This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
'If you do not agree with my foundational premise, you're dumb' is a pretty dumb argument, especially when the history of the cold war doesn't support that nuclear power- as opposed to a host of other conventional great power capacities including economic and conventional military capacity- provided fundamental power imbalances in negotiations.
A power imbalance that doesn't affect someone's decision making or render them unable to resist isn't a power imbalance- it's an irrelevant expenditure of resources that could have been invested into capabilities that would have give you power over someone. It doesn't matter if this is because the power is so asymmetric it can't be applied (a world-beating land army unable to cross a natural barrier) or if it won't be out of consideration of second and third order effects.
Why wouldn't Kiev use totally-not-NATO cyber weapons with nuclear-level economic costs to Russia, including destruction of Russian energy infrastructure required for economic viability, in retaliation for a nuke over Kiev?
Or, alternatively, why wouldn't Kiev use a totally-lost-Soviet-Nuke-totally-not-from-NATO to counter-nuke?
No one would nuke Russia over Kiev for the same reason no one would nuke Russia outright- direct retaliation. But precedent is already established that indirect harm to Russia is not going to result in direct retaliation if it comes via the country Russia is fighting, at least so long as the capacity is equivalent to capabilities Russia has already brought to bare in the conflict.
It's likewise irrational for Russia to nuke Kiev over taking the loss in Ukraine, precisely because the game is not 'over' on the turn Russia deploys nukes.
Nuclear deterrence modeling will, of course, inevitably break down if you give license to one side to be an irrational nuclear actor, but then insist on 'rational' response modeling that is unsustainable in the face of irrational escalations.
Why would they have to do so? They could just hand a nuke over to Kiev for retaliation, with the nuclear deterrence model of MAD applying if Russia nuke them. If nuclear MAD logic is to apply, it still applies to the Russians to 'only' take 1 counter-nuking from Ukraine. If nuclear MAD logic does not apply, they are not being suicidal or self-immolating, but faced with an irrational actor.
You can't have Russia be both rational and irrational in the same paradigm. This is just a substitution for rational to personal bias, not logical consideration.
They can trace back nuclear weapons to the facility that generated the nuclear material. The mix of contaminants in unique to each.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link