site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28349 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Vivek Ramaswamy has written an article on his foreign policy doctrine, focusing on China.

He is squarely taking aim at the "neocons and liberal internationalists", in other words the two main constituents of what Obama referred to as "the Blob" dominating foreign policy in D.C. He is predictably being called an isolationist and WaPo columnists are freaking out.

WaPo columnists themselves are not relevant but they are often mouthpieces for more powerful interests. Trump was hated for many things but one underappreciated aspect of why the Blob hated him was his instinct not to start new wars. In fact, he is one of the few presidents in recent memory who did not start a new war and he tried to get out of Syria - twice - but was undermined by his own bureaucracy.

Vivek is a much smarter guy than Trump, so I wonder if the Blob would be able to run circles around him the way they did around Trump. I doubt it and I suspect they doubt it too, which is why I think a campaign to destroy Vivek is likely to ramp up before too long. Trump couldn't be controlled outright but at least he could be misled.

I will offer a reason why the self-interested realism of America First “doctrine” is naive. Specifically, that saying out loud you are a jerk who cares only about your own self-interest lessens your power level compared to being a sanctimonious moralist-hypocrite. Of course, there are also tradeoffs to the latter, but here I will specify the benefits.

A very important aspect of international politics (contrasting somewhat with the video game versions) is that international politics is not zero sum. In a zero sum game, it is never advantageous to have fewer options. But this is not true for a positive-sum negotiation. For example, the Chinese population empirically care a lot about Taiwan, arguably to an irrational extent. This takes Taiwanese independence proper off the table for at least a few generations, because the domestic conditions in China are likely to force the administration to go to war if it happened, and all sides wish to avoid war. Similarly to ripping the steering wheel off your car in a game of chicken, the pigheaded moralism of the Chinese populace give the Chinese administration a negotiating advantage in the game. China has a credible threat of going to war, so the war does not happen.

If we take as a given keeping Taiwan de facto independent has some benefit, such as the semiconductors thing, one approach for the US administration is to generate as many reasons as possible Taiwan deserves to not be a part of China (liberal democracy good!) and use those reasons to manufacture consent domestically. This increases the credibility the US would defend Taiwan, which inherently gives us an advantage. China is less likely to march in and take it the more they are worried about US resolve and moralistic irrationality. Plus, domestic propaganda is basically costless— we do not actually have to support Taiwan that much materially! Adding more factors into the mix and making it unclear how committed we are is a costless way to prevent war in Taiwan until it happens. This is the main conceit of strategic ambiguity. Strategic clarity is a downside, and spelling out our interests in Taiwan precisely forces us to spend more in material terms there, not less, to assert the same credibility of resolve and deter a war.

Reducing ambiguity and rationalist doctrine throws away a lot of real advantage. Imagine if you walked into a business negotiation spelling out honestly in good faith exactly what you want and how far you are willing to go to get it! Your counterparty will take 100% of the surplus in the transaction. One benefit of a doctrine, spoken out loud, is that it creates an ambiguous honor commitment. My doctrine is to protect the Western hemisphere, and my people have heard me say it. If I do not live to that, my people will be angry with me, so don’t start trouble here or I will fight past the point of rationality. How far? It’s uncertain! That’s the point.

In this sense, America First is an anti-doctrine. It anti-manufactures consent domestically. It invites domestic critics to complain that such and such proposed action abroad (say, defending Taiwan), isn’t really in our interests. In a way, such a doctrine is totally content-free, because it says nothing China does not always know. They are also capable of modelling what we want in a pragmatic sense.

Counterintuitively, taking the realist stance and assuring China that their model is correct is good for fostering cooperation. We cede the possibility of escalation and the associated negotiation surplus in exchange for a stable peace. But Vivek sees China as a geopolitical rival. Vivek wants to beat China; Vivek wants a bigger slice of the pie. The America First doctrine as a foreign policy doctrine does not advance this. The America First doctrine prevents the US from nuking the pie and making it smaller for everyone out of misguided moralism, but it does not help the US seize any more pie from China. Therefore, Vivek’s hawkish position with respect to China is basically incoherent with his Taiwan policy. If he wants to beat China, he should definitely not be saying these things to China. Do you want to impress the Chinese administration with how pragmatic you are? They are seasoned pragmatists. The advantage is in frightening them with how crazy you can muster the will to be.

