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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.