its not real. He is completely right its a 19th century cargo cult of classicism. Its a modern anachronistic mashup of various old styles, I can bet if you asked an actual Greek or Roman era expert they will say these buildings combine elements 500 600 years apart.
I like how it looks but its also lazy and cheesy, I can't blame people who think we need more styles.
> If you have another architectural style for western civilization which bases its institutions on Greece and Rome, I’d be interested in learning more about it.
Carolingian architecture didn't just cargo cult, they literally pilfered Roman columns and integrated them into anachronistic designs. If I recall my art history class correctly, the columns from Charlemagne's Palatine Chapel were "repurposed" (looted) from a Roman temple. [1]
This is also an example of architectural skeuomorphism: designing something in a way reminiscent of an older thing, to borrow the associations people have with it. In this case, Roman authority.
As an American I think they’re tacky too. That style of architecture for an airport doesn’t make sense really. Well. I bet it could be pulled off. But the “architects” designing the airports are the same people designing Greco-Roman architecture on disfigured American McMansions.
I’m not sure about your TV but it may be a setting you can disable to automatically change the sound.
I agree with you though. We have a Sony Bravia purchased back in 2016 for $900. It has thr Android TV spam/bloat/spyware but it’s not used and never connects to the Internet which has made the TV quite usable over the years. Apple TV is connected, Sonos too, and everything works fine without any crazy settings changes. I’m not looking forward to whenever this thing needs replaced (which will likely be it actually breaking versus being outdated).
> TLDR USN can't do anything against PRC, but doesn't have to do anything VS everyone else.
Eh the USN can still maintain superiority outside of the South China Sea which means control of global trade. It’s not like it’s useless or anything even if the Taiwan straight turns into a dead zone or if the USN has to worry about missiles from the Chinese mainland. China also has to worry about missiles hitting their mainland industrial centers and naval facilities too.
Look at DoDs China report last few years, specifically PRC fielded conventional strike. PRC DF26, H6xCJ20s already can hit every essential SLOC from Malacca to MENA at volume, DF27 reaches west coast and Europe. There isn't really anywhere except Atlantic (and south America) where USN can operate permissively, i.e. every shipping lane PRC needs (for energy in next 10 years) is already covered. As for missiles hitting mainland, we're really talking about attritional game, PRC A2D2 works as advertised and they can potentially blunt much of the fires from being deliverable to mainland, and there's also sheer scale asymmetry, i.e. PRC pouring more concrete in 10 years than US in past 100. That's just a stupendous amount of infra to break. Meanwhile DF27 can hit west coast, in a few years they'll have DF27+ that reach most of CONUS. The real question then is who can deliver more fires, can win attrition game, can reconstitute faster. And vs PRC, it may not be US considering they put so much fires generation on carriers that may not be able to deliver any munitions under PRC A2D2 and the 30-40 B21 replacement (we're talking 10 years out) barely replaces one carrier in fire power. Meanwhile PRC has global strike eggs is mostly in mainland based ICBMs that skips entire delivery vehicle middle man and can potentially hit CONUS and everything in between with high survivability. And ample surplus industry/construction sector to rebuild. The TLDR is once hemispheric hypersonic proliferates more, USN can't operate permissively in any of the theatres PRC really cares about.
But again that doesn't mean USN can't operate permissively vs literally anyone else, even on legacy platforms that still grossly overmatches every other adversary regardless of acquisition malpractice.
> Meanwhile DF27 can hit west coast, in a few years they'll have DF27+ that reach most of CONUS.
> Meanwhile PRC has global strike eggs is mostly in mainland based ICBMs that skips entire delivery vehicle middle man and can potentially hit CONUS and everything in between with high survivability.
You are just describing nuclear war here, which seems unrealistic to me. China knows they’ll lose ocean access and trade will be stoped, which means no oil, hence why they’ve gone all-in in EVs and “green” technology. Piping in oil from Russia or whatever is a fantasy - pipelines will just get blown up.
Chinese missiles flying all over the world to sink blue water naval ships also seems unrealistic to me. They have to find the ships, for starters. This is a feat much more sensible in and around the Taiwan Straight or the South China Sea. But in your excitement you are forgetting that while certainly China can rain down missiles on enemy forces in the region, those same enemies can strike back too. Or are these hypersonic missiles so scary and advanced and all allied forces will just have to sit quietly while their military and industrial equipment is bombed? If that’s the case, what’s China waiting for?
>
Look at DoDs China report last few years, specifically PRC fielded conventional strike.
Could you link to a specific paper or report that you are referring to? I read these from time to time.
You described nuclear war first with mainland conventional strikes. Regardless, 2025 DoD china report lists fielded conventional strikes with west coast on the map for a reason, they are formally acknowledging CONUS conventional vulnerability. There's popular discourse that CONUS ICBM strikes = nuke back, but that's like saying mainland cruise missile strikes = nuke back. Afterall US cruise missiles are nuclear capable (i.e. what Trump explicitly wants for Trump / Defiant class) and US cruise missiles designed for terrain hugging to minimize detection time, no different than low ICBM response time. Reality is, once conventional CONUS vulnerability exists, the hit me and get nuked bluster no longer holds. US planners now has to account for CONUS strikes... hence why golden dome is a thing, nice piece of security theatre for masses when PRC ability to hit CONUS becomes unavoidable. Like folks can dismiss it as Trumps ego project, but it coincides with US military officials informally acknowledging CONUS vulnerability in media last few years, now made formal with new PRC fielded conventional strike map.
>knows they’ll lose ocean access
Do they, or do they know they can dismantle USN ability to SLOC blockade, especially energy routes. Mind you US can still use CENTCOM forces and political leverage to prevent MENA producers from selling, but this subject is about navy and current PRC rocketry A2D2 is likely in position to prevent US from SLOC blockade.