Truthfully, people generally know this instinctively based on vibes. We know US-aligned Taiwan = good, and so we will forget about the pragmatic reasons why, generate domestic enthusiasm by any means possible, and revel in frightening the enemy with that enthusiasm. Vivek countersignalling realism here is attractive to some audiences, but the vibers recognize this accurately as a defection for personal gain. If America First prevails, the greatest hope, in terms of keeping Taiwan, is that China will assess that the domestic messaging is meaningless, the deep state controls military affairs, and that Vivek is a principle-free demagogue and doesn’t believe what he is saying. The moment China becomes confident we are committed pragmatists and will not hurt our own interests to defend Taiwan, we will lose it.

America First is a sufficiently ambiguous doctrine that could cover a lot of things. It did not mean, and never meant, isolationism. Rather, it indicates a turn away from 'world policing', and the acknowledgement that there are bounds to American interests.

Secondly, there are downsides as well as upsides to fostering domestic enthusiasm for war. The bottom line here is that Americans will not simply line up for more military adventures on hearing the word 'terrorism', a fine trick while it worked but no longer. Americans must be persuaded that Taiwan is actually relevant to their interests, and a track record of pursuing those interests makes that persuasion easier. Just as a track record of anti-communism made it easier for Nixon to sell rapprochement with China, a track record of hard-nosed pragmatism will make it easier to sell intervention when the time comes.

The other thing is that for all this talk, Trump actually was President for four years, and neither Ukraine or Taiwan were invaded under his watch. Is that because he was construed to be a committed idealist?

Trump's not a great example here. In the Korea crisis in 2017, Trump signalled successfully that he was crazy enough to start WWIII, which is why he's the first POTUS since the Korean War to actually drive a wedge between Beijing and Pyongyang, and why Seoul and Pyongyang started singing kumbaya to at least some extent (they both wanted Trump to go away).

All that aside, while without the USA the PRC could take Taiwan, it still takes* quite a while - probably over a year - to prepare. D-Day wasn't exactly a spur-of-the-moment thing, you know.

*I say "takes" rather than "would take" because I suspect the PRC has in fact started these preparations. What's changed since 2016? Well, they've continued to expand the Chinese military and the USA's culture war has gotten worse, but also the Hong Kong crackdown in 2020. I think the CPC is telling the truth that it would like to get Taiwan peacefully - you'd have to be a complete maniac to prefer fighting over getting what you want without fighting, and that goes back to Sun Tzu. But Taiwan is never going to agree to a reunification deal now that there's an object lesson in Hong Kong that the PRC likes to alter deals of this exact sort, so I think the PRC is dusting off the "brute force" option. They could still abort, but I think the wheels are actually quietly in motion.

Rather, it indicates a turn away from 'world policing', and the acknowledgement that there are bounds to American interests.

To me, it sounds a lot like those showflake souls that propose replacing the police with "community non-violent conflict resolution teams". Which, predictably, results in criminals doing their thing openly and without fear, and "resolution teams" standing around or sitting in a nearby caffe, looking like the doofuses they are. The problem is evil exists, and contrary to what some self-centered Americans may think, it is not always caused - in fact, in most cases isn't - by "American meddling". And if you close your eyes to it, it will grow, until closing your eyes to it is no longer an option. And when that happens, you'd still have to deal with it somehow. Just as inhabitants of "defund the police" cities still have to deal with criminals going nowhere - just there's no more police because the politicians they voted for had those grand ideas about how police meddling causes all the trouble. It's very nice to sit and think "if we just don't meddle, everything will be fine and peachy" but it wouldn't work this way, and the oceans won't help much in today's small world.

It's very nice to sit and think "if we just don't meddle, everything will be fine and peachy" but it wouldn't work this way

There are undoubtedly people who want less intervention because they think that the US is a progenitor of all evils. These are often either people who want peace on the cheap, or people who want the US out of the way of other interests e.g. cleansing Israel of Jews.

However, the more sensible view is that there are cases where a lack of US intervention will still result in a shitshow, but nonetheless likely to be a less bad shitshow on the whole, e.g. the Vietnam War or the Iraq War.

However, the more sensible view is that there are cases where a lack of US intervention will still result in a shitshow, but nonetheless likely to be a less bad shitshow on the whole, e.g. the Vietnam War or the Iraq War.

