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 -
Oil flows being 2/3 of prewar isn't as bad as what they were around Easter, but even if volume were 100% of prewar, there's more to the story. They're getting to that number by running the straits at night, transloading into smaller vessels, using specialized crews, and doing other things to limit the danger. These things all cost money, on top of the increased premiums insurers are charging. But as you quote in your post:
This is not a good thing. What this means, essentially, that what oil is flowing is largely reliant on a US carrier group positioned in the area. Until that carrier group can leave with little risk of any knock-on effects, the war hasn't been won. You come here every week or so and post the kind of stats that could have easily shown that the US was winning in Vietnam in 1969, in Iraq in 2007, and in Afghanistan in 2015. Yet nobody would consider those wars successes. Trump himself ran on a promise that he wouldn't replicate the mistakes that got us into those wars. And instead he got us into the naval version of any one of those, with worse consequences for failure. Whether it's worse to have 100,000 troops tied up or a whole carrier fleet is a matter for debate. What isn't a matter for debate is that Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz has real, immediate consequences for Americans that Communists controlling Vietnam or the Taliban controlling Afghanistan simply didn't. Whatever the oil flows actually are, it's cold comfort when I'm paying a dollar a gallon more for gas than I was a year ago. Until the troops can leave without risk of things getting worse, the war isn't over.
The war hasn't been won but this is garbage logic. Having carrier groups in position is a complete nothingburger. Conducting blockade and air patrol is a bit more effort but still not a lot.
It's a far cry from Vietnam which was sending home body bags every day.
Especially since it's not like the carrier group is in some random backwater. It makes sense for the US Navy to have a presence in the area as it's such a crucial and central bit of geography.
I'm reminded of how many articles will estimate the "cost of deployment", but they almost never include what the equivalent cost would still be for the ships just hanging out travelling between ports and working on quals.
Yeah. Huge amounts of the costs are essentially sunk since personnel are gonna be at sea regardless for the most part. I guess you can allocate a bit more 'chance of being damaged' risk into your costs but it's not like the ship was gonna be mothballed otherwise.
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