>pipelines will just get blown up
Yes, incidentally the 2025 Chinese conventional strike map covers Albertan oil infra to US... reminder US still imports 30% oil due to refinery mismatch.
> all over the world... find the ships, for starters
See PRC launching 100s of ISR sats last few years, SCS has persistent coverage already, but now rest of world has decent coverage by this point too. Either way context is 5-10 year mega constellation roll out by which time there very resilient and redundant will be global ISR / kill chain. Their space infra has already moved beyond backyard in last few years.
>same enemies can strike back
Sure but in what volume? Enough to win attrition game? It's not just hypersonics, see PRC acquiring 1m+ loitering munitions, separate order from 1m+ drones, likely shaheed tier with 1IC coverage. Hypersonics for high end assets, there's stupendous low/mid end mop up fires asymmetry to dismantle industrial base within 1-2IC. PRC has the munition depth to win the attrition game. The side with most fires bandwidth can feasibly dismantle adversary ability to fire back. All this from mainland platforms significantly more survivable because PRC doctrine assumes being hit and designed to keep hitting back. At some point the theatre aimpoint math becomes self evident, PRC by virtue of simply being a massive country with ample hardened targets is in position to survive being hit while their adversaries are not. PRC adversaries has less fires to deal with more targets, PRC vice versa, i.e. PRC can be wounded, adversaries will be overkilled. This one of the most glaring asymmetries, i.e. US planners cannot get JP to disperse or harden.
> waiting for
PRC isn't trigger happy, either way every year that passes PRC position in theatre gets stronger, but most importantly autarky and global strike capacity also increases. i.e. in about 10 years, coal to olefin (petchem) and EV penetration trend lines will make PRC close to oil independent, - their energy autarky will exceed US domestic oil who won't fix refinery mixmatch in same time period. Which circles back to CAN/US pipeline vulnerability. Energy autarky mismatch probably most important consideration, even if PRC can break USN SLOC blockade, as I mentioned, US has other tools to disrupt MENA energy flows. Other capabilities like mega constellation ISR increasing prompt global strike coordination, surging SSN and XXLUUV output, lots of reasons to wait and build up. Ideally build up so asymmetry so obvious US compelled to leave East Asian on her own. That's the ultimate prize, not just TW>
see page 85 for fielded conventional strike. You can compare past report map, the new one doesn't even bother labelling 1/2iC anymore because those defense lines are functionally dead vis a vis PRC procurements last few years.
I don’t think so, because if China invades Taiwan or takes similar enough action, and the United States and Japan come to the defense of Taiwan, an attack on the continental United States would not just be disproportionally stupid, but it would be an escalatory mistake as well, because you’ve now just declared actual war on the United States versus your more ‘limited’ war with the aim of only taking Taiwan. You see the difference, right?
But for China to attack Taiwan and the US and Japan to strike Chinese forces, it sort of requires China to then strike US and allied forces throughout the entire region. Attacking Kadena or even striking mainland Japanese industrial facilities, shipyards, &c. And then facing retaliatory strikes on Chinese industrial-military targets seems about to be fair game, and of course China doesn’t view the loss or usage of human capital in the same way that western countries do. I don’t think such a scenario here immediately results in nuclear war, even if the mainland is struck unless the US or Japan start targeting first/second strike capabilities or cause mass civilian casualties. The reason being, well, China would have struck US and Japanese bases first. And frankly if they don’t do that in the opening salvo of the war they’re stupid anyway.
> Do they, or do they know they can dismantle USN ability to SLOC blockade, especially energy routes.
They can’t. This is nonsense.
> Yes, incidentally the 2025 Chinese conventional strike map covers Albertan oil infra to US... reminder US still imports 30% oil due to refinery mismatch.
Sure, in the unlikely scenario that China also attacks Canada (might as well attack everyone at this point), yes US imports go down causing consumer harm, but China’s oil imports drop to 0. When you think about attrition you have to consider attrition for both sides, not just one. China has gone all-in on “green” tech precisely because they cannot win in a war in which they are dependent on oil - see US actions in Venezuela and the Middle East.
> See PRC launching 100s of ISR sats last few years, SCS has persistent coverage already, but now rest of world has decent coverage by this point too. Either way context is 5-10 year mega constellation roll out by which time there very resilient and redundant will be global ISR / kill chain. Their space infra has already moved beyond backyard in last few years.
Ok and the US does that too over the next 5-10 years (assuming capabilities don’t exist today, though they likely do). Now what? China hasn’t really gained an advantage here, launching missiles all over the world could be misconstrued as a nuclear attack and requiring a nuclear response. Is China going to launch missiles at Bahrain, UAE, Korea, the EU, and everyone else? Doesn’t seem realistic.
> PRC isn't trigger happy, either way every year that passes PRC position in theatre gets stronger, but most importantly autarky and global strike capacity also increases. i.e. in about 10 years, coal to olefin (petchem) and EV penetration trend lines will make PRC close to oil independent, - their energy autarky will exceed US domestic oil who won't fix refinery mixmatch in same time period. Which circles back to CAN/US pipeline vulnerability. Energy autarky mismatch probably most important consideration, even if PRC can break USN SLOC blockade, as I mentioned, US has other tools to disrupt MENA energy flows. Other capabilities like mega constellation ISR increasing prompt global strike coordination, surging SSN and XXLUUV output, lots of reasons to wait and build up. Ideally build up so asymmetry so obvious US compelled to leave East Asian on her own. That's the ultimate prize, not just TW
You’re right about two things: China will get stronger and more capable, and it will be less reliant as a country on oil, but you still can’t fly jet fighters with EV batteries and the wealthy markets (EU, US) are turning away from EVs as domestic policy and spending money securing rare earth refining capabilities. All the time you give to China also has to be given to other countries to react and plan too - which I think is often overlooked because western news rants about western failures all day but can’t speak mandarin and don’t have a clue about China’s issues as well.
