Comment by rayiner

Comment by rayiner 3 days ago

19 replies

If you take nukes off the table, the U.S. doesn’t have a 100x military advantage. If China seriously mobilized its industrial capability, the U.S. may not have even a 2x advantage.

Remember that, right before World War II, the US didn’t even have a top-10 military, having demobilized it after World War I. It’s vast industrial capacity is what enabled it to build a larger military than all of Europe combined within a few years.

pjmlp 3 days ago

The most important fact, that people overlook, is that its industrial capacity was never bombed during the war, and Pearl Harbour was the only time the country got directly attacked.

  • nostrademons 3 days ago

    So Australia & New Zealand are the next superpowers.

    I remember when I was around middle school or early high school, I attended a geopolitical simulation at MIT that wargamed out a crisis between major world powers, and that was the exact result. New Zealand won, in alliance with Australia. They were able to invest heavily in technology while everyone else was nuking each other, and then ended up with space lasers or whatever the endgame tech was while everyone else ended up back in the stone age.

    • strken 3 days ago

      As an Australian, I have the suspicion that the decline of industry in the last couple of decades has done a lot of damage to that capability.

      We've lost oil refineries, steelworks, consumer car manufacturing, and we lack much shipbuilding and aerospace. We have a lot of mines, which curse us with success: it's not economically efficient to smelt ore when you could be digging up even more of it instead.

    • ndsipa_pomu 3 days ago

      Reminds me of how I used to play Risk (which I now consider to be one of the worst designed games in a similar fashion to Monopoly) when I'd sit in Australia and just keep building troops until other players weaken themselves with fighting. Of course it helps that there's just a single position to defend Australia and as it's the smallest continent, people usually aim to attack elsewhere.

      • fosco 3 days ago

        “Modern” risk boards have Australia with 3 borders to defend including the normal and addingcross-map Argentina to New Zealand and Japan to Philippines (I believe this map comes from a risk computer game)

  • mystraline 3 days ago

    When was Pearl Harbor attacked by Japan?

    Now, when did Hawai'i become a state?

    And when and by whom was their king deposed?

    > Pearl Harbour was the only time the country got directly attacked.

    Uh, which country again was it?

    (Edit: -4, really? Damn, people are salty about actually knowing history versus going against the US public school system's propaganda that "We (royal) were attacked". In reality, the occupier forces, the US military, were attacked, having deposed the government at the behest of Sanford Dole, of pineapple infamy.

    But the simple bumper sticker slogan "Remember Pearl Harbor", short circuits and somehow gets people to ignore history at the behest of ruthless hegemonic expansion and irrational patriotism.)

    • hylaride 3 days ago

      Your arguments are irrelevant at best and whataboutism at worst because the Japanese were specifically attacking the US Navy as they saw it as a threat to their own expansion plans - which were far worse than anything the US did, even compared to the worst parts of Native American policies (which were very, very bad). The Japanese saw Hawaii as a US territory to attack. Whether or how Hawaii became a US territory is a complete non sequitur in the context of World War 2.

      There's nobody outside of hardcore Japanese nationalists that see any of their actions as countering US expansionism.

    • jleyank 3 days ago

      Hawaii was a US territory as was Alaska (which was also attacked). As is Puerto Rico today.

      • mystraline 3 days ago

        An occupied territory, sure. The Japanese only attacked the occupiers (USA). They didn't go after any of the native peoples' cities.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Kingdom

        In 1887, King Kalākaua was forced to accept a new constitution after a coup d'état by the Honolulu Rifles, a volunteer military unit recruited from American settlers. Queen Liliʻuokalani, who succeeded Kalākaua in 1891, tried to abrogate the new constitution. She was subsequently overthrown in a 1893 coup engineered by the Committee of Safety (run by Sanford Dole), a group of Hawaiian subjects who were mostly of American descent, and supported by the U.S. military. The Committee of Safety dissolved the kingdom and established the Republic of Hawaii, intending for the U.S. to annex the islands, which it did on July 7, 1898, via the Newlands Resolution. Hawaii became part of the U.S. as the Territory of Hawaii until it became a U.S. state in 1959.

    • vel0city 3 days ago

      > Uh, which country again was it?

      Hawai'i became a territory of the United States on April 30, 1900. It had been US territory for 40 years. One can point to the US doing bad things to make that the state of affairs, but it was decidedly US territory for a long time at that point. It seems you need to learn history, or you're just being willfully obtuse about things.

eastbound 3 days ago

The US was also much more unified at the time. That’s the thing about history: Like economy, it’s human matter, and you could reproduce and experiment twice and get completely different result because your systems are not isolated in location or time.

  • potato3732842 3 days ago

    >The US was also much more unified at the time

    Were we? Or is that just after the fact revisionism that makes things "easy"

    If Europe had managed to keep it together a few more years the US may very well have had a bunch of communism adjacent social strife and FDR may have died a deposed tyrant.

    We were certainly more unified on certain broad cultural and values axis, but things were still very divided.