It's not at all clear that the shitshow sans the US would be actually less. I mean, sure, not opposing the USSR (and China) communist takeover over the globe would be cheaper near-term. But do you think USSR taking over the whole Asia, South America and Africa would be less of the shit show than now? Of course, all these commit regimes would come crashing down as they did in Eastern Europe, but with the West looking the other way and pretending the commies don't exist or don't matter - could it have happened 50 years later? Could it cause much more blood (remember Budapest 1956 and Prague 1968?) and death? I think pre-supposing the answer to that is the same fallacy as saying "US meddling is the root of all evil", only in different words.

With Iraq, again looking into it in context, no US meddling means Iraq taking over Kuwait, and then expanding its operations further, and likely getting into a hot war with Israel using whatever WMDs they had. I'm not sure that'd be less of a shitshow, especially given that Israel does have nukes, and doesn't have any strategic depth, which means if seriously threatened... use your imagination. Not saying Iraq would be strong enough to get as far as to threaten Israel's existence as such - but if they get lucky and get this far, who'd stop things going there? Remember, US is not meddling anymore, which means they would neither prevent any shit from happening by force nor by promise of their protection (or its withdrawal). The world of "not meddling" would be much more dangerous and shaky, I am afraid. When there's no police, there would be shootouts. I suspect that'd be much bigger shitshow.

Yes, I agree that it's a matter of degree and context. For example, South Korea in 1950 had more strategic value than Vietnam, because it would have meant the loss of a buffer between the USSR/China and Japan. Similarly, there was meddling in Iraq (sanctions, defending Kuwait etc.) that had a lot more expected value than the 2003 invasion.

However, regardless of whether these interventions were right, I simply wanted to clarify that non-interventionism is not necessarily a "panacea" view.

The other thing is that for all this talk, Trump actually was President for four years, and neither Ukraine or Taiwan were invaded under his watch. Is that because he was construed to be a committed idealist?

America isn't the sole mover in world politics. I'd caution against attributing everything that happens to whomever is in office.

That's exactly what the person I'm responding to is saying. He said that if America ever credibly adopts America First as a doctrine, Taiwan will fall that every moment!

America changing its entire doctrine regarding Taiwan would be a much bigger change for the Taiwanese than Obama into Trump into Biden has been.

Well, I suspect it may be literally true. America First says we won't intervene if it doesn't serve our interests. Taiwan is worth more to China than it is worth to the US due to Chinese domestic politics. In a nation-centric realism world, they should have it by wagering enough hot war to make it worth it to them but not to us. Maybe we blow up TSMC on our way out. But maintaining "strategic ambiguity" allows us to do better than this! The main point is that America First is a step backwards for Taiwan deterrence.

To address your point about persuading Americans, I don't think pragmatic and nonpragmatic arguments are mutually exclusive. You can put them all out there. There are enough people to parrot the arguments to those who are receptive. The benefit of realist norms is that its more difficult to convince your people to do dumb things for non-realist reasons, which is perhaps understandably attractive in the face of failed US interventionism. But people have an instinctive aversion to such flat realism! People prefer to operate on a fluffier moralist level where it's difficult to assess just how much they are drinking their own Kool-Aid, and I suspect this is because it gives them an advantage in the time prior to open conflict.

Everyone in the USA still believes that the USA is the first etc etc. The only thing that matters is the domestic response to foreign posturing. "I'm against America First" is a viable posture in America because nobody in America really believes that America could be anything but first.

Wow, this is genuinely brave, independent thought from a US presidential candidate! Rapprochement with Russia, strategic clarity on Taiwan, actual realism in foreign policy... He's clearly read some Mearsheimer or Ebbridge, he understands the jargon.

Yet the power he faces is so overwhelming. Recall how he got bodied by the Israel lobby for heresy, like not providing Israel with billions of dollars of military aid. This will make a lot of people very angry. Better to keep this kind of plan hidden, like Nixon did. But Vivek clearly needs to grab attention, it's an unenviable position to be in.

It is a good illustration of how utterly committed the US foreign policy establishment is to its current very forward-deployed posture in the world that a man who is as hawkish on China as Vivek is still considered some kind of insane, maverick isolationist.

Or it's just considered a sophomoric plan. Which is what the linked WaPo columnist alleges, not him being an "isolationist"

https://twitter.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1696234841249857658?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

He’s now posting for physical fitness test for colleges in order to help black people get into college.

