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 -
Trump has bombed Iran's nuclear sites, using B2 bombers dropping 30,000-pound massive ordinance penetrators. All aircraft have successfully cleared Iranian airspace, and Trump is claiming that all three nuclear sites were wiped out. No word that I've seen of a counter-attack from Iran, as yet.
AOC has concluded that a president ordering an airstrike without congressional approval is grounds for impeachment. Fetterman thinks it was the right move. Both are, I suppose, on brand.
My feelings are mixed. I absolutely do not want us signing up for another two decades of invading and inviting the middle east, and of all the places I'd pick with a gun to my head, Iran would be dead last. I do not think our military is prepared for a serious conflict at the moment, because I think there's a pretty good likelihood that a lot of our equipment became suddenly obsolete two or three years ago, and also because I'm beginning to strongly suspect that World War 3 has already started and we've all just just been a bit slow catching on. That said, I am really not a fan of Iran, and while I could be persuaded to gamble on Iran actually acquiring nukes, it's still a hell of a gamble, and the Israelis wiping Iran's air defense grid made this about the cheapest alternative imaginable. I have zero confidence that diplomacy was ever going to work; it's pretty clear to me that Iran wanted nukes, and that in the best case this would result in considerable proliferation and upheaval. Now, assuming the strikes worked, that issue appears to be off the table for the short and medium terms. That... seems like a good thing? Maybe?
I'm hoping what appears to me to be fairly intense pressure to avoid an actual invasion keeps American boots of Iranian soil. As with zorching an Iranian general in Iraq during Trump's first term, this seems like a fairly reasonable gamble, but if we get another forever war out of this, that would be unmitigated disaster.
Reuters reporting that the Iranian parliament has voted to close the Straits of Hormuz. Rubio calling for China to pressure Iran into backing down. Are we getting the US Navy involved next? Coalition To Make Sure The Oil Keeps Flowing?
Close with what exactly? Until they sort out their air defenses everything they have there will be sitting ducks.
They can close it with their navy, which would have a lifetime measured in days if not hours I expect. They can fire on ships from shore, but any fixed installations won't last long so they'll be left basically being the Houthis of the Straits... except facing a lot more opposition. They could mine the straits, but minesweepers exist. And it's quite possible any minelaying will be met with active opposition. But if they really want to do it and are willing to take a lot of damage, they probably can -- it wasn't possible to remove the Houthi capability without invasion. So if Iran is determined I think they could make this end up with boots on the ground, which would definitely be a loss for the US, though a bigger one for them.
They can close it the way Yemen closed the red sea. Tankers are massive, slow moving ships that are easy targets for drones and missiles. They have over 1500 km of mountainous coastline with tankers sailing in proximity to their shores.
The US failed to win against Yemen in a year and a half. This war will be much, much harder.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mines, missiles, and drones? Civil ships are not exactly small targets and Iranian drones have seen some use in Ukraine. Could get ugly. It's likely the gulf states, East/South Asia and to a lesser degree Europe would be more affected then the US (who is, after all, a net oil exporter these days), so this hits US allies (and China, India etc.) much more then the US and Trump hasn't shown a high degree of concern about them...
More options
Context Copy link
Naval mines are one obvious possibility. It’s even conceivable that the mines are already in place, awaiting remote activation—though if they were, I’m sure US/Israeli intelligence would be aware
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link