But I think what you’re wrong about here is the threat, precisely because you are providing a contradiction. There are two geopolitical things that matter here. One is Taiwan as part of the first island chain - I.e. good for US monitoring of Chinese naval activity, and second, the semiconductors.
The longer China waits, the less important Taiwan is to the US. It can build other facilities, semiconductor manufacturing can be invested away from Taiwan too. And as you are asserting, I think, allows the Chinese navy to go and operate in the Pacific with impunity. Frankly I don’t know why they care if the US knows where their ships are anyway. What’s the point of the forces when we don’t have any interest in war in the first place? Does China want to spend this money and then launch missiles at Houthi rebels? Be my guest.
But what exactly does that matter in the world you’ve described? For all of these things to happen on a longer timeframe, the US doesn’t have to “leave” Asia. What is China going to do if the US keeps a base in Japan or the Philippines? Bomb it? Ah ok, well now the US has also built hypersonic missiles and all of these capabilities (because we already have them today anyway) and now if they attack US forces the US gets to do the scary boogeyman thing that you’re asserting China can do and blow up all of their ships with indefensible missiles strikes because they know where all the ships are “because satellites”.
I just do not find “China attacks everything the US has ever built and successfully destroys it and there is nothing the US can do” very convincing.
Thanks for sharing the paper by the way. I’ll take a look. I have a book to finish and at 100 pages it’ll take me a little bit of time to peruse :)
Why assume PRC attacks US+co first? This 2015s talking point based on limited PLA modernization, use it or lose it force structure, so they would be smart to use first, then. 2025+ reality is PRC has survivable fires complex to dismantle 1/2IC anytime. They're in position to bait US+co into firing first if they want. BTW US coming to assist TW is already declaring full scale war over Chinese sovereignty / territory, there's no difference if US wants to limit (i.e. prevent landings) because TW scenario is full war scenario where PRC gets vote in escalation, western analytic conflation over limited/regional war is (mis)attribution to PRC previously not able to prosecute a broader war, but PRC will always prosecute the largest possible war relative to capability over TW, and now that includes CONUS. Sure PRC GAZAing JP/SKR, obviously JP/SKR will want to counter strike mainland, but that opens CONUS to attack and frankly that's a US alliance management problem, because ultimately broader war is net good for PRC strategic stretch goals - to kick US out east asia, that can really only be done by physically dismantling US basing in region, bonus if it deindustrialized JP/SKR who are peacetime competitors vs PRC, who again, is structured to retain more industrial base and reconstitute faster.
>This is nonsense
This is 2025, I mention 2025 DoD report for a reason. Look at the rocketry coverage - encompasses all SLOCs from PRC cost to MENA + 1500km, i.e. standoff carrier range. It's time to stop coping. USN surface fleet is on paper not survivable anymore, pentagon paper. Again once people accept reality of hemispheric hypersonic A2D2, everything about incompetent USN procurement makes sense. This has been obvious for years btw, those missiles exist pre 2025, the latest report just decided to acknowledge reality.
>hasn’t really gained an advantage here
Advantage is massive. First it closes disadvantage, US already has global strike expeditionary model. PRC equalizing = US losing advantage. PRC having more survivable and high-end fires = PRC can hit anywhere on earth globally within hour using purely mainland platforms not vulnerable to disruption, unlike US carriers/bombers with long logistics tail. This advantage potentially step down from rods from god. BTW US can have this too in SSGN with CPS, but we talking about a few 100 VLS tubes that needs days/weeks of prepositioning vs 10000s from PRC mainland.
>going to launch missiles
You know how US gets to simply bomb non nuclear countries with impunity. The answer is PRC gets that privilege too, if war vs US escalates, all global US military assets are on the table. Countries are going to weigh if US protection worth the risk and when they see US simply can't protect they have choices to make, yes this means US nuke umbrella gets will get tested.
> oil imports drop to 0.
> China’s issues as well
> other countries to react and plan too
What's PRC energy production composition? They make 4m+ million barrels, enough to cover all industrial use, i.e. they can run current industrial output on purely domestic oil alone. USN uses like 100k oil per day, PRC domestic production can sustain 40 USNs in perpetuity, they don't need to electrify 6gen. Most oil is used for transportation, of which really diesel is critical (freight). That's where their 1-2 million barrel of CTO equivalents, i.e. they can displace industrial oil with coal to maintain trucking fleet and ration consumer transport oil. How much transport disruption is function of EV penetration, right now a lot in 10 years, minimal. Reminder PRC is actually a continental size power with huge energy assets, not as much as US relative to population, but enough to prosecute forever war with PRC industrial base, i.e. the one that already outproduces everyone combined (as materially not value add). PRC is not Japan, PRC has functionally infinite resources and current mismatch is something that can and is being engineered around. PRC is also not west, because they have industrial base to build a lot of hammers, and eventually hammers get used. PRC is obviously not VZ/MENA who can't hit US back, while PRC can. IMO face PRC realities before fixating on PRC issues. As for other countries reaction/plan, it's factored in, reality is we know what level of infra expansion or acquisition west is capable of, we know PRC china speed trendlines, hence limit extrapolation to reasonable 10 year timeframe.
> two geopolitical things that matter here
> don’t have any interest in war in the first place
US+co seems to have interest in intervening in Chinese civil war, which itself exists due to US support over last 70 years. There's a world where US facilitates peaceful reunification on PRC terms and maybe PRC can live with relatively benign US hanging around in east Asia. But if transition not peaceful, then there is every reason to simply kick US out of east Asia. This key distinction, TW is political goal, kicking US out of east asia is geopolitical / regional hegemony goal. That's the overarching geopolitics that matters. Spheres of influence and all that.
> China attacks everything the US has ever built and successfully destroys it and there is nothing the US can do” very convincing.
