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 real question is how many missiles Iran actually has.
The Ukraine conflict has different dynamics - Russia proper isn’t being seriously bombed (the occasional Ukrainian gambit in Moscow aside, it’s just the border; it’s not like drone factories in the far east are being hit), and Ukraine is obviously being heavily supplied by the West, and Russia isn’t bombing German munitions factories either, again the occasional bout of sabotage aside.
In Iran, launchers, factories etc are being hit as soon as they’re identified by Israeli and US intelligence. There may be some resupply from Russia, but Russia is also allies with Saudi Arabia and has extensive diplomatic relations with the Gulf, so the extent of Russian munitions support may be limited by both that and the ongoing war in Ukraine taking priority.
How long can Iran’s conventional forces hold out versus how long can Trump hold out rising oil and LNG prices? That is really the question. For the Gulf, it’s better if oil spikes (this is why Qatar’s energy minister is now alluding to $150/barrel costs, which we’re nowhere near right now), so that Trump is forced to sue for peace, so that the attacks on the GCC nations stop. The ‘worst case’ for the GCC is a protracted collapse and IRGC remnant guerilla forces using Houthi strategies on the Hormuz.
Who would be supplying the munitions in this case? I don't think anyone except Iran want trouble in the Hormuz?
Russia is the only actor that could conceivably profit but they're both very busy and likely don't want to piss off literally everyone else in the world.
The people with developed world standards of living have extremely high pain aversion. You need one rogue Iranian with an homebrew missile to scare everyone passing trough the Strait. Even if basic arithmetic says that the airforces of the gulf states will make sure that any site will be able to launch only one.
What are you talking about? It's thirdies that are driving the Ships and if the rebels aren't resupplied then having enough interceptors to handle whatever rogue Iranian with a home-brewed missile seems perfectly manageable.
The issues with the various rebel groups around the middle east is that they have been supplied by the Iranians. Who will supply the Iranian rebels?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link