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 -
The United States of America is now at war with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Dozens of Venezuelan military targets have been bombed in the last few minutes, including a major army base just outside the capital. American Chinooks have been seen flying across the Caracas skyline.
This could be the most important geopolitical happening since the Ukraine War. We do it yet know if this will be a limited run of bombing like the Kosovo strikes, or a full on Iraq style invasion and regime change. If it is the latter, it will be an important test of America’s military might, and failure could very well be America’s Suez moment. I have speculated here several times that I thought the US would have difficulty conducting a thunder run of a non-peer or near-peer adversary in its current state, and it looks as though my theory may be put to the test. On a geopolitical and moral level though, I have little sympathy for Venezuela, for the same reason I have little sympathy for Ukraine. If you repeatedly antagonize your neighboring superpower, you get what you get.
This will also no doubt further fracture the Republican base in a major way, as interventionist neocons clash with America-First isolationists.
This is also adds to an intensifying pattern of conflict in multiple theaters that could lead to global war. It also increases the likelihood of a Chinese attack on Taiwan as American asserts are entangled in multiple theaters.
I will post more information as I hear it.
A true gentleman scholar post “inb4 source” and is vindicated in the light of history.
Edit:
There are now multiple airstrikes occurring within Caracas. The United States FAA has issued a NOTAM warning that civilian aircraft should avoid overflying the entire territory of Venezuela.
Reuters is now reporting that there are US ground troops active within the capital of Venezuela.
Lol, Mr. and Mrs. Maduro additionally charged with possession of machine guns and destructive devices. Apparently even foreign heads of state need a US firearms permit.
Once again reminding everyone that nothing like this would ever happen to a nuclear-armed regime.
My previous comment:
The most salient lesson of the post-Cold War era: Get nukes or die trying.
A nation's relationship to other states, up to and especially including superpowers, is completely different once it's in the nuclear club. Pakistan can host bin Laden for years and still enjoy US military funding. North Korea can literally fire missiles over South Korea and Japan and get a strongly-worded letter of condemnation, along with a generous increase in foreign aid. We can know, for a fact, that the 2003 Iraq War coalition didn't actually believe their own WMD propaganda. If they thought that Saddam could vaporize the invasion force in a final act of defiance, he'd still be in power today. Putin knows perfectly well that NATO isn't going to invade Russia, so he can strip every last soldier from the Baltic borders and throw them into the Ukrainian meat grinder.
Aside from deterring attack, it also discourages powerful outside actors from fomenting revolutions. The worry becomes who gets the nukes if the central government falls.
Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.
My advice for rulers, especially ones on the outs with major geopolitical powers: Pour one out for Gaddafi, then hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
I have always thought that nuclear weapons program by itself should be casus belli for nuclear strike. If more nations start trying - I can assure you that the big five will come to my opinion too.
More interesting question - which is the jury of Maduro peers ...
Which members of the big five?
While I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that, say, China might appreciate your gracious offer of a nuclear first strike pass on Japan, or South Korea, who both have near-breakout capability, I am not clear why you think the the US- who has a mutual defense treaty with both of them- would want that. Or, in the European context, why Britain or France would want to empower Russia to nuke Poland or Germany, one of whom already is a breakout-capable state and the other who could well move that direction. Or, in the middle eastern context, who is supposed to want who to nuke Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia alike.
Is this to suggest that you either don't believe that Israel already has nukes, wish to participate in the curious play where they and their allies pretend that they don't (are there levels of e.g. USG clearance where you are obligated to?), or think that them ending the policy of public denial would be analogous to a breakout event in some sense?
It is to suggest I don't know who in the big five Lizzardspawn believes would think it was a good idea to nuke those countries based on his proposed doctrine, hence the question of 'Which members of the big five?'
It is also to suggest I do not know who else in the big five Lizzardspawn believes would come to his view that it is a good idea for their geopolitical adversaries (or allies) to pre-emptively nuke states that are often their own partners of regional importance.
It's just that you listed it along with a set of countries that don't currently have nukes, discussing the hypothetical question whether someone now or in the proximate future would preemptively nuke them to prevent them from crossing the threshold if that were what it took.
At the time when Israel actually crossed the threshold, the world was still a very different place, and they probably were understood to have tacit American backing (potentially including a full "nuclear umbrella") in doing so. As America's ideologically most valued protégé, their situation also seems rather unique; perhaps the closest anywhere gets to it is "lips and teeth" China and North Korea, and notably the latter also managed to cross the threshold ultimately unbothered. I don't think either situation tells us much about what would happen if a more replaceable country (like, say, Saudi Arabia or Cuba) were to try.
(Do you work some US-government-adjacent job that comes with speech obligations, to the extent you would even be allowed to disclose that? That would make a lot of things about my reality model click into place, given the number of times I have been frustrated with you arguing for the "party line" in the past.)
This has been a working theory of mine for some years now. On domestic stuff @Dean is somewhat idiosyncratic, on foreign affairs he always sticks very very close to the party line.
More options
Context Copy link
The scope of 'has a nuclear weapons program' does rather run the gauntlet of 'already has' and 'could have soon' and 'has a nuclear power program,' yes. That was rather the point. It was a very poorly bounded claim, and returns to the question of 'who is supposed to agree with about their geopolitical friends/rivals nuking their friends/partners.
Mate. Think about what you just asked and how you asked it.
If I say 'yes,' you can take it as an honest admission and it validates your belief.
If I deny it, you can believe I am lying or am compelled to claim so and that it validates your belief.
If I don't say anything at all, you can believe I refusing to lie in a denial and use it to validate your belief.
If I reply without giving any sort of definitive answer, you can interpret it as a dodge for the same reason and use it to validate your belief.
Whatever you think of me or what I might do, I don't need to be under a nondisclosure agreement to disagree with the sort of reality model that believes it's more reasonable for someone to be under a nondisclosure agreement than to disagree with their sort of reality model. I am quite willing to disagree for free.
I was thinking that among the possible responses, I'd take "yes" as a, well, strong signal for yes, marked silence as a weaker signal for "yes", and a straight no as a weak signal for no. I didn't think that my past disagreements with you were best explained by "Dean actually works for some Beltway contractor and may have any communications scrutinised"; the only thing that crossed that threshold was when I got the impression, earlier, that you were implying that Israel is not a nuclear state (which I would consider to require either profound ignorance, delusion, bad faith or compulsion, and I had not pegged you to fall under the first three).
As much as we have our differences, my goal really was not to get ammo to "win" future arguments against you, but just to make more sense of my observations (and perhaps to understand if it would be a waste of time to argue against you on certain topics in the future). I would even consider pulling the "well, you have to say that, don't you" card to be in bad taste in any future argument, in the event that you had told me that it is so.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, you are going to bizarre lengths to imply that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons, as well as to refuse to state that directly, or to deny it. Just stating your beliefs plainly would probably dispell any suspicion about your luminosity levels.
More options
Context Copy link
This might be the funniest interaction on this forum in years. I knew you're working for the state, but I didn't expect you to flat out participate in the Israeli nuclear kayfabe, and with such poise too. You can't spell out “yes, Israel physically has nuclear weapons already, which is not germane to the logic of my argument”.Man, what a perverse empire you guys have built. Very shiny surface, but there are a few of these rivets holding everything together, that are impossible to stop thinking about once you notice them.I retract the above in light of Dean confirming that like any sane person he is reasonably certain Israel has nukes and was just acting cluelessly for no valid reason.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link