It's very convincing because the flip side is US can likely destroy PLAN as well. When I say surface fleet is dead, I include PRC / everyone. The problem is USN likes to launch missiles at Houthis, US global security posture is predicated on survivable expeditionary navy. PRC is not. After both sides lose their boats, US loses most strategic posture, while PRC can rebuild faster. The point is US posture is uniquely vulnerable, because of course it is, PRC spend last 30 years specifically dismantling US force structure. US force structure have been distracted by GWOT, procurement drama... and just geopolitical reality of PRC industrial base, has having difficulty doing the opposite.
Because the US has no interest in a war with China?
Actually attacking the US is literally the worst possible idea for China though. They can win a short, high-intensity war over Taiwan and leverage US political chaos and dysfunction to achieve their goals, but attacking the actual United States would quickly, and cohesively force the United States to get its shit together.
I don’t have any illusions about American Exceptionalism, but China’s strengths in manpower and manufacturing capacity don’t have the leverage that you think they do when a land-oriented power (China) has to engage in warfare with a naval and air-based power. China middling oil production would be destroyed by US missiles and it would be unable to import more oil. That’s a big problem that a land-based power isn’t going to be able to easily overcome. But I guess as you say “China has missiles, China blow up all US forces everywhere” or something like that.
And even winning a war doesn’t “kick” the US out of East Asia. They can just maintain existing bases and naval forces. What’s China going to do about it? Are you going to bomb Japan and Korea? Launch missiles at Saudi Arabia since they aren’t selling you any more oil? The scenario you are fantasizing about which is effectively “China rains down missiles on everything and nobody can do anything about it” is really just not realistic and you keep assuming that other countries don’t have missiles or capabilities or the ability to cause significant harm to Chinese interests.
If you really believe that China launching an invasion of Taiwan (I don’t care if it’s an internal affair or not, China takes action against the US and we just sell Taiwan weapons and take actions against China and so forth) legitimizes striking the continental United States none of this technology you’re talking about matters because your argument is basically “everything escalates to nuclear war” so what does anyone care about how much the US or China wastes on military assets?
But China doesn’t have any intentions of seeing its civilization destroyed, nor does the US, so once you take nuclear war off the table, you have to manage escalation to avoid nuclear war, which is why China is building so many surface ships.
> When I say surface fleet is dead, I include PRC / everyone. The problem is USN likes to launch missiles at Houthis, US global security posture is predicated on survivable expeditionary navy. PRC is not. After both sides lose their boats, US loses most strategic posture, while PRC can rebuild faster. The point is US posture is uniquely vulnerable, because of course it is, PRC spend last 30 years specifically dismantling US force structure. US force structure have been distracted by GWOT, procurement drama... and just geopolitical reality of PRC industrial base, has having difficulty doing the opposite.
The PLAN doesn’t know how to fight a war. The GWOT and similar operations are done so the United States can continue to make sure everything works, logistics concerns are ironed out, and more. There are other reasons for these engagements, of course.
I don’t really accept your theory the Chinese military will just launch missiles and blow up all USN ships, which I think is a fundamental disagreement here and I am not convinced by your writing to change my mind.
> US+co seems to have interest in intervening in Chinese civil war, which itself exists due to US support over last 70 years.
China overplayed its hand with the seizure of Hong Kong, restricting rare earth exports from Chinese refineries, and so-called wolf warrior diplomacy. It had a very easy path to assimilate Taiwan without bloodshed but now it’s going to have to fight over it do no real good reason. The US and Americans in general don’t really care too much about Taiwan, and had China just continued to be a good partner and showed kindness toward Taiwan it would have won the long game and convinced Taiwan to rejoin peacefully. It’s really unfortunate. The US and China don’t need to fight, but I think Xi Jingpin specifically and China’s posture generall has caused the US to have to support Taiwan instead. There are a long list of grievances both sides can legitimately levy at each other, but I think China was the one to rekindle the issue while the US was thinking hey let’s all just trade and get along. I know you’ll disagree but I’ve reviewed enough of the history of both countries and the region to know that this is the case.
What is fuss over US coming to TW defense then? US wants to prevent PRC reunification regardless of method, that's ample reason for war. If US doesn't want war, just have state department tell PRC TW is internal problem.
> get its shit together
How, it takes years to build up modern atrophied industrial base + workforce. It will take even longer to degrade PRC industrial base. Reminder US vs Iraq took 5 carrier groups, favourable regional basing and unsustainably high tempo permissive operations 6 weeks to dismantle Iraq... scale that to PRC size... charitably 500x more industrially capable than Iraq with greater tech base, it will take US+co decades, and US MIC was much better capitalized then, and US industry more productive (as in actual material production not value add). Meanwhile, US basing and posture vs PRC is significantly worse than Iraq, i.e. relative fire generation ability is even worse at standoff range, assuming it even exists. It is innumerate thinking US+co can substantially degrade PRC knowing basic numbers. Either way this is dependant on PRC mainland being hit, is US going to permit mainland attacks from 1IC? What if PRC creams JP, PH for using basing to undermine PRC efforts? Attacking via proxies isn't some magical lifehack that keeps CONUS safe, especially with US basing. This isn't UKR where US has deniability shipping shit from Poland. Hitting mainland from theatre with US basing opens proportional CONUS attack.
> land oriented
Who cares? It's not about land/sea/air oriented, it's about long range strikes oriented, just because PRC doesn't double down on supremely vulnerable legacy navy/airforce to project fires doesn't mean they cannot prosecute long range fires. Again this is 2025, that 8000km DF27 land attack to CONUS exist for a reason. Other missiles to hit tankers/unrep within stand off range etc all the logistics chain that USN and USAF depends to even operate in theatre. There's a reason why is DDGX and FAXX getting the ugly step child treatment, because none of them or their sustainment are survivable in their platform range. When US depend on middle platform to deliver fires, and those middle platforms cannot operate because their even more vulnerable sustainment goes boom, US muh boats and planes is at massive long range fires disadvantage over "land" based fires that simply skips middlemen. And PRC gets to do that precisely because they have industrial base to make disposable single shot long range fires economical.
