Thread

1. whatever1 · 1791108278 · focus · HN ↗

   If you want security the concept of the mega city needs to be abandoned.

   In a decentralized country you don’t care about terrorism attacks, nuclear bombs, coups, revolutions, drones and what not.

   1. theplumber · 1791109084 · focus · HN ↗

      Trading off efficiency for security is not wise unless you are in war. The same applies to supply chains.

      1. RobotToaster · 1791109922 · focus · HN ↗

         "In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace." - Sun Tzu
      2. whatever1 · 1791110105 · focus · HN ↗

         I am not sure how efficient we are when the US spends like 20% of its budget for military, police and fire depts.

         Let alone all of the super expensive infrastructure that mega cities need, for example subways, buses, wide highways for traffic, heavy transportation for supply

         1. konschubert · 1791114332 · focus · HN ↗

            All of which is more expensive, per resident, in the countryside.
         2. bluGill · 1791114620 · focus · HN ↗

            Citation needed. Those are less than 5% of any budget I've seen.
         3. daemoens · 1791133892 · focus · HN ↗

            "super expensive infrastructure" that is always going to be cheaper in a city compared to building equivalents in the countryside.
      3. graemep · 1791113825 · focus · HN ↗

         By the time you are in a war it is too late. Far better to be prepared.

         Its not just war either, as the pandemic showed. Trade disputes that lead to sanctions, natural disasters, and lots of other things require the same security.

         Its worth paying a bit more for the security, for the same reasons people buy insurance.

         1. [deleted] · 1791140260 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

         2. theplumber · 1791145090 · focus · HN ↗

            >> It’s worth paying a bit more for the security, for the same reasons people buy insurance.

            Yeah but this “ If you want security the concept of the mega city needs to be abandoned.” is not a bit more. It’s paying more for insurance than the asset insured. Perhaps you heard of the term over engineer or the cure is worse than the disease. I think it applies here as well.

      4. DrProtic · 1791117957 · focus · HN ↗

         Its not even more secure, Russia didn't conquer Kiev and Harkov because they're huge. They were only able to take on smaller cities and towns.
   2. PowerElectronix · 1791110589 · focus · HN ↗

      There's a tradeoff there, because a very distributed society will also be able to resist disruption and control from a central state.
   3. thenthenthen · 1791112445 · focus · HN ↗

      “Encircling the cities from the countryside" (农村包围城市) is the foundational military and geopolitical strategy developed by Mao Zedong during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap forward, building a distributed self sustaining (military) industrial complex. It was very hard to build and maintain. Altho a lot moved to the coastal areas again, there are constant oscillations and negations between the rich costal cities and the hinterland (data centers, taobao villages)
   4. tancop · 1791112460 · focus · HN ↗

      Mega cities are a lot more efficient and I think most people would rather live in one than a small town.

      And they're actually easier to protect because you can build all your bunkers, barracks, drone bays and ABMs close together. The attack surface is a lot smaller. In less urban countries you have to decide what needs protection, and if you guess wrong more people will end up dead.

      We should be decentralized in terms of power, not geographic distance. A city where everyone has a gun and military training is much harder to attack than 100 villages with the same total population. The important thing is making sure that even if the city falls theres a plan to avoid civilian casualties, and the rest of the country is independent enough to work without it.

      1. MisterMunchkin · 1791120907 · focus · HN ↗

         If that were true then everyone would have centralised their industry in WW2 to make it resist the bombing. They didn’t, because having one small target is way worse than having dispersed targets.
      2. asdff · 1791130233 · focus · HN ↗

         The thing is history disagrees with this. Any war from past to present, cities fall relatively quickly and dramatically while the countryside can resist empires for decades. America, the most powerful military the planet has ever seen, has lost twice now to the 100 villages in Vietnam and now Afghanistan.

         1. jltsiren · 1791157057 · focus · HN ↗

            Cities are often strong fortified positions that can withstand anything a peer enemy can throw against them. In WW2, the Siege of Leningrad lasted over 2 years and ultimately failed.

