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 -
Ukraine has lasted for years because Ukraine doesn't have nukes and doesn't have any way of getting rid of Russia's nukes, thus preventing false alarms leading to Russian launch (and because there is still significant deterrence against Russia using nukes proactively).
Direct war between the USA and PRC is completely different. You'll be lucky if it lasts six months without nuclear exchange.
Admittedly, this still means most Taiwanese die because Taipei/Tainan eat Chinese nukes, but you're assuming your way out of reality thinking that a Taiwan war would last for years.
Why would China nuke Taiwan? From their perspective it would be nuking their own people.
I don't pretend to be an expert on foreign policy in general or China-Taiwan relations in particular, so maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds unlikely to me.
It wouldn’t necessarily be China that throws the first one. It would be tempting for the US to use tactical weapons to even out local Chinese conventional superiority. There’s a ton of articles from American think tanks pondering such a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
The CPC consider the DPP and probably a decent chunk of voters for it to be "their own people in open rebellion", and want to kill them.
Moreover, we're positing a scenario in which nukes are (apparently or actually) flying at China and the CPC is trying to punish everyone it deems responsible, which necessarily includes Taiwan because if they'd surrendered the war wouldn't have happened.
Sure, but they're talking about killing the leadership, not nuking the whole island.
If nukes are (apparently or actually) flying at China, they won't have the option of "occupy Taiwan and execute the DPP in an orderly fashion" anymore, and all deterrents are void.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What scenario are you thinking of? US bombers attack Chinese missile launchers (assuming they're conventional) but they're actually nuclear/dual-purpose and it's interpreted as a disarming strike? Incredibly brave US submarine somehow infiltrates the sea of Bohai and sinks a Chinese missile sub, prompting worries about the stability of their arsenal? China wouldn't start such a big war unless they think they have a secure nuclear arsenal. The US nuclear arsenal is very secure.
And neither side has deployed many tactical nukes, unlike in the Cold War. Modern smart weapons are very potent and forces tend to be dispersed, the value of tactical nukes is not as high as it used to be.
And it doesn't seem wise for either party to escalate consciously, why would they? If they suffer a reverse, wait and try again. If China is losing, they'll probably try to extend/expand the war and their mobilization rather than go nuclear. They don't particularly want to irradiate and incinerate their own rogue province.
Does the US care that much about Taiwan? They won't even make an explicit security guarantee for Taiwan, let alone extend their nuclear umbrella so far.
Apologies for the late reply; last night I had to put cream on one of my hands.
Yes.
Or unless they're overconfident in the USA not coming in.
The first one you mention is somewhat plausible, but I'm assuming a lot more "fog of war" than what you seem to be doing. I'm thinking things like "Chinese radar falsely detects SLBM launches, not sorted out within the minutes available and PLARF launches-on-warning" or "US sends bombers at targets in mainland China, they're nuclear-capable so PRC figures they might be intending to nuke the Chinese deterrent" or "US radar falsely detects Chinese ICBM launches, counterforce alpha-strike is attempted to reduce casualties".
Note that launch-detection satellites are probably toast in a WWIII scenario because of the long-standing Chinese war plan to open up WWIII with massive ASAT use, that the PRC probably will be launching a bunch of ballistic missiles at Taiwan as part of any attack, and that the PRC's land radars may be taking a beating as part of conventional warfare.
Good, persuasive points, especially re radar. One would imagine there'd be redundancy, I guess that's one of the secrets of the universe that we never really know with surety. Still, I can't help but think both sides plan to make extensive use of high-speed missiles, traditional launch on warning postures might be obsolete. The Chinese have their carrier killer ICBMs, the US has been working on hypersonic anti-ship missiles and prompt global strike. Either could presumably carry nuclear warheads. This will have to be taken into account, they wouldn't make these things if they invite nuclear war on use, launch on warning will have to be more flexible.
China at least has historically had a pretty dismissive attitude to nuclear war, with their minimum credible deterrent. They don't seem like the type to panic and launch on an unreliable warning signal. It's a long way to reach their siloes out in the desert, US bombers would probably be plinking away at coastal bases with air-launched missiles rather than getting that far into Chinese airspace. They might hit a few dual use nuclear TELs on the coast I guess but it seems unreasonable to go nuclear over things like that.
And I can't imagine a US president risking megadeaths unless he was totally sure of what he was doing.
I mean, I'm sure most of these things would get sorted out without mushroom clouds. My guess based on the close calls in the Cuban Missile Crisis is like 1% per day or so that it all goes south. It's just, well, that adds up; 99%^182 = 16% of our luck holding out for six months (I didn't say "extremely lucky").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
US doesn't go nuclear over taiwan which means china doesn't go nuclear over taiwan. They're not treaty allies.
The Cuban Missile Crisis lasted what, two weeks? We had one accidental launch of nuclear bombers (the Duluth bear fiasco) and had a 2/3 majority onboard a Soviet submarine for "launch nuclear torpedo" (needed unanimous). Procedures have improved somewhat, but also that wasn't even a shooting war.
Sooner or later, there'll be a false alarm that gets treated as real. The chance per day is low, but it adds up.
Having missiles off our shores is pretty different to having them pointed at another country that isn't a treaty ally.
And the Chinese will "have missiles off their shores" in any likely WWIII scenario. Aircraft carriers carry nukes and a lot of the Western SSBNs would likely be deployed to the Sea of Japan/Philippine Sea/Bay of Bengal.
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