Extrapolate to land attack US infra with modest DF27 upgrade, that's all of CONUS oil infra going boom too. Everything US can do to PRC, PRC can do to US in short term, if not already because DoD reports tend to be behind the times. Who do you think will fare better then? PRC with 4x more energy infra for US to strike and magnitude more distributed energy infra. So yes, of course the answer is more missiles because PRC prompt global strike explicitly to attack CONUS strategic targets conventionally was written in PLA future doctrine as far back as 2010s. They explicitly are circumventing vulnerable naval fires for global fires straight from mainland because they understand US Navy+airfoce expeditionary model is shit fucked, having spent 20 years building all the tools to dismantle it. Meanwhile, US institutionally locked into shit fucked model, because again, by law US cannot divest from it.
>bomb Japan and Korea
Yes? If US drawn into TW scenario, escalation logic incentivized to align with geopolitical logic, which is to displace US out of east Asia, which calls for bombing JP/SKR/PH or anyone that assists US materially. They are absolutely on the menu because the gains are huge. As for Saudi + others, just US bases if they contribute to undermining PRC interests. If oil ain't flowing to PRC because US pressure, then remove US pressure. Again note all of CENTCOM is in PRC missile range, that is by design.
>nobody can do anything about it
Did I say that? I said PRC will receive counter fire, but not at scale vs what PRC can dish out. Nobody can do _enough_ about it, that's patently realistic when you look at stockpiles and force balance. Go back to the Iraq example. Now realize PRC has magnitude more than US+co in firepower targeted at JP/SKR/PH etc than US+co has via Iraq.
>escalates to nuclear war
Because I don't think it will. I think it's frankly cope rhetoric US delulus themselves into thinking US can maintain presence in another upcoming hegemons backyard because nukes. That bluff is going to get called because alternative is ceding regional hegemony aspirations forever because US cray cray and will nuke if they can't preposition on other side of globe. BTW PRC went to war with USSR, US in KR, shadow fought France in IndoChina, threated UK over HK, border skirmish with India, aka almost every nuclear state, over strategic considers much less important than TW. US threatening nukes vs PRC over TW isn't credible, nuclear umbrella isn't going to save JP/SKR/PH if they assist US in TW.
>China is building so many surface ships
But they're not? They have 300x military shipyard capacity than US, with CSCC producing more tonnage than ALL US postwar shipbuilding, a period where US was rolling out full carriers every year. PRC not doing that, they are keeping an absolutely modest navy relative to their productive capability. PRC military ship building is <1% of total shipbuilding capacity, every other naval power was dedicating 20-50% during peacetime. PRC match low end of that they're launching 80 carriers a year with dry docks sized to fit. PRC naval acquisition is best described as cautiously sufficient for regional overmatch, i.e. be more powerful than US+co in PRC backyard where they need peacetime presence. There's a reason rocket force is the most prestigious / pillar and reported directly to CMC before recent reforms.
>GWOT
C'mon you think GWOT built any surface warfare competency, see Yemen, see 7th fleet crashing left and right. It's negative experience, history has show correct doctrine + training > legacy experience time and time again.
>don’t really accept your theory... change mind
Don't? I'm not here to change your mind. This is public for others to draw conclusions based on argument.
>rejoin peacefully
Let's not pretend US isn't funding NGOs and various political groups to spike peaceful reunion efforts before HK. Reality post US sponsored sunflower movement was it's obvious if PRC wanted TW back before 2049, or prior due to generational voting habits, they'd have to fight for it. It just so happens fighting may ultimately be the PRC quiet preferrable route since retaking TW peacefully doesn't displace US out of east Asia, only drawing US into TW conflict does. So yes, I disagree, I think US overplayed it's hand pretending it can intervene in TW, and legitimizes PRC reason for extended war, and will end my comments here since impasse.
Well, it’s a big unknown. Let me lay out briefly why that’s the case at least in my mind.
Let’s say you are China and you’ve decided to use your military forces to take Taiwan. You know if you are just facing Taiwan alone you’ll suffer losses and ships will get blown up, but you are ok with that. Glory to the CCP and all. Sorry about those semiconductors planet Earth. Those facilities will be obliterated.
But… the United States and Japan (the two most important partners here in my view) are allies and they aren’t officially allied with Taiwan but are happy to sell weapons and, maybe, and you’re unsure about this, just maybe if China invades Taiwan they may say that this isn’t acceptable to our national security and we will take action to intervene, but let’s say there’s nothing in the cards to attack the Chinese mainland (frankly neither the US or Japan really have an interest in doing that).
So now you are thinking ok, if it’s just us versus Taiwan that’s a piece of cake. But if the US and Japanese militaries intervene and defend Taiwan, maybe your potential success rate drops considerably, maybe to 60% or lower. That’s a problem. What can you do about it?
Well you could… declare that war will take place just in the Taiwan Straight and surrounding area and everyone else’s country is “off limits”. Escalation means chaos. The CCP is all about stability, 100-year old plans within plans and all that.
But if the US and Japan enter the war, you could sink the entire US Navy but they’d have free rein to safely fly in missiles and planes and equipment to their permanent aircraft carrier: Japan.
How long do you think it takes for China to attack a US military installation on Japan? And at that point, what really is the escalation for the US or Japanese to, idk, conduct a limited military operation to attack a Chinese Air Force base in response?
The whole situation, at least in my mind, is so dangerous because the escalatory ladder is fast and steep. What happens if a Chinese missile misses the US base and kills Japanese citizens? How long would Japan put up with a blockade (because you (China) of course have to stop the flow of munitions coming to defend Taiwan), or harassing of Japanese trading ships? If the US had an airbase in Korea or Japan or the Philippines or Guam or Australia and the Chinese blew it up and killed hundreds of US airmen, how short is the escalatory ladder from that to the US and Allies returning the favor on any Chinese military installation?