There probably is an edge for blacks at the extreme of the spectrum but I’m also a believer intelligence and athleticism aren’t anti-correlated. You would end up getting the superstar athletes who are 1100 SAT scores. But those guys don’t want to go to Harvard they rightfully view football as their payday and want to play in the SEC. The 1300 SAT score tennis player is likely already getting into Harvard.

Ramsy does have this popular mid-twit sounds good at first thought messenging.

I would be down with getting every kid to do a 6-ish minute mile. Upper class and wealthy people already are skinny. Obesity is one of those things I see in statistics but I know fairly close to zero people with the issue.

I just see this as more evidence that he doesn't understand the job he's actually applying for. The President doesn't set college admission policies!

He never said that the president sets admission policies though. In fact he said literally the exact opposite:

This is not formally part of my Presidential platform but it’s a serious proposal to address multiple cultural & health challenges with a single actionable step: most solutions shouldn’t come top-down from government.

Is this true? All schools are publicly funded. And the Supreme Court just did a big thing on what they can consider. Government besides the bully pulpit has a lot of rules schools have to follow.

Hell of a reach to say the President can micro-manage admissions at private colleges.

While almost all universities receive public funding in some fashion…Harvard, Yale, MIT, those are private institutions with great big investment funds. They aren’t government schools—the executive can't just unilaterally say that private colleges have to consider your Presidential Fitness Test scores.

If the president can pull title 9 out of his ass and enshrine gender bullshit in colleges he can also control admissions .

Title 9 was passed by Congress in 1972, no?

The operative part of Title IX is

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

I mean they're able to dictate how sports programs are run and how interpersonal disputes are handled. Are you really going to say admissions criteria is beyond the pale?

I specifically did not say micromanage. But it does appear they can change who gets in from a macro perspective.

I have a new proposal.

I think there should be an additional way to get into an elite college. You can still get in because you're an Olympic swimmer, or won an international math competition for high schoolers four years in a row, or because you're the daughter of a sitting U.S. President. But for mere mortals willing to put everything on the line...

I was thinking about an idea for Ivy League admissions reform: the ruling class and those that wind up hanging around them don't have to take much personal risk to get there. In ages past, until a few months into WWI, aristocrats were expected to take personal risk by going to war; many of the sons of aristocrats pulled strings to get sent to the trenches. War is more dangerous now than it was in 1900, and warmongering isn't exactly a good or necessary thing for the United States.

Therefore, I propose Admission of the Hock. Those with SATs over 1300 or ACTs over 27 who are in the top 15 percent of their high school class are eligible for the Hock. In early March, participants are parachuted onto a frozen lake in a boreal forest in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They're allowed anything they can carry on their back except for firearms, maps, and communication devices. No rescue beacons, either. If they survive by making it back to civilization under their own power, they receive admission to an Ivy League school.

If you want something - if you truly, honestly believe in something - that means being willing to risk your life for it and to suffer for it. There's very little of that nowadays in America outside of the combat arms. The likes of Harvard and Yale and by extension the American aristocracy would thus be leavened by large numbers of people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to ascend the class ladder. These people would know suffering and want as they had not in their sheltered childhoods. They would understand the whims of Mother Nature; they would know viscerally for the rest of their lives that the universe will not bend to their will.

We could have special diversity-based scholarships to Hock-prep schools and Hock-prep classes for the determined but poor individuals that we want to have a better chance at the Hock. After all, that Supreme Court decision only applied to college admissions; the Matthew Henson Hock Prep Program can offer scholarships how it likes.

TL;DR If you can do the work at Fancy Elite College and graduate, but you're not a rockstar, you can get dumped into the Alaskan wilderness in winter. Make it out alive and you're in. If you add diversity, maybe there's going to be some organization focused on preparing you for the rigors and trials of the Hock. Or you could simply take your chances; good luck.

The survivors will be very fit, very determined people.

This is the third time you have copy and pasted the exact same comment.

If they survive by making it back to civilization under their own power, they receive admission to an Ivy League school.

Eh, the properly rich can game this too. You just have to make an agreement with Daddy to send out a massive search and rescue party consisting of dozens of different groups to save you (and only you, this bit is important) as soon as you are dropped. All you take with you is a ultra hi vis orange jacket which will light up and stick out from hundreds of meters away plus some LEDS so you can be seen at night (you can pass that off as a torch to whoever is checking to make sure you don't have forbidden items), some rope and enough food to last lets say 5 days. When the ordeal starts you just climb up your nearest tall tree (the rope helps with this), sit there and wait to be rescued.

