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 -
Firstly the US lost another F-15 to Iran, apparently they rescued the pilot, also lost a bunch of drones...
Secondly, air superiority in NATO parlance means 'the degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.' It is not derived from calculating losses of aircraft.
Thirdly, there is nothing above air supremacy. If the US possessed air supremacy US forces would not be under air attack.
The US doesn't actually have air superiority, partially on a definitional level because this is a weird air-only conflict... Both sides are just bombing eachother. Also, the US doesn't have air superiority because Iran is also launching their own air attacks against US forces and Israel, at times and places of Iran's choosing. This is why the US is launching all these standoff attacks and long in-air refuelling chains to bomb Iran, why even Hegseth is saying it will take some time to achieve air superiority. If the US held air superiority they could move closer in, secure the straits of Hormuz against air attack and focus on bombing Iran.
Yeah, I believe the paradigm was mostly invented as a complement to combined arms warfare, and as you point out since this isn't traditional combined arms warfare (no ground troops) it doesn't really apply.
However I think it's too early to really say definitively how close to air supremacy they are, insofar as that makes sense to say. They're being careful, but clearly have a desire to start using more guided bombs than missiles (or even gravity bombs). Looking at the news, as of one or two days ago the US started using its nonstealth bombers: B-52's and B-1B's in Iran. That sort of hints toward yes, but IMO true air supremacy these days at least implies that you can use helicopters more or less freely as well, which is plainly not the case right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link