I don’t think the article was insinuating that these mushrooms were a new discovery, they’ve been known not just in the region but to scientists for some time, though they did assert that this is the first time that the DNA had been sequenced.
There is room between under-regulation and over-regulation.
Given that we are experiencing high costs and other barriers to construction, we can do at least two things: reduce red tape where it makes sense or where the risk is acceptable to help lower costs, or the US government can, through a variety of mechanisms ranging from basic research funding to direct subsidies, spend taxpayer money to try and alleviate costs.
Given that we supposedly (and I agree) need to build nuclear reactors to help power our country and given that we aren’t building them, we can optionally use both levers to encourage construction. There seems to be this mind virus that has infected many people on the internet that seem to think that regulations are a moral good, and so having more of them must be more good.
This is not accurate.
Regulations are simply a tool we can wield to achieve desired outcomes within various risk and need-based calculations. More regulations can be good, for example we should ban highway billboards- that would be a good regulation. Or we can eliminate regulations - allow businesses to build more housing using pre-approved designs that meet existing zoning code. Neither is good or bad, except in that it helps to achieve some aim that society has.
The regulation or lack there of, of nuclear energy in the United States has absolutely nothing to do with Boeing airlines screwing up some plane designs. Drawing a conclusion that nuclear energy must be regulated (it is) or over-regulated (it probably is or else we would build more), because of a belief that Boeing airliners weren’t regulated enough is, to put it lightly, nonsense, and you are mistakenly using the application of some regulation or lack of causing some bad things to happen, to imply that more regulation in another area would mean good things happen through this framework of regulation == good.
And further, if you’re going to suggest that Boeing is effectively unregulated, which is untrue in practice and in principal, then I’d argue that was for the best given that it is a hugely successful company that employs tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions have flown and continue to fly on their airlines every single day safely and without incident.
> There seems to be this mind virus that has infected many people on the internet that seem to think that regulations are a moral good
The people who don't agree with you are largely reasonable, as you likely are, and are no more infectees of a "mind virus" for holding their opinions than you are for holding yours. There's no need to denigrate them, or misrepresent their views to try to make your point. Indeed, many of them arrived at their opinion after seeing what happens when people push for not-enough regulation: Once bitten, twice shy.
Correct operation of a coal plant has global impact, and therefore coal should be phased out entirely.
Absent that, when a coal plant goes badly wrong, the damage is small enough and localised enough to be affordable.
When a nuclear plant goes wrong, the upper bound for error includes both Chrenobyl and also "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" followed by terrorists repeating the Goiânia accident somewhere.
Making all the failure modes not happen is expensive.
I would like to enforce a coal ban, but nobody gave me an army with which to do so.
Not that I could've enforced it for all those years even if I had an army, as coal was dominant for so long for the same reason it is now being rapidly displaced: cost.
> In the entire history of civil nuclear power "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" has never happened.
This reads a bit like "why do we need a QA department when we don't have any bugs"?
The reason nobody stole the stuff from reactors is because everyone has, by international law and also nonbinding recommendations, security and armed guards making sure they don't. These are not free.
The Goiânia accident was stupidity, not malice, so you can't predict how many people would die if it was done maliciously from how many were killed. My understanding is what keeps people (relatively) safe from this type of attack at the moment, is the public deployment of radiation sensors since 9/11, which we know about because of people with radioisotopes in them for medical reasons getting caught by them. These are not free.
The Chrenobyl reactors were housed in what’s "best described as a shed" because that was cheap. Same for all of the other design issues with those reactors: it made them cheap.
The rules that make reactors expensive are written in incidents.
Chernobyl happened while I was alive. It wasn’t that long ago. The leader of the Soviet Union who presided over the disaster (Gorbachev) died only 3 years ago.
Aside from that, “because communism” is not a serious answer.
Whether a deregulationist considers themselves communist or capitalist is a red herring: being in favor of dangerous deregulation spans many different national economic persuasions.
Why do you think I am more generous towards the coal industry? We are talking about nuclear power. If you would like my opinion on coal, I will gladly give it to you. You never asked.
For starters: I think clean coal is absolute nonsense (I’ve cited the White House’s outrageous stance on this several times on HN) and people brush away the environmental, social, and general health impacts of coal to their own peril. We know the harmful impacts. We know the body count. We have alternatives and it’s time to move on.
I am absolutely 100% critical of the coal industry/power - far more than I am of nuclear. It doesn’t even compare.
So to answer your question:
> But why not same scrutiny for coal?
I’ll give you the same answer I give every person who gives me this tired refrain without ever even trying to suss out what I think about coal: I am. You are misinformed. And it has no impact on my desire to demand the highest safety standards for nuclear power.
Operating a commercial reactor and keeping it up to regulations isn’t exactly cheap. It requires people, periodic inspections, maintenance, and lots of paperwork to prove you are not cutting corners.
I guess I should separate what I mean by this.
If you need plumbing work usually you have to pull permits from the city, depending on where you live that could be a small portion of the cost or a large majority of the cost. I am not advocating for the removal of say skilled operators and technicians. I am against overwhelming bureaucracy with paper documents lengthy processing times and fringe regulations.
The biggest issues people usually have with any construction work is dealing with the city/county because they throw up the most roadblocks and you do not have the freedom to choose, in the case that there is no free market available the regulation must be good, cheap and efficient, a bit off topic but alas
> If you need plumbing work usually you have to pull permits from the city
Most work you'd hire a plumber for does not require any sort of permit. Fix a leak? Replace a toilet? Install a water hammer arrestor? Unclog a toilet? Hydrojet a sewer line? etc. None of those have ever required a single permit for me. A recent $450 quote to install another shutoff valve was about 95% labor, 5% parts, 0% bureaucracy.