We managed to find the remains of the submarine within a week searching over a much bigger volume which was in 3D too (rather than the 2D search here), if Daddy has sent enough manpower you might well be back home in time for tomorrow's dinner.

Although I suppose if you're that rich you can just buy your way in via the usual methods right now, and that's easier.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I would watch the reality show version of this.

good idea!

I like this plan - also maybe guaranteed admission for top graduates who do military service. Your option seems more intense than military service though.

Sadly this likely opens up a ton of liability for the universities, so like many other good idea it will go into the dustbin because safetyism is the silent ruler of our day.

P.S. - any reason you have such a thing for the Alaskan wilderness?

It's romantic, IMHO. I like the idea of man vs. wild. Since I was 12, I always wanted to see what I was made of in a survival situation. I now realize that I'd probably suck a bit at it - but still admire the romanticism of it all. Chris McCandless was a hero. Even if he was also a dumbass.

Since I was 12, I always wanted to see what I was made of in a survival situation. I now realize that I'd probably suck a bit at it - but still admire the romanticism of it all.

Isn't this the ultimate sign of growing older? Wishing that you did X, not doing X when you had the option, and then wanting to make X an obligation for those younger than you. A sort of vicarious living. I have seen it recently in the UK with post-National Service people suggesting the return of National Service - for people younger than them, naturally...

Maybe, but I'm only 28 - perhaps too old to gain many of the benefits of the Hock, but not too old to successfully complete the Hock.

If your second block is serious - isn't this a strong case for 'safetyism'? Unless the survival rate is very high (which it would be IMO, there'd just be an industry that preps kids for success), your society would just be randomly killing a lot of its best and most courageous people for ... not that much gain. Willingness to die isn't going to select for 'bravery, nobility, and character' in the way you want it to, imo - archetypes like the corporate ladder climber snake or the dumb and brash young man will be very motivated to do this.

Unless the survival rate is very high (which it would be IMO, there'd just be an industry that preps kids for success)

Early Hocks would probably look a lot like the early UFC. I'm no martial arts fan or anything like that, but as I understand it there were all kinds of guys fighting each other in the early days. There were boxers fighting wrestlers, karate guys fighting sumo dudes, and no weight classes. Now that guys have been beating on each other in the UFC ring for long enough, we've mostly figured out what strategies work (and which are shit). So now, MMA looks to be mostly pretty standardized. Twenty years after the first Hock, you'd just have people Hockmaxxing by following a fairly standard Hock prep course, just like (overly simplified) MMA guys get good at fighting MMA by doing most of the same shit - training boxing, BJJ and cardio. Not practicing karate or sumo or some shit like that.

Given the black obesity rate, this plan probably hurts black admissions. Sure, the top sprinter in the world is always going to be of west African descent, but that’s not what they’re looking for- and anyways reliable high school football powerhouses tend to be working class white schools(they don’t go to the NFL at as high a rate because they use their scholarships to get a degree in something requiring more study time than psychology, which trades off with performance at the 1% end), with class reasons behind black overrepresentation in the very top of athletics.

I think adding physical fitness measures as metrics for college admissions would actually decrease Black admissions on the timescale of two or three years. The second they're added, every current academic try-hard would shift priorities to working on those things, and it's actually an objective metric that can't be gamed (by applicants and admissions officers) as much as e.g. GPA or extra curricular padding. I wouldn't be surprised if switching to 1-mile time as the sole criterion of admission would select more strongly for IQ than the current system.

Even now, the savvier people deadset on prestige education brands know that excelling in some obscure sport is one of the best ways to get a meaningful edge in the admissions game.

I wouldn't be surprised if switching to 1-mile time as the sole criterion of admission would select more strongly for IQ than the current system

This is definitely not true. It would select strongly for conscientiousness

I wouldn't be surprised if switching to 1-mile time as the sole criteria of admissions would select more strongly for IQ than the current system.

You think a system based on mile time would select more strongly for IQ than a system based on test scores and GPA?

Could you make that argument, because that seems prima facie crazy to me.

