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 -
I could see it being in European interest to defend freedom and democracy from principle, then of course semiconductor fabrication. Of course, not that Europe has much in terms of naval assets to provide a credible contribution to Taiwanese defense.
I can't really understand how you foresee a US loss in Taiwan. Funnily, I just received a 5-year RemindMe from the old /r/TheMotte, predicting Taiwanese reunification at 80%. I feel like people are fundamentally too bearish on Taiwan. Reflecting on Ukraine, warfare seems to be broadly in favor of the defender, where expensive equipment of the invader is prone to be demolished with relatively cheap defending weapons. Additionally, I believe the US navy would still likely stomp the Chinese navy before it even came to an asymmetrical defense.
I don't think the Chinese would deny Europe access to the fabs, if they survive, unless we give them a reason. They'd need our equipment anyway for the fabs to continue production. Worst case, their domestic needs would be first in line and there would be no capacity to spare - well, we had the bulk of the capacity for quite a while, I'd just be our turn to fight over scraps before more capacity comes online.
I'm not against Taiwanese self-determination in principle, I mostly think it's cruel to goad them without the ability and willingness to follow through. They will be prosperous under China if it continues on the trajectory it is on today.
One of the things I hate most about americans (you're a Finn, I see that) is this willingness to get involved, then casually back off regardless of the consequences. Many such cases in the recent Iran coup discussions, americans asking "what's what worst that can happen", as if the obvious answer was not "you can make Iran into war torn hell for a decade". At minimum I expect seppuku from people taking on the responsibility and failing.
I can see US winning - Chinese try a large scale landing, it fails catastrophically, US nibbles away at the Chinese from a distance, ends up relatively better off after a few years of this. But the Taiwanese lose, and the war would be painful economically for Europe, gaining us nothing.
My expectation is more, the Chinese enforce a blockade, US navy takes unsustainable losses if anywhere close to China. Chinese radars work, US can't bomb everything at will. Japan does not join in. Chinese navy & airforce expand massively despite losses. US sees no easy victory on horizon, costs mounting as Chinese mobilize their industry, and folds, since it is not existential for them.
No means specified? But I guess in 2020 only an invasion was conceivable. 80% for peaceful reunification in the coming 10 years feels fine for me today.
Given PM of Japan Sanae Takaichi's posturing, I wouldn't incorporate this as a load-bearing assumption on any predictive scenario.
My understanding was that US strategy was to ensure that even in the worst case the fabs get destroyed rather than conquered as is. But that could be unofficial policy or just speculation on the Motte.
It's not quite load-bearing, but impactful. I'm assuming the Japanese are not stupid and understand that what they want is maximum flexibility for themselves, firm commitment from the US (informed by the fear that the Japanese waver). Her posturing achieves the opposite - Japan locked into hostilities, US free to keep it ambiguous, even negotiate with Japanese as a bargaining chip. We in Poland repeat the same mistake endlessly, and what does it get us? You can't just shame the US into serious commitment, can't shame other Europeans either, populace is firm enough without top-down push, negotiations become an issue. It's just bad strategy.
edit: I actually did not address the important bit, posturing as strategy is between now and then, the issue is the actual decision. I guess what I'm saying is, I think this posturing is transient, and in the end, it's not in the Japanese interest to get into a war with China, it would be extremely painful.
Probably, but then, it wouldn't really be the Chinese fault that we have no chip fabs. What can they do? They want Taiwan for unrelated reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link