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 -
Who do you think mans a P-8 or a frigate spying for Chinese ships? Crew!
No, that's perfectly correct. You're not aware of the proper terminology here. If you spend more time at sea or in the air, operational tempo increases. This is basic stuff.
It's not a tripwire force it's talking about here. Again, you do not understand what it's talking about. This is surveillance, not tripwire.
Production of the B1 finished DECADES ago. They're supposed to be replaced in 2025 by the B-21. Why would we want to be flying an obsolete, incredibly expensive to maintain aircraft with a logistics chain that barely even exists in America? No more can be made, so if we crash one, it's gone forever!
Heavy bombers are different to fighters or heavy airlift for that matter. Australia already fields fighters but not heavy bombers. These are super complicated and hard to train, it's a highest of the high-end capability that can't just be rushed in a few years. And he wants to base them in Papua New Guinea, a shithole country with no infrastructure.
That's just flatly true, Australian shipbuilding is a joke. Read up on the Hunter class if you like, Claude knows more about it than you.
There are islands in the Pacific ocean and it can be helpful if you can land things there - troops, equipment, missiles, supplies. They're not really amphibious assault ships in that any opposition will sink them quickly, they're glorified and overpriced transports. Expecting these things to function like light carriers is very silly. Australia has minimal experience with carrier operations and no carrier-borne aircraft. It's another one of Pezzulo's 'lets just develop yet another high end capability how hard can it be' moments.
Fair enough, though it's not like the original article explains how we're supposed to get in bed with the Philippines either. 'Just make an alliance' doesn't cut it either.
Claude criticizes it for not talking about space enough. Space is very important as a killchain enabler and for surveillance. That was the whole point which you seem to have missed. See here:
Claude is not perfect. Sometimes it just produces blather. But it's still considerably better than your own criticisms of it. I rest my case!
Absolutely absurd. A plane is a plane. Or give me a single real reason why not.
You seem to think that real life is like an RTS, where you need to unlock all the tech tree before you can get to heavy bombers as an endgame unit. Well that's not how it works. In fact supporting a fifth generation stealth fighter will require much more specialized infrastructure than an old ass bomber would.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link