In fact, I would be surprised if there was a single location in the US where permits constituted "a large majority of the costs" of plumbing work done in that location. I honestly don't know what you're talking about there. Maybe you could share such a location?
Indeed, the cost of most construction work is not dominated by any sort of bureaucracy or government-mandated paperwork, but by materials and people doing the work. If I bought a new house for $1M, regulation did not constitute $500,000 of it.
> The biggest issues people usually have with any construction work is dealing with the city/county because they throw up the most roadblocks and you do not have the freedom to choose
This is simply not the case. Maybe you're talking about the issues you personally have. The biggest issue people usually have with construction is the cost, and the biggest part of the cost is the labor and materials, because you live in a high-COL country. The current inflation and tariffs we're seeing don't help. I guess if we want to bring costs down by cutting regulation, the overwhelming tariffs (aka very expensive regulations) would be a good first target, and that would help address inflation, too – bonus cost savings!
> I am against overwhelming bureaucracy
So is everyone else, but is hiring a plumber expensive because of "overwhelming bureaucracy"? No, it's because it costs money to pay the people who do the work.
In the case of the humanities, art, or architecture in academia if you disagree with the orthodoxy you might end up labeled something you don’t want to be labeled as, and you don’t get very far.
In architectural design I think it’s rather pronounced. We already know how to design great buildings for the human environment. There ain’t anything new to learn here, so in order to stand out in the field you have to invent some bullshit.
Well, you do that, you create Brutalism or something similarly nonsensical, and in order to defend your creation you have to convince a lot of other academics that no, in fact, buildings that look like bunkers or “clean lines” with “modern materials” are the pinnacle of architecture and design.
And as time has gone on we still go and visit Monet’s
Gardens while the rest of the design and art world continues circle jerking to ever more abstract and psychotic designs that measurably make people unhappy.
Not all “experts” in various fields are weighted the same. And in some cases being an expert can show you don’t really know too much.
Eh, that's overstating the case. There's clearly some aesthetics that are more appealing to more people but for many architectural movements in particular the reason that they look that way is for the way that specific ideological reasons interacted with material constraints and the intended message. Brutalism in particular was intended to be cheap and honest; given the constraints many of these buildings were designed under, it makes sense. There are some quite appealing brutalist buildings; a core tenet of the style was integrating the buildings into the natural landscape, in contrast to the artificial styles that had previously been popular. The post-war shortages limited the available materials, shaping the constraints they were operating under. Raw concrete was honest, cheap, and was allowed to weather naturally.
There's a lot of ugly brutalist buildings, but there's a lot of ugly buildings in every style. At lot of them look cheap because they were supposed to be cheap; to a certain extent looking inexpensive was intended. In some cases the hostile nature of the institutional building was part of the point, conveying strength unstead of offering a pleasant experience, but there's also some quite pleasant brutalist buildings that have a lot of nature integrated into the design.
Well you can’t power fighter jets or tanks on renewables yet so there’s still that.
But I think this past year really changed the direction of the US and to a lesser extent the EU with respect to oil and gas versus renewables.
As the US has realized at the institutional level that China has secured a very strong position on refining rare earth materials into batteries and other green technology it is doubling down on oil and gas as the energy choice for the foreseeable future, climate change be damned. Not that China ever really cared about the climate, they just, for good reasons, wanted an alternative energy production source because even if they seized Taiwan the US Navy can bring oil and gas imports to near 0. Pipelines from Russia are sitting ducks too, so not much reprieve there.
US is putting $40 billion into Al Udeid and signing AI deals with the Middle East powers, and is close enough on a deal to legitimize Israel. Add Venezuela. You can see where this is going.
The EU politically wants to switch to green tech but it’s facing a problem which is doing so will result in effective deindustrialization since they would wind up buying most equipment from China including cars. The EU either did or is about to shelve the requirement that cars are EVs by 2035. I expect this to be fully repealed. While the EU likes to not mince words about US tariffs, they’re ultimately heading in the same direction. China had a $1 trillion export surplus. If the US isn’t buying their subsidized products who is? Brazil? Right now it’s Europe, but do you think Germany will let its manufacturing sector go away? If so I have a ticket to sell you to the next AfD rally. The product dumping from China is going to be too much and in a judo move the west will be able to use China’s manufacturing capacity against it. Nice factories you have there, too bad nobody buys anything you make (relatively speaking).
So the EU is sitting between two oil and gas energy superpowers oh and the Middle East is just around the bend. Politically they’ll still work on climate change initiatives but as push comes to shove, and with China overplaying its hand with export controls on rare earth materials and creating more panic in Brussels (never mind China's support for Russia invading Ukraine), the EU will generally maintain an oil and gas industrial direction, if I were to guess.
I’m not pro gas/oil or anything like that. Drive an EV and love it. But that’s my fun armchair take on what’s going on here.
They are decimating academic research into health care tech in general. There’s been mixed messaging from the administration on GLP-1s (although if they keep pushing on the eugenics theme, they will solidify as anti on those as well soon enough) but that wasn’t really the point. I named mRNA and GLP-1s as two examples of modern tech revolutions that are not AI or space-related. Those are the modern tech breakthroughs, not AI and definitely not space launches. (I went back and edited the post to make it clearer what I meant by “both”).
Wegovy and Zepbound have not been covered by Medicare for weight loss, “and they’ve only rarely been covered by Medicaid,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “They’ve often cost consumers more than $1,000 per month, some a lot more than that. ... That ends starting today."
"“This is the biggest drug in our country, and that’s why this is the most important of all the [most favored nation] announcements we’ve made,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during the briefing. “This is going to have the biggest impact on the American people. All Americans, even those who are not on Medicaid, Medicare, are going to be able to get the same price for their drugs, for their GLP-1s.""
