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 -
You're right here, but that's like saying a minor infection isn't worth worrying about while leaving out the context that the sufferer is immunocompromised. If Luxembourg and Monaco lose access to the rare earths market, they're not really going to care - but they don't exist in an incredibly dangerous environment where they are surrounded by hostile powers. If Israel loses their military edge they will be in an extremely bad position, extremely quickly. While they do have nuclear weapons, using them would be suicide - not only do they want to claim the land of the people around them (and irradiated wasteland is worthless territory), using nuclear weapons so close to their own country would cause so much damage to themselves via fallout that it could render the entire country uninhabitable... to say nothing of the political consequences associated with being the first non-USA country to use nuclear weapons offensively.
You're actually correct here - the only way I can salvage this argument is to determine exactly how amicable the split is. If the zoomer nazis take power and decide to demand a refund from Israel for all the money that was sent by bribed politicians in the past the economic situation is going to be even worse, but they might be able to do business with China in that case.
We're talking about a time several years into the future at the very least, and the trendline for French military manufacturing (and a great many other statistics) isn't terribly inspiring. They might make a few deals, but the ability of the French to manufacture materiel is so anemic in comparison to the Iran axis that I don't think it'll make much of a difference.
If Israel did in fact lend assistance to Ukraine that assistance would be returned in triple with assistance to Iran and Hezbollah. That's a matter of self interest... not to mention the fact that NATO resources are being diverted away from Ukraine TO Israel - actually lending that assistance would be a bad joke.
I can find it plausible that Russia didn't sell arms to Iran in the past, but now?
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-delivers-mig-29-jets-iran-air-force-10479982
Russia and Iran are collaborating in depth and their relationship is significantly stronger now than it was in the past - and China's helping them out too. If Russia did actually go on to assist Israel, they'd be able to decide who wins and who loses by simply turning off one side's equipment remotely... and I don't think they'd support Israel over Iran. Either way, even if Russia does decide to completely ignore their broader goals and arm both sides, Israel merely having the same level of technological sophistication as their far larger and more resource-rich enemies is not a particularly good situation for Israel. Israel currently requires a technical edge over their opponents due to their much smaller size, population and resource base - being put on the same or even lower level than their chief opponents would put them in an extremely dangerous position.
No, they're sending support to Israel because the US government allows it - and in the hypothetical future where the US has abandoned Israel, I don't think the government will allow wealthy citizens to simply send all their money to a hostile foreign power.
Because the US is doing it right now. If Egypt would do those things without being paid, why are they being paid? I sometimes do extra work for my employer when I get a call after hours, but I'm not going to do shit if they tell me that I'm no longer getting paid.
Iran hasn't done this because they can perceive that the situation only gets better for them over time. If they blew up Israel right now the US would attack them, and while they could probably survive a conventional attack it'd cause immense amounts of damage and wipe out the global economy. If they wait, the US will continue to decline in influence and power while their own situation gets better and better. Their military manufacturing is substantially lower cost and more distributed than Israel and the US, and when you include the lead-up time to the west spinning up their manufacturing sectors again they are likely going to maintain that lead for another ten years or so - and ten years of stockpiling arms is going to lead to a very big disparity in forces.
Could Iran destroy Israel today? Probably not, and even if every other nation in the Middle East joined in it would be a pyrrhic victory at best - Israel may get destroyed, but they have publicly stated their intent to just murder everyone around them in nuclear fire on the way out (look up the Samson option if you're unaware of this).
As for letting them bomb them nonstop for days...did they? I was under the impression that Iran actually did manage to strike back, but I have no idea how effective it actually was given the censorship of the damage reports from Israeli media. I've read enough analyses about the situation that I think Iran probably landed a significant blow, on top of severely depleting interceptor stocks - but I don't think this is really worth litigating because the fog of war is still too thick.
I used the houthis as an example - I think that Iran would be able to find or manufacture a dissident group close enough to be able to harass shipping with drones and missile strikes. Iran would be capable of destroying port facilities with missile strikes, but at that point you're already in all-out war.
I was referring to hypothetical land routes under the assumption that shipping was ruled out. Having only a single viable means of resupplying or trading with the outside world renders you extremely vulnerable when you're in a dangerous security situation.
Absolutely - currently, Israel is already facing steep and significant pressure. One of their major ports has gone bankrupt, they're facing renewed boycott and sanction efforts, major Israeli leaders are wanted for arrest in ways that mean they're unable to travel to large parts of the world and the nation is now broadly hated all over the world (except in India apparently).
If Israel wasn't facing any significant problems, had a healthy and sustainable economy, a strong military with no reliance on foreign or imported technology, access to a wide variety of trade routes and good relations with all of their neighbours, losing the US as patron would indeed just be expensive and annoying as the flow of free cash gets cut off. But none of that is true for Israel, and they don't have a viable replacement for what they'd lose in that situation. Having your crutches taken away from you isn't a problem if you're capable of walking on your own two feet - but it is a big problem if you aren't.
More options
Context Copy link