site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   24452 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Worst case, nukes get exchanged (maybe half a dozen).

Half a dozen nukes is not the worst case or a likely case. If the USA detects Chinese launches, it will go full counterforce in an attempt to destroy as much as possible of their arsenal before it's airborne. That in turn means the PRC is in a "use it or lose it" scenario and will likely launch as much as it can (excepting, possibly, the sea leg).

Of course, then there's the issue of the peace terms. If PLA nukes have hit cities, the West's peace demand would be along the lines of "denuclearise/demilitarise China, free Tibet/Xinjiang, formally cede Taiwan" with little room to budge (particularly given the need to prevent the PRC trying again later). The PRC is aware that, as you note, this means no more Mandate of Heaven, so it plausibly refuses. Plausibly, Trump/Vance then order countervalue in order to force a capitulation (or state failure), because Rule 2 of war and they aren't the sorts to just back down. End result is that China is a basket-case again, like the early 20th century. Russia, if it stays out, does well in some ways (with the West significantly weakened), but doesn't become outright hegemon. Probably no more culture war, as SJ would suffer base existence failure to a fair extent and would be blamed for weakening the West and thus causing WWIII.

China winning a lightning strike? Honestly I view this as somewhat status quo, believe it or not.

No. The immediate problem is that the PLAN would have un-interdictable access to the Pacific proper via Taiwan's east coast, which means Japan and South Korea would have Beijing's hand around their throats via the threat of blockade (neither is even remotely close to being able to feed itself). They probably both withdraw from the NPT, Beijing in its overconfidence (and with popular support due to the long-standing cultural antipathy) plausibly attacks, and you're back to WWIII. There's a reason that Japanese PM Takaichi Sanae made those comments about a Taiwan invasion posing an existential threat to Japan and justifying the use of the Japanese military, and there's a reason (though not a good one) that one of China's diplomats to Japan publically threatened to cut off her head in response.

Maybe I should have elaborated on this point. Frankly, for all the attention on MAD, I don't think this is the 21st century model. Rather, there's a series of escalations that appear reasonable on the surface: someone uses a "tactical" nuke, then someone nukes a single semi-military target, then the other retaliates with two civilian-target nukes, then three in response... and then people regain their sanity and meet for talks, because it's obvious to everyone that this cannot continue. Like, for example, let's say LA - and LA alone - is nuked. Obviously a calamitous event the world has never seen before. But even then... would the President really pull the trigger on a full MAD response on all of China in response to a single lost city? MAD says yes, you need to, but human behavior says no. We're too hardwired for proportionality for full-MAD to really work. That's my mental model at least for the most likely 'worst-case' scenario, but it's possible I'm a little too optimistic.

Going full countervalue in response to a single nuke? No. Going full counterforce in response to a single nuke? Yes, at least on the US side. The question isn't so much of retaliation as prevention; you want to destroy as much as possible on the ground.

(Also, a single nuke pointed at a city probably won't do much due to ABM.)

I predicted the USA going countervalue against China in a big way if the PLA had nuked cities, the counterforce response ran China out of nukes, and the PRC still refused anything but a white peace. At that point, there's just straight-up no alternative; the Western public would not stand for a white peace (not to mention that it'd let them try again in a few years), and invading China wouldn't work (rule 2 of war). Hence, "after I destroy Washington DC Shanghai I will destroy another major city every hour on the hour, that is unless of course you pay me 100 billion dollars unconditionally surrender". Same trick as was used on Japan in WWII.

Japan is 90 days from a nuclear warhead. The funny (well, not haha funny) thing about that is that it is both a very short and a very long time.

My point exactly.

If PLA nukes have hit cities, the West's peace demand would be along the lines of "denuclearise/demilitarise China, free Tibet/Xinjiang, formally cede Taiwan" with little room to budge (particularly given the need to prevent the PRC trying again later).

If our cities get nuked then our peace demand will be “There is no PRC”. We won’t stop until we’re writing a new constitution for China in Beijing. We did that to Japan and Germany and they didn’t destroy even one of our cities.

You and what occupational army?

The Americans were worn out by a decade trying to occupy a country of 30 million when they had the ability to walk in from friendly buildup areas at the outset. Occupying a country of 1,300 million is just a wee bit beyond the capacity of the modern United States, even without the literal and figurative fallout of a nuclear war.

If a nuclear exchange has happened, there are no longer 1.3 million Chinese. Not even close. We have more than 10 times as many nukes as they do, and if they launched even one of theirs at us then we would have launched most of ours in response. Second, we’d most likely partition it like we did Germany, I imagine Australia taking a bite, Japan and Korea taking some large bites, and probably India will jump in and take most of western China once it’s clear the CCP is about to lose.

If a nuclear exchange has happened, there are no longer 1.3 million Chinese.

I think you meant "billion" here; I would expect high Chinese casualties, likely over half a billion if they don't surrender immediately, but not >99.9%.

if they launched even one of theirs at us then we would have launched most of ours in response.

Nah, it wouldn't take that many.

The US didn't occupy Japan proper, and would have no need to occupy China proper after a literal nuclear war. If the US is in a position to demand peace, it means the PRC no longer has nuclear capability while the US does, and that means the US gets to write a new constitution for China in its capital. Or we continue the nuking; we've done exactly that before. The remaining Chinese aren't going to fight to the last man for the integrity of the PRC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan

The occupation took place AFTER the surrender; that is, it was (mostly) not a contested occupation as @Dean is suggesting would be necessary. Same thing for China in the unlikely event there's a nuclear war that they decisively lose.

I think the word you're looking for is "invasion" rather than "occupation", then. The USA invaded and occupied Germany, but only occupied Japan.

@Dean's usually fairly precise with his terminology; I believe he was specifically raising concerns over the USA's ability to occupy China - concerns which I share to at least some extent. Invading China is a completely-different kettle of fish, and one I dismissed out of hand in my first reply in this chain ("Rule 2 of war": "do not go fighting with your land armies in China"); I don't think Dean was even entertaining that idea.

Indeed I was not. I view it about as dimly/lacking in competence as I do the nuclear holocaust scenario. And you are correct in that I was referring to the occupational role alone.

I can absolutely model a nuclear exchange scenario between the US and China, but 'we're going to nuclear genocide 99% of the population and impose a new constitution like this is post-WW2 Japan and no one will resist it like Japan' is enough of a difference in starting positions that I felt it better to simply not to return to the topic.

If Dean was talking about occupation, it doesn't make sense; we occupied Japan after they surrendered and allowed Eisenhower to write their new Constitution.

Regardless of the terminology, I stand by the claim. If, after a nuclear exchange, the US is in a position to dictate terms to the PRC -- which basically means we still have nuclear capability and they don't -- then the US will be able to (and almost certainly will) re-write their constitution and the remaining Chinese will not do anything about it. Their official armies will have surrendered (and if they don't, the nuking continues) and there will be little enough insurgency that US forces will be able to handle it. The bulk of the Chinese are not going to be fanatical supporters of the PRC. As in Japan, almost certainly much of the mechanism of government below the national level will remain largely intact -- the US is too small to directly administer China. But not to dismantle the PRC.

Possible, I suppose (though occupying China to that degree wouldn't be trivial). Largely ends in the same place, though, of "PRC refuses, China burns in countervalue strike".

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats