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 -
Deal reached to end Iran war
Details of the deal are not publicly available right now. However, Trump has authorised an end to the US naval blockade, and Iran has agreed to reopen the Strait.
Not surprisingly though, Israel continues to bomb Lebanon and refuses to cede lands seized in southern Lebanon.
But MORE surprisingly, Trump actually reprimanded Bibi.
So it seems we were lucky to return to the pre-war status quo, even Trump had to tepidly admit that he bit off more than he can chew and Iran's regional dominance is not going anywhere.
So nobody knows what really happened, but at least we're having fun.
Does anybody else remember our discussions from a few months ago? Because what's been reported so far looks nothing like what many confidently predicted back then. Iran closing the strait would lead to massive energy spikes that would cripple the global economy and America would rush to surrender. And Iran would win on all points. Iran's nuclear program would continue uninterrupted. Iran's neighbors would be cowed into submission. Many people speculated that Iran would soon sink American ships, or innocent oil tankers, and that nobody would be able to stop them.
In fact, Iran's power was so strong that they would be able to toll the straits of Hormuz. Iran would be stronger than ever.
That seems to not have happened.
Likewise, the global energy crisis has not materialized. Where I live gas is about a buck-and-a-quarter more expensive than it was before the war. Plane tickets are more expensive and fertilizer costs have gone up. But, otherwise, nothing continues to happen. And America did not rush to surrender.
In fact, curiously, Iran is apparently giving up their greatest leverage by opening the straits. Why would they do that? We have heard that nobody can take the straits back from them, so why are they ceding it?
The terms now called losing terms were winning terms a few months ago: America bombed Iran, decapitated its leadership, destroyed the bulk of its capacity to manufacture missiles and drones, and will suffer no lasting consequences. The Straits, apparently, will be opened and a ceasefire will be maintained.
The questions now are whether this can be turned into a longer-lasting and more regional peace, and what will become of Iran's nuclear dust. (Not that they can do much with it, because we destroyed the nuclear facilities they would need to use it.) Trump, at least, is pushing to expand the Abraham Accords and lock the entire region into a broader framework for peace. Which doesn't sound like a loss of American prestige to me.
Of course it's possible that fighting will break out again or that the deal will not be as reported.
But wasn't America supposed to have lost?
I mostly remember the opposite from the time when the war just started: that Iran is doomed, that either regime collapses or the country is thrown back into the stone age and balkanized, that it shouldn't have messed with The Hegemon, that the US armed forces are unstoppable and nearly invincible.
US armed forces were unstoppable have been basically invincible: we destroyed the bulk of Iran's military industrial complex, we can intercept most of their missiles and rockets at any time, we destroyed their drone facilities, we sank most of their navy, and we killed their leaders; America has suffered 13 casualties; one plane was hit by Iranian fire and famously landed safely; another plane was destroyed and the pilot ejected, which lead to a now-famous mission where American forces intercepted him in hostile territory and built a runway to get him out without anyone being detected or killed. That is as invincible as invincible gets.
Godzilla destroys Tokyo and scratches his paw.
The only reason we didn't throw Iran back into the stone age is that we chose not to: Trump did not initiate Bridge and Power Plant Day. The only reason Iran didn't sink American ships and destroy American planes is that they can't.
Is that why you kept your ships at a decent distance?
And the reason you chose not to, is because it would have done nothing to help you achieve your strategic objectives, and would have caused unpredictable consequences that you'd have to deal with. AKA: you couldn't.
What are you implying, that the American ships were chicken?
Are you saying that America lacked the technical capacity to bomb Iran, or that America lacked the political will to deal with the fallout.
First thing is that it is not entirely clear that America actually can intercept most of Iran's missiles and rockets. I'm sure the intercept rate for something like a Shahed drone is close to 100%, but it is certainly much less for their more advanced ballistic missiles.
Second thing is that it doesn't matter if America can intercept most of Iran's missiles and rockets. You need to intercept all of them, a single miss can be billions in damage. 99% isn't going to open the straight. 99% is not going to protect your $10 billion aircraft carrier. 99% gets your THAAD destroyed. See below link.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l2yl7r8r2o
He is saying that it is not clear how doing this accomplishes America's objectives. If our objectives were something like:
Blowing all the bridges and power plants in probably stops 1, but it's not clear how it does long term. It probably mostly stops 2, but I don't think it stops it totally, and Iran having 1% the production they do now is still very dangerous and doesn't get you where you need to be. And it doesn't stop 3 at all. So unless you think we can bomb them into agreement with America it doesn't really matter if we can blow the bridges.
Bombing Iran back to the stone ages would stop their nuclear and missile programs because they’d be dead. We would kill them. It’s also a lot of work cleaning up the body and the mess would annoy our allies so we’d rather just all shake hands.
"I chose to lose because I just don't know what would happen if I really let loose" - every guy who ever got beat up at a bar
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link