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 -
What is the appropriate level for diplomatic discussion on twitter?
Recently Elon Musk has been heavily criticised for an admittedly naïve proposal for a negotiated peace in the Russian-Ukrainian war. His proposal:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
Now this isn't how politics actually works, twitter polls are not actually binding instruments of diplomacy. Nor is a UN administered vote terribly helpful given how it'd just turn into a vote-rigging contest between the pro and anti-Russian forces within the UN and the Ukrainian state obviously wouldn't let the territories leave given the amount of blood that's been shed. They've threatened 15 year jail sentences for those who did vote in the most recent Russian referenda. It's also very hard to see why the Ukrainian govt would bind itself to allowing a Russian Crimea water since they dammed it off even before this war.
You can see from the replies that the objections aren't really on the object level, they're more on the 'go fuck yourself', 'educate yourself', 'you're using Putin talking points', 'Crimea is Ukraine'. All of this is essentially the official line of the Ukrainian state, as summarized by their ambassador to Germany: "Fuck off is my very diplomatic reply"
This seems rather ungrateful to me, as well as undiplomatic. As Elon reasonably argues, he has made a significant effort to assist the Ukrainian armed forces with communications via his satellites, paid from out of his own pocket:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577081450263769089
The fundamental power balance in this war is that Russia could obliterate the entirety of Ukraine in under an hour and still have plenty of nukes left to raze Europe and North America if they intervene. There are some people on this site who think that Russian nuclear forces probably don't work and so we can safely discount Russia's 2000 tactical nuclear weapons and 4000 strategic weapons. How they've come to that conclusion is beyond me, given that the technologies involved are fairly simple and old. The same people have been critiquing Russia for fighting a war with 1970s level technology - miniaturized thermonuclear weapons are 1970s technology! Yes, the tritium has a low half-life and needs to be replaced often. Yes, Russia doesn't have the best maintenance standards. But isn't it reasonable for them to prioritize their nuclear forces in terms of maintenance and development? Are we seriously prepared to risk tens if not hundreds of millions of our citizens dying in a full nuclear exchange if we are wrong about their nuclear preparedness? Their conventional tactical ballistic missiles work fine - doesn't it follow that their nuclear missiles work. This is the logic Musk is getting at. The penalty for emboldening dictators is not worse than the penalty for encouraging nuclear war, let alone losing a nuclear war by joining it.
I think this kind of hysterical diplomacy is dangerous and stupid, even from a Ukrainian-focused perspective. Why would you speak so rudely to a notoriously thin-skinned individual (remember when he called that diver 'pedo-guy') who has volunteered their services for your defence? One imagines Musk is seething with rage at his critics. The impression I get from Ukrainian media is that they are bent on getting back every scrap of territory and reparations to boot, won't suffer for anything less. This is the approach that is most likely to end with them getting nuked into submission.
Also, twitter should be for fun, not serious diplomacy.
The fundamental power balance in this world is not "we've got nukes, everyone without must bow before us or we'll nuke them". Because there's more than one nuclear power, and one or more of the others may well decide to respond rather than let that particular situation stand. If Russia nukes Kiev (no one will give a damn how its spelled when it's a crater) and Odessa, they have to seriously consider the possibility that the response will be nukes on Moscow and St. Petersburg. Or maybe just Moscow plus a counterforce strike. Yeah, you can argue until the cows come home about how this is irrational, but if you're Putin, you can't be sure the West won't risk trying to put the mad dog down.
I mean, that's something of strawman. To say "I have nukes, you don't" is absolutely an example of a fundamental power imbalance and to quibble otherwise is naive at best.
No one would nuke Russia over Kiev. It's incredibly irrational that so many politicos are grand standing and stating otherwise. This isn't some kind of turn based strategy game where Russia nukes Kiev on turn 1, then the US nukes Moscow on turn 2 before Russia can respond on turn 3.
I have very little faith in our leaders, but I don't think they're suicidal and willing to self-immolate to own the Russians.
'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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link