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 key factor is more sortie rates and speed at which grid infrastructure can be repaired/rebuilt than raw munitions production. Long range B-1 strikes and in-air refuelled F-35s may not have the necessary throughput given other targets. But say that the Iranian grid can be destroyed.
The standard of bombing needed to destroy the grid may not induce state collapse. Germany and Japan were bombed very aggressively but retained their industrial capacity. If even burning down whole cities didn't destroy the grid and military industrial capacity generally then how is the US going to fare today? Iraq's state did not collapse despite a Coalition air campaign successfully wrecking their electrical infrastructure, despite a Kurdish uprising, despite much of the Iraqi army being smashed in Kuwait. Iran is much bigger, smarter and stronger than Iraq in 1991, it seems doubtful that an air campaign alone could destroy their state capacity.
Iran's military facilities probably have their own hardened power sources too like Ukraine. They can probably get China to send them some transformers or power infrastructure, China and Iran are both on 50 Hz grids after all.
Furthermore, if the bombing campaign is explicitly part of a state destruction effort, wouldn't this strongly motivate nuclear weapons development? It seems like a bad option strategically, which is the 'even if it were possible, it would be extremely costly and dangerous' part of my argument.
This is pretty much all I am saying.
Sure, and that's why I said that their state capacity would plummet. It would not be destroyed. It would be badly degraded by a sustained anti-power campaign. Which I hope we do not carry out!
After skimming through some IAEA documents (thanks, Motte!) I'm pretty convinced they were doing this anyway, even before the US pulled out of the JCPOA.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link