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 -
My opinion is that the previous efforts (targeted assassinations and then the bombing campaign) were as effective as possible given the circumstances (limits of conventional weaponry, contributions of individual scientists), but that a society of 80 million capable of procuring and enriching to 60%+ with an intelligent and well-developed academy and domestic population of scientists is going to get there sooner rather than later. There is no big technical hurdle they cannot quickly overcome. Israel will keep trying, but interventions can set a program back by weeks or months at the most, not more.
At the moment, it seems likely they lack effective delivery mechanisms if nothing else: ballistic missiles aren't as reliable as they used to be, and I'd bet many of their avenues of sneaking something into Israel aren't what they were a few years back. Launching an unprovoked nuclear attack and failing is something that I don't have much precedent to go on, but I doubt enamors one with any existing nuclear powers.
"What's the proportionate response here? Drop a box labeled 'this could have been a nuclear weapon' on them?"
The post-1945 nuclear club of nations has always been pretty exclusive. I can't think of any example where a nuclear-armed nation has deliberately aided a non-armed nation's nuclear weapons development programs, even between otherwise allied states (lots of spycraft, though). I haven't heard hints of Russia helping with Iranian or North Korean weapons development (although civil nuclear is a different story). Nuclear ambitions have typically gotten states international pariah status: China's relationship with North Korea has demonstrably soured since it became a nuclear state, and India and Pakistan both got some level of sanctions for a time before and after they tested weapons.
As to specific responses from specific parties, I'm sure someone's been paid to debate those, and I don't think I have any particularly insightful ideas there.
My understanding is that Pakistan is widely considered to be the Saudis nuclear weapons program, and there's decent reason to believe Israel assisted with South Africa's development of nuclear weapons.
Note that the Saudis aren't a nuclear-armed nation for the purposes of the claim. That they're being funded to do so as a proxy for a non-nuclear power seems to be relevant to the discussion, but they aren't in the "nuclear club".
This is a better example, but nobody has ever clarified what the specific "assistance" was: was Israel a nuclear-armed nation at the time, or was it a joint project to become such. I'd point to the US-UK cooperation in the Manhattan Project as perhaps an Ur-example of my claim: it was a joint project through the end of the war, but as soon as the Americans had the bomb, the British found it wasn't quite so "joint" anymore, and had to mostly redevelop it on their own.
Yes, good points all, and particularly to the US-UK cooperation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it depends where you draw the line, where mere carelessness ends and "deliberate aid" begins.
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