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 -
I think the general implicit argument for this is that a Taiwan conflict either (1) doesn't result in land battle (invasion), in which case large tube artillery is not tremendously useful, or (2) does have land combat, indicating a degradation of naval/air forces to the point where supply lines for artillery aren't necessarily available.
By the pound, anti-ship and anti-air weapons are probably more useful up front. There could be some role for tube artillery as anti-ship, but I'm not familiar with options there. Or that some weird middle ground appears where supply lines are still functional and there is a land war.
It'd be incredibly useful for Taiwan during the defense, but as you said, if it drags on long enough for production and resupply, it'd be because the war has taken on a different shape wherein tube artillery is useless.
One way of looking at it: I believe the Marines are no longer interested in tanks, but are very interested in being able to get missile batteries set up on islands/launch them from the amphib assault decks. Should tell you the sort of ranges/capabilities they expect to deal with.
More options
Context Copy link
I really do see the point, and of course logistically a tomahawk missile is nicer to have than an artillery shell for a given weight and volume.
I just think the chance of the war degrading into a sloshy grind where we're attempting to subjugate China and the difference in cost and un-jam-ability of traditional shells becomes more valuable than most people expect. Even America would have to start making choices based on effectiveness per dollar in that scenario.
A great historical analogue here is that the Gatling Gun, much like the drone, was going to end protracted conflict and supplant the infantryman's rifle. That didn't happen.
To be clear here - you're suggesting that a Taiwan conflict could end in a land invasion of Mainland China?
I believe a conflict with China - Taiwan or no - would eventually involve terrestrial warfare, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
There’s a good chance you would see significant ground combat in Vietnam, Korea, or any of the island nations of Southeast Asia, plus your regular island-hopping to secure supply lines and airfields. Probably would be a lot of ground fighting with India too, but I imagine the Indians could mostly handle that themselves.
The indian military has not acquitted itself well recently.
Is there any good understanding of how the recent dust-up with Pakistan went?
The sort of muddy impression that I have right now is that Pakistan gave India a bloody nose and India turned around and drop-kicked Pakistan across the ring. But finding objective Western documentation of the conflict seems difficult.
I am genuinely curious what gave you the 'drop-kicked Pakistan across the ring' impression. Not even in the 'I think you're wrong but am curious how you got there' sense, but just that I haven't really heard that perspective outside of the red flag propoganda-dripped areas, and I know that's not what you base your opinion on.
I think part of it is the lack of strategic depth, and the nature of the bloody nose. Pakistan gave back specifically in the air domain and with Chinese systems that are most relevant to the Pacific. By contrast, most other things- even if a total Indian win- wouldn't be that applicable abroad, even as the Indians were never going to be able to make that much progress without hitting the nuclear red lines.
So the war ended shortly regardless, and then the Western interest was on one area in particular.
There was a report by the Swiss Centre for Military History and Perspective Studies that concluded that India came out on top, which is the closest thing I've seen to a thorough write-up by a Western source, and is probably be where I got my impression, at least in part. (Interestingly, as I recall, the Indian chest-thumping accounts seem to focus on the later Indian actions, which suggests strongly to me that Pakistan treated them pretty roughly at first and would corroborate CHPM's account.)
However, I'm not sure if CHPM's account is actually all that great – it's been a while since I looked at it (sorry!) but I think I recall feeling like it was not the final word on the matter – maybe it relied too much on biased sources or guessing for my taste, I'm not sure.
If you've got a good write-up or source, I'd be very interested in reading it.
War On The Rocks had a goodish writeup on the overall conflict timeline- this one iirc- last year. It may not be the detail / specificity you're looking for, but if I had to review Operation Sindoor I'd probably start there first for a refresher.
RUSI had a lessons learned report, mostly on how the air operations may fit into future Pakistan-India tit-for-tats, which you can see here.
Carnegie had their own military lessons learned here.
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