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 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.
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%.
Nah, it wouldn't take that many.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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