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 -
Strategic nuclear balance between US and China has apparently changed, and this has been publicly acknowledged by elected US representatives.
Apart from it making a US led escalation of a Taiwan war somewhat less likely, I'm not sure what this means. A ploy to get more money for defense ?
It's a big deal as scholars on twitter whom I follow were reduced from their usual verbosity to posting just .. "what the hell".
I've been seeing rumors from nuclear experts about a Chinese nuclear build-up, but now US house & senate claim it's real.
Would welcome some discussion of this, as I'm sure this is going to have real world implications.
/images/16703763204140296.webp
On first glance, this seemed completely ridiculous even for a China bull like me. As I look into it more, it seems plausible. It depends on how you define 'active' and 'ICBM'.
The numbers for the US are here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USStratNukeForceNewSTART
The Minutemen got unMIRVed due to treaty obligations, while the Chinese have apparently MIRVed up their ancient, crappy, liquid-fuelled DF-5s, along with making modern land-based ICBMs (something the US can't be bothered to do). The rising dragon and the falling eagle in a nutshell.
It says later there were about 900 deployed warheads on those Trident missiles in 2018, maybe more. Trident warheads are still MIRVed and that makes things a bit more complicated. There are some missiles with heavy warheads for destroying missile siloes, others with more, lighter warheads for hitting unhardened targets. You can also get more range if you put fewer warheads in the missile, so that's another factor.
Now the Chinese have fewer, crappier missile subs with less missiles and warheads (though this may change when the Type-096 emerges). They couldn't possibly have more SLBMs than the US. They focus a lot more on land-based strategic missiles, which are more traditionally referred to as ICBMs. SLBMs are often considered to be ICBMs too. But maybe this tweet's legalistic definition distinguishes between them. That would mean the Chinese only need to have more than 397 warheads deployed on their land forces, which is more plausible. Of course, the US has thousands of undeployed warheads as well, presumably these aren't counted in the 'active inventory'.
In the last 2 years, China has been building a bunch of new ICBM fields in various deserts capable of holding hundreds of missiles. These would be modern missiles containing ten or so warheads, if all siloes have missiles in them. Maybe the officials think enough of them are finished and now deployed. China already has a fair few ICBMs, some of which are road-mobile (another innovation that the US can't be bothered with). This would mean China has more active ICBMs and warheads than the US, excluding the US's undeployed weapons and its huge submarine arsenal. Even so, this goes against a broad consensus that China only has 350 or so warheads total, including their submarines and bombers. There have also been doubts about how China could build such a large arsenal with its plutonium production.
If the tweet includes SLBMs as ICBMs, the US has taken a massive L. How could they possibly miss the Chinese going from 350 warheads to well over 1400! Are the CIA's eyes just painted on?
I'm not as certain this is as much a problem for the US as it would be for anyone else. Falcon 9s are ICBMs (Second Amendment intensifies); the only distinction between the two is in the payload (and that parts of it can be used more than once).
I believe this because the reverse is true; most satellites orbiting today were put there by missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads (either basically unmodified like the Atlas, or slightly modified like the Minotaur).
Yeah, there probably should be more of an effort to ensure that existing weapon-carrying missiles are sufficient to completely destroy the enemy, but private industry in the US could close the missile gap very quickly if they're asked to do so, and that's really not something any other country can claim.
You could use a Falcon 9 as an ICBM but it would be pretty unsatisfactory. One of the major innovations in ICBM technology was solid fuel. Liquid-fuelled rockets are easier to work with but you have to pump them full of fuel before they can be fired. This takes way too long in a situation where every minute counts. The Chinese still field their liquid-fuelled DF-4s but they are ancient and really serve more as targets than any kind of useful weapon. The US will surely target them in a nuclear exchange, they'd likely be destroyed on the ground. Liquid-fuelled missiles are destabilizing in that they make you want to fire them pre-emptively, before they can be destroyed.
There are probably more issues with using civilian rockets as ICBMs that I'm not aware of. Would you be building siloes for them? Surely you would, otherwise they wouldn't be hardened. Can you launch a Falcon 9 from a silo? Is it dependent on GPS or something that would be threatened in wartime, can you rig up an astro-inertial guidance system for it? Is ECM a consideration? I'd imagine there would be technical problems, I'd imagine the Falcon 9 is specialized for its role in various ways that make it impractical for military use. At best it would be pretty substandard for a modern ICBM.
If you want proper modern weapons, you have to design a purpose-built weapon. You can use a Toyota as a troop carrier, you can put guns on it. But you'd be much better off with an actual military vehicle, something with armor, something designed for war.
Certainly, the US has a problem in that its military-industrial base moves at a snail's pace and demands an astonishing amount of loot for what they deliver. This is why I'm a China bull. I read a book about SpaceX's early years and he was poaching employees from the F-35 program and traditional rocketry/military sector. Everything is very slow and bureaucratic. The US is actually designing a next generation land-based ICBM but it will be ages until it comes into service. 2029! And only three warheads per missile? What are they doing? You could fit many, many warheads on a Falcon 9, that's for sure.
Hey, Northrop just unveiled the B-21! Sure, it'll be 2023 before its first flight and they didn't really show us anything because of the need for secrecy, but it's alleged to be on time and on budget, a miracle in itself 😀
Now if the SR-72 does ever get off the ground by 2025 I'll be very interested. All the talk sounds great but the technical problems seem steep. So I guess this is why Northrop are rubbing Lockheed-Martin's nose in it with their "look, we got our bird out on time!"
Wait..what?
I thought the unveiling meant the thing was out of the prototype stage or entering production or something. It hasn't even flown ?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't make me bring up the Toyota War, I will not stand idly by while one of the greatest modern fighting vehicles is slandered so.
Well there are certainly some military vehicles that are awful. Excessive armour can cause problems: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a37093035/british-armored-vehicle-making-soldiers-sick-problems/
A Toyota with some anti-tank missiles on it could be pretty useful. Even motorcycles would be OK for that. But what if you're under any kind of artillery fire? The fragmentation would wreck it even without any good hits. Apparently using their heavy weapons effectively was too much for the Libyans.
How hard is it to make a light, amphibious, cheap, armoured vehicle like a BMP-3? You can have an anti-tank missile, an autocannon and a machine-gun or two, smokescreens, decent protection from machine guns and artillery. That should be within the capabilities of middle-income countries.
I think by the time you've put ATGMs and an autocannon on something you're at the point where it becomes a target for weapons heavier than MGs. And if it's also carrying 8-12 passengers it becomes a very expensive liability for the widows and orphans fund, which non-conscript armies have to factor into their budgets these days.
I suspect that we're going to see more semi-automated weapon platforms used as light/disposable combat vehicles, with any vehicle stuffed full of people getting either tank level protection (Israeli APC-style) or being kept well out of any high intensity fighting. Much as infantrymen love direct fire support, they don't necessarily want to sit right next to something that will be scooting away to dodge artillery fire.
So... you want a BMP-3?
It's a vehicle with ridiculous amounts of firepower. Protected from shell splinters and small arms, probably pretty cheap considering it's just a tin can with a so-so engine.
That's exactly what I don't want. Anything with that many men in it should be low profile and covered in active protection systems, not stuffed with enough weapons to make it a high value target in its own right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Be where the artillery isn't.
Just drive away, speed is armour.
Splinter-level armor protection is extremely cheap.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A Toyota would probably be a damn sight more reliable 😁
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
More options
Context Copy link