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 -
Manufacturers of prosthesis, rejoice!
Anti-personnel mines are making a big comeback in Europe, with Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty. Poland has now decided to deploy millions of mines on its eastern border. Ukraine is of course in breach of that treaty, but as a non-signatory I do not see that Russia would get to whine about it.
On the one hand, I will concede that the Ottawa Treaty was always lacking support from the superpowers, unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of course, the US has its own excuse (WP):
I do not think that the US argument is without merit, and if they had pushed for a treaty exemption for mines whose design had been approved by international experts so that they explode within 48 hours, that would perhaps not critically weaken Ottawa. The problem is that the military incentives do not lie that way. Obviously there are situations where it will be advantageous for a mine to remain dangerous years after they are placed. And anyone producing short-lived mines can easily switch to producing cheaper long-lived ones by just getting rid of the timer. I wish I could say that I believed that Trump would say "unfortunately, the US unilaterally committed to never use persistent landmines under Clinton, so we will not do that", but realistically he will just say that this was Bad Radical Leftist Democrat policy and ignore it. So "no anti-personnel land mines" seems like the obvious Schelling point for an international agreement. (Anti-vehicle mines are a lesser concern, either they are planted on roads, where they are easily discovered (one way or another), or they are planted offroad, where the chances of civilians triggering them are much slimmer. Lots of kids play in the woods, few kids drive jeeps through the prairie.)
Personally, I would prefer for Poland to start a nuclear weapons program to them relying on landmines.
Some countries need landmines, and so will have them, one way or the other. Same thing with nuclear weapons (within technological capability).
International treaties are toilet paper. They can be ignored, unsigned or simply violated at will, because the only thing that enforces an international treaty is military force. Every bit of paper ever dedicated to a treaty draft in all of world history carries less force than I do going to Aldi for butter.
The idea that all arms-limitation treaties are meaningless "toilet paper" is absurd.
For example, the previously-mentioned CWC has UN inspectors visiting the chemical production facilities of signatory parties (and these inspections regularly happen even in US facilities). These inspections allow states to be reasonably confident that other states are not mass-producing chemical weapons and meaningfully reduce the risk of accidental war. (Notably, Iraq was not party to the CMC prior to 2003, did not have these regular inspections, and so international observers were uncertain about Iraq's stockpiles and production capabilities. Saddam Hussein gambled that this uncertainty would make war less likely, but these non-existent chemical weapons were ultimately how Bush/Powell convinced the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq.)
Arms control treaties are rarely designed to change a state's behavior during a war. Instead they are designed to change the way states prepare for war. These changes in preparation do impact whether and how wars are actually fought.
The criticism of the Five Power Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 is that it didn't prevent WWII, the defense of the treaty is that it prevented the Anglo-American War that would have broken out in 1927.
How likely would that have been? I know international relations are fickle, but they usually only turn on a dime in cases where an alliance of convenience is papering over underlying hostility or where one party's government is utterly replaced by hostile opposition.
I don't really know, I haven't overly examined the question, I'm just quoting a history professor I had in undergrad.
There were politicians at the time who thought it was necessary to ensure that there would be no conflict between the Atlantic empires.
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