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 -
Russia lacks the force projection ability to really pose a threat to the US, but I don't think the US would be capable of invading Russia and winning in a conventional military engagement. Their supply chains and logistics would be far too vulnerable in any kind of protracted conflict, and I don't think the US can actually stop the newest hypersonics. That said I think the only thing I can say with real confidence is that no matter what happens the US would have lost a lot more money than Russia did. And of course this assumes that nuclear weapons have been disabled by a kindly wizard too, otherwise the conflict only ever ends in "everybody loses".
Hypersonics dont do shit. SSM intercept rates are low enough to begin with, yet they fail to consistently degrade tactical level CNC nodes meaningfully, let alone operational. The idea that Russian hypersonics will lock down the backline is entirely out of step with platform count and magazine depth. What is a hypersonic supposed to cripple, an airfield? A big tent labelled "HQ"? A carrier battle group? Russia throwing Shahed (I know they have a local name I refuse to use it because these worthless copycats need to be continually reminded that they prostrated before Iran to get ANFO tipped glorified microlights) is proof of total incapability, not genius adaptation.
Wunderwaffen don't matter. If Russia wants to really cripple the USA now, investing in flashy hypersonic shit that pops off a few times and then gasses out isn't worth it. That Poseidon thing sounds much better, since you can annihilate US/Western economic overmatch by choking off Panama, Suez or North Sea, not to mention cutting underwater cables or pipes. Pity that stuff is not sexy enough for the retards staffing the Russian MOD. Shoigu! Gerasimov! Where is my wunderwaffen!
Are you sure?
I don't think we're really going to have a productive discussion here because we disagree on some of the basic assumptions about reality. I think that hypersonic missiles ignore a lot of existing missile interception technology and will have a huge impact in any kind of fight with the western powers. At the same time, I think Russia is far better and more experienced at using drones in warfare than the US - how long has it been since the US military actually fought a near-peer competitor?
Poseidon is an extremely interesting weapon system, but I didn't bring it up because as a nuclear weapon it once again just ends the debate and replaces it with a showing of Threads.
You're right that we both perceive reality differently. I live in a different information space that prioritizes different facts than even the me of yesteryear, so there is no point in considering value matrices. We do however live in common physical reality, and that is where the subject of wunderwaffen often breakss.
Existing ordinance is already hypersonic at terminal phase and interception is at this end phase because thats where the targets and thus the defenses are. Intercepting at glide isn't done even for normal long range missiles because no one knows what the target is at that point and detection out that far is spotty.
The objective of a weapon is to destroy a target. To do that you must hit a target. but also do enough damage. There simply aren't enough Russian hypersonics to actually make a difference against static targets. Again, what are we trying to destroy? An airfield? That gets repaired 30 minutes after a barrage ends, and you need dozens if not hundreds to kill the field. A HQ? We don't live in command and conquer where you have a big juicy target known in advance. Something moving? Not happening. Hypersonics materially change the theoretical interception calculus at the phase where interception doesn't happen anyways, so in the end what matters is your magazine depth. That is what Russia lacks and why I dismiss Russias hypersonic arsenal as wunderwaffen.
And Russian drones are good as terror weapons and ambushes. Not as peer conflict combined arms enablers. We aren't going to see Russia sniping individual vehicles or soldiers marching openly in contested territory. because NATO simply does not fight that way. Russian drone support at the squad level is definitely operationally tighter than NATO doctrine with the combination of organic support at squad level upwards, but drone grenade droppers or fpv ambushers simply aren't relevant against a competent force (which the Ukrainians are not). If drone spam was easy against competents then Hamas would have spammed drones against IDF. Iran did the thousand black shahed drones of allah spam against Israel for limited effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link