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 -
Iran has allegedly mined the strait of Hormuz
I've seen a lot of discussion online about whether or not Iran would mine the strait, and it looks like it's happening.
I'm curious as to what is driving this. My understanding is that the Iranian military is structured so that military units can operate with a lot of autonomy if the chain of command breaks down. Is this a small, but official action, or is it the action of units who are operating with what they have in the absence of official orders?
What are the global economic impacts of mining the strait? I tangentially work in insurance, and talking to the Actual Insurance Guys, it seems like this is probably just as bad as regular missile attacks, if not worse. Do commercial ships have any way to protect themselves against mines, other than "don't be where the mines are"?
I've also been seeing vague rumblings in the news that non-Israeli Mideast nations may materially contribute to the conflict. Does this move the needle?
It seems to me that this represents a pretty significant escalation. While sea mines are not land mines, they are both indiscriminate area denial weapons that have significant risks of civilian casualties that can last long after the end of the conflict that caused their emplacement. They're hard to find and create significant anxiety for anyone who has to traverse the area.
Is this a good strategic move by Iran? I'm not an expert on global geopolitics, but my gut tells me it harms them more than helps them. Fighting a defensive war against the Great Satan put the Iranian government in a very sympathetic position with their neighbors, but shutting down one of the most important economic transit corridors in the world with weapons that most governments find distasteful at best seems like a signal to the region that Iran will drag everyone into the flames along with them. Theoretically, this might pressure those countries to abandon the US, but that's a high stakes choice.
This sounds like "both beating and maiming are widely considered unacceptable ways of disciplining children" -- one seems clearly a hell of a lot worse than the other.
The humanitarian problem of land mines is mostly anti-personnel mines, which is why the Ottawa Treaty bans them specifically. (Not that the US or Israel or Iran would care. Though the US is at least committed to only using mines which would become inert after a while. Or at least it was before Trump took over.) They are dirt cheap -- so you can spread them widely -- and more than enough to kill or maim kids playing in the wood.
Anti-vehicular mines can still end up blowing up school busses, but are a lesser problem because their higher costs makes it less likely that parties will distribute tens of thousands per square kilometer. I think typically you would target roadways and not place them randomly in the forest on the off chance that a tank wants to drive through between these two trees.
Sea mines are a different story again. Iran wants to deny oil tankers, so they need to be big enough to cause catastrophic hull failures. These tankers have drafts upwards of ten meters, so there is not really a point to anchor them too close to the surface.
And of course Iran also has the tech to make them smart (and become inert after a period, for example), but I don't know if they bothered.
Personally, if I were crewing an oil tanker, I would rather hit a mine than get hit by a missile. After all, there is no point to make the mine so big that it will sink the tanker in seconds. I imagine that typically, you hit the mine, take water, decide that your ship is lost and head for the lifeboat. A missile might kill you before you even know what is happening.
Even if Iran does use dump mines, I imagine the civilian QALY costs will mostly stem from the secondary effect of oil pollution from sinking tankers, though it might kill a few fishers (if there is anything to fish in the Straits). Seems still less troublesome than the attacks on oil infrastructure committed by both sides.
Neither would European countries that feel Russia will invade them. The norm against anti-personnel mines was promoted by countries which would not benefit from them. Once this changed, and Russia was again allowed to be perceived as a threat, the norm went away.
Incidentally, this is why I find accusations US does not care about international law, within the context of Iran War, false. US is waging a war as lawfully as anybody would. No country faced with such a situation as US is now, would act as Europeans did prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and forgo effective means of waging war for purely virtue signaling reasons.
The only credible accusation is "crime against peace", but that is a charge last prosecuted slightly less than 80 years ago.
Less lawfully than Russia, though, which makes the last 4 years of intense propaganda ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link