Not sure what 23434dsf means but America's traditional allies like Canada, Europe and maybe post WW2 Japan are forming an alliance against Russia's invasion into Europe, while Trump's position seems to be it's ok for Russia to take land by force as long as he/the US get a cut of the plunder.
Are you suggesting that Canada, Europe (I take it you mean the EU and UK), and perhaps Japan are forming a separate alliance without the United States because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Can you link to anything specific? Have there been alliance talks? What are the new alliances being formed called? I know there have been some arms purchases and agreements but that wouldn't have anything to do with forming an alliance separate from what already exists today.
The wikipedia has "Building upon these bilateral discussions aiming at creating a hard core of allies in Europe focused on Ukraine and wider European security..."
Allies isn't being used in terms of Alliance here. I don't know the full list but most of the countries on that list, and perhaps all, are already allies. There's nothing to further ally about.
What this is, is a cooperation framework toward a shared purpose. None of those countries are abandoning or being abandoned by the United States as an ally, nor are any of those countries creating new alliances with each other.
I know there's this gut reaction on the Internet to act like the rest of the world is banding together and leaving the United States because of President Trump or something, but it's just not the case. At the end of the day, the only country in the world that has military and industrial power to defend against Russia or China today is the United States. That's not a slight at Japan, or France, or anything like that, but an acknowledgment of reality.
President Trump's administration has been, in my view, haphazard and stupid in how it has treated out allies and partners in many ways. In some ways they've been correct though too, and it's important to not overreact to news headlines.
Nothing of note, yet. Like most US corporations, they're holding off on implementing real changes to see if we the people choose to continue on this self-destructive course after He leaves office.
In some ways self-destructive, in other ways not. President Biden restricted early use of long range weapons to strike Russia - that was self-destructive too.
Really, what exactly are folks asking the United States to do here? Give more money or weapons? Sure we could give even more, I support that. I'm quite hawkish on both Russia and China.
But I don't think that giving more money and arms tips the scales enough for Ukraine to force Russia out. So where does that leave us? The EU isn't going to do anything militarily about the situation. As the PM of Poland said, 600+ million Europeans are asking 300+ million Americans to defend them from 180+ million Russians. Something doesn't seem right. That doesn't mean the Trump Administration has handled this well. I'll give them to the extent that it is genuine that pursuing peace, if possible, is what we should do. But it also doesn't mean that all of the political grandstanding and TRUMP MAN BAD is getting us anywhere either. Has he handled our alliances poorly, yea I think so. Are our allies leaving and forming new alliances? No, not in any material sense. Does Europe need to step up and spend to defend itself, absolutely. It also doesn't mean President Trump needs to be an asshat either. Some ways self-destructive, other ways not.
I would have prefered the US to be a bit firmer about Russia not invading in 2022 like don't do it or we'll send jets.
Still here we are and like you say 600m+ of us wanting 300m+ Americans to defend against Russia is a bit odd although you can see how it got that way - after WW1 and WW2 it seemed quite a good idea not to rearm Europe and the US was quite keen to confront the Soviets. It's changing now due to Trump being a bit useless and Europe not wanting to be next on the list after Ukraine.
Tim I’m even more hawkish. I think we should have done what you suggest in 2022, but even today I think we should basically give Russia an ultimatum and then use air power to neuter their military (along with TBD ground forces from Europeans). The ideal time to do that was when we bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities.
I am happy that Europeans are taking their security more seriously, and I don’t fault them for not pursuing US levels of military spending. Both world wars were so catastrophic, how could someone imagine starting another war in Europe?! But then along comes Russia, aided and abetted by China and North Korea and Iran.
I’m not sure if President Trump has been useless. He’s certainly useful to someone but I for the life of me can’t tell who. One day he’s ready to force Ukraine to accept Ukraine’s demands, the next the administration says it’s open season on Russian shadow fleet tankers. He’s tired of paying, and I think we are giving away less, but then they are happy to sell weapons and provide loans. Loans which will be useless if Ukraine is conquered.
Though I do want to point out that post-WW2 European militaries were staffed to be ready to fight the Soviets too.
@ericmay, you are not wrong, its already doing a lot of evil, I am from one of those countries destroyed by the US.
its less evil when country economically destroyed (with sanctions), but its another thing when some of your relatives killed because some people wanted to play with their gun and shoot real people, for sport.
“As the HN poster proudly clicks on the reply button having delivered a blow to the vast ignorance of a stranger, a train arrives somewhere deep in rural China carrying Uyghurs ready for their re-education.”
But mandating Greco-Roman architecture by the Trump administration for federal buildings was actually a huge win for taste and design. Though unfortunately many people have become confused about what good design is or the reason to choose that architecture style can’t be overcome by their distaste for President Trump or his administration, which is very arguably deserved based on their conduct, speech, or mannerisms.
When we take away formality or tradition from governmental institutions you take away pieces of civilization and governmental authority that we, really can’t afford to lose. When government buildings are designed to look like shit, for example, one might come to believe the government is shit too (Democrat or Republican run) and the next thing you know you’re running red lights or flipping off the court because the document they sent you in the mail doesn’t look scary and official.
Secretary Duffy was right too about airline travel. Well, there is another to unpack there. Flying is lame compared to rail unless you’re flying across the country, and being shaken down by the TSA is undignified and thus people dress to meet the lack of dignity and respect the government shows them at the airline terminal.
But he’s not wrong.
When you put more care into how you dress you instinctively put more care into how you treat others and how you dress impacts how others treat you. I’m not suggesting a mandate or anything, but I’ll fly in a suit and tie easily and comfortably all day long over stained sweatpants and bringing my comfort dog on to the flight to annoy everyone. Dress how you want, but if you can’t take care of the basics I’m not sure where else you think society is going other than downhill in a fashion.
reply