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 -
During and after the Cold War both powers had credible deterrent. Yet they maintained large conventional forces. Why, if war was so unthinkable? My take: so they didn't get pushed on the conventional front until they were trapped in a nasty nuclear dilemma.
As I said: nations don't like to take chances or give inches.
The US was ahead in missiles. There was no way the Soviets would "win". The Soviets weren't trying to "win" a nuclear exchange, they were trying to balance against Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
Kennedy knew this: IIRC there's record of him using that exact example to highlight how escalatory Russian behavior was and he was told "um...yeah, we did that". He had to have known why Russia wanted balance (not annihilation)
He...didn't change his mind. No inches.
They're not a global superpower, though it flatters them to think they are. But yes, they are afraid of being knocked out of the ranks of the Great Powers.
That is a serious strategic fear. Wars have been fought for less and the US would raise holy hell it got knocked down to a Great Power, let alone out of those ranks altogether. Look at the absolute paranoid and forceful behavior it engaged in when it had marginal losses in the Cold War when some random Third World country flirted with communism (Which often harmed their own people more than anyone else)
Again: states don't like to give inches.
If the US can knock Russia down that far, they can try to knock them even farther down. While I'm sure there's a normative argument to the effect of "you deserve it" or "it wouldn't be necessary if Russia wasn't imperialist", states don't want to be at the mercy of other states if they can help it. Regardless of whether that state thinks it's more benevolent and knowing.
Maybe. As I said: I disagree less with the normative argument. But I don't think it says much about how Russians see this (the denial in the OP was about Russian perceptions of the threat - which is a very common thing, especially now )
Mainly, to project conventional power elsewhere. The Soviets invaded or threatened to invade their "allies" in every decade of the Cold War. The US army fought overseas in every decade of the Cold War, including the Soviet-style invasion of Grenada (though one followed by a restoration of democracy, not a feature of Soviet invasions...).
They had troops in Europe, where it almost certainly would have gone nuclear.
Depends where. Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, plus a threatened invasion of Poland, did not create a serious nuclear risk. US intervention to e.g. stop a communist revolution in France or Italy would not have caused a serious nuclear risk.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link