            In Afghanistan, the issue was that the country does not really make sense. The central government is usually weak and illegitimate, and it doesn't have effective control over most of the country. The US went in with a small force and quickly defeated the central government. But because they lacked the manpower to control the country, they created a new central government, which was again too weak and illegitimate for the task. And then the situation just dragged on, until the US lost interest.

            As for the Vietnam War, cities rarely changed hands in the war before the US started withdrawing its troops. The US was unwilling to invade North Vietnam, because it was afraid of an outcome similar to the Korean War, where it would have to face China and/or the USSR directly. And North Vietnam was too weak to invade the South.

   5. bamboozled · 1791113851 · focus · HN ↗

      There was far less risk to cities before social media algorithms sent the world fucking mad and helped get a total psychopath into the oval office and tore apart the world order and globalism.

      But yeah, it's looking like state sponsored terrorism is back on the menu for those in cities, once everyone moves to the countries, small communities can be targeted by random drone attacks by Russians or something. Will be great.

   6. torginus · 1791114625 · focus · HN ↗

      Not just for security - generally speaking if you have high speed rail infrastructure connected to a good and fast public transport grid, there's genuinely no reason to build a huge city.

      High density housing is very slow to traverse and getting from point A to B in a big city might take more time than getting on a train that takes you to another city 200km away in 30 min. In a traffic jam, you'll be lucky to do 5km in the same time.

      1. t0mpr1c3 · 1791116861 · focus · HN ↗

         You have it backwards. Passenger railways only make sense when they connect large population centers. Public transport networks outside of urban areas barely exist.

         1. torginus · 1791149246 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't. High speed rail is everywhere in Europe and connects cities with a populations of a few hundred k to maybe a low million.

            These mid sized cities are usually along the rail lines, like beads on a string.

            Whereas these megacities are built densely and usually have radial transport networks which require insane levels of urban planning and are difficult to navigate in the best of cases.

            1. jltsiren · 1791158488 · focus · HN ↗

               Public transit requires density even when the cities are small. If the population is too evenly distributed, there are no routes with enough traffic to justify good transit service. People will then choose to drive if they can. And if transit connections to railway stations are not good enough, there is not enough demand for high-speed rail, because most people will choose to drive to the next city.

               1. ButlerianJihad · 1791159196 · focus · HN ↗

                  “Choose to drive”? What an elitist perspective we have.

                  Populations either have personal vehicles or they don’t. For many of my neighbors, “choosing to drive” is an absurd economic proposition. This choice involves paying for the car, the gas, the maintenance, and the insurance, at the very least. Maintaining your privilege, avoiding tickets and accidents, all a delicate urban ballet.

                  Cars are often assets that will save and even help you earn money, but it is a very interesting thing when the upper classes are incentivized to give up vehicle ownership, or eschew driving. When cars are not saving money & time, they become liabilities, and a millstone around your neck. Some people feel relieved to get rid of them.

                  Many people love cars and love driving, but car culture was foisted on the unwilling public by the military-industrial complex. You drive cars and have highways because of war. Now your soccer mom drives a toddler munching tank to her jobs. Think about it.

                  For many people, choosing to be Taylor Swift would be easier than “choosing to drive”. It’s either public transit, or bike/walk/stay home.

                  1. jltsiren · 1791161843 · focus · HN ↗

                     Public transit is mostly about the middle 80%. If it's useful for them, they are willing to pay to keep it that way one way or another. If it's not, they won't pay, and the service will be bad for those who have no other options.

                     Helsinki just completed a 10 km light rail line that cost ~€400 million, including some major bridges. That's maybe €10k per current and future resident in the areas connected by it to the city center. Spending that much for an option to have good public transit only makes sense if most of those people are going to use the line.

                     1. [deleted] · 1791165094 · focus · HN ↗

                        [deleted]

   7. tim333 · 1791116527 · focus · HN ↗

      Writing from London I'm not planning on abandoning. It might be nice to have a country place too in case Russia nukes.
   8. [deleted] · 1791118147 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

   9. [deleted] · 1791119930 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.