I can absolutely believe it - remember that the system also has features like penalising you for being involved in predominantly rural or agricultural pursuits, and gives you bonuses for being an illegal immigrant. While the test scores and GPA obviously have some relevance, there are enough confounding factors to substantially reduce the actual selective effect in question. Sure, grip strength isn't as strongly tied to IQ as SAT results, but I think that all of the other "holistic" selection criteria would bog down the IQ component enough to lower it down past that 58% number.

It could arguably select for conscientiousness more strongly than test scores and GPA; mile time seems to simply be [hard work + genetics]. It might be that Tanner Johnson's genetic potential for the mile, given the willpower of a Navy SEAL, the best training, etc. at age 17 is 4:46 and no matter how hard he trains during his adult life he will not crack 4:22. His fraternal twin brother might not be quite as fortunate and has a cap at 5:32 because very mild congenital knee problems keep him from training like an animal.

I'm not that sure about IQ as such; you can't be dumb but you also don't need to be John von Neumann to be an Olympic miler.

There are obviously systems that would select more strongly for IQ than mile time, like test scores and GPA. But that's not our current system: people are first binned into categories based on their race, and only then do test scores and GPA come into play. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if the mile time metric would manage to better select for IQ, even without the more direct signals from GPA and test scores, because it would drop the binning step. An auxiliary hypothesis needed for this to work is the mile time would still be correlated with IQ, with the delta between it and better measures being smaller than what's introduced by the binning.

There are diligence, ability to cheat, and family income effects that would be captured by mile times, which are themselves positively correlated with IQ.

The correlation between grip strength and reasoning is 0.23.

If you pick two random people their grip strength will correctly order them by IQ 58% of the time. If you only look at people with z>1 grip strength then this drops to 53%

So for any moderately selective college you’re basically operating 3% above random.

If you order by SAT you get 70% and 60% respectively.

You’ve got a long way to argue that affirmative action is so unmeritocratic that it makes such a crappy signal like mile time comparable to a decent signal like test scores.

Then we can talk about why you think “mile time with no AA” is either better or more politically feasible than “test scores with no AA”

If you start testing for something, people will start training it.

Yes and apparently adding a ton of non-IQ signal will magically make this test a better proxy for IQ.

The existing admissions process already has a ton of non-IQ signal. I'm not sure if this would be better or worse.

More comments

Then we can talk about why you think “mile time with no AA” is either better or more politically feasible than “test scores with no AA”

I said neither that it was better nor more politically feasible than anything, just that it could be more strongly selective of IQ than our current system, which is test scores with (de facto) AA and a bunch of other stuff.

If you pick two random people their grip strength will correctly order them by IQ 58% of the time. If you only look at with z>1 grip strength then this drops to 53%.

Sure. But that's before you've made a system that rewards grip strength with social outcomes. As soon as you do that, the correlation with IQ would become greater, as people with higher IQs interested in better social outcomes would then try to optimize for grip strength and be more effective at optimizing for it. Similarly, although there's no correlation between volunteering inclinations and IQ, you would see a strong one if you look at high schoolers, as they try to pad their resumes with volunteer work for the purposes of admission. You'd see a similar response from students with a grip strength system: you'd have parents sending their kids to after school gripping programs, specialized gripping coaching, etc. Motivated high schoolers would flock to web forums devoted to developing good grip. Some ambitious students would turn to grip-enhancing drugs. A black market would develop for professional grippers who would be hired as a stand-in for students to take the Scholastic Griptitude Test.

This applies to pretty much anything. If a DEI ETS decided to make a test that focused solely on obscure figures in African American history, you'd see the groups that outperform today outperform nearly as much on the new test.

Now, that would never become as strong a signal as SAT scores, which are fairly g-loaded. But, as with my original phrasing, it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up selecting for intelligence more strongly than the actual existing system we have.

Sure. But that's before you've made a system that rewards grip strength with social outcomes. As soon as you do that, the correlation with IQ would become greater, as people with higher IQs interested in better social outcomes would then try to optimize for grip strength and be more effective at optimizing for it.

You're conjecturing that grip strength and conscientiousness are positively correlated (citation?) and that conscientiousness and IQ are positively correlated (seems contentious at best after some Googling). Take every concern I had with using terribly-correlated variables and square it because you're not even talking about a direct connection anymore.

I don't think you really comprehend how weakly these traits are connected, and how relying on interactions between those traits makes that even worse. Yes, many good traits are correlated (a.k.a. the halo effect), and yes, people who deny this are worth refuting. But to go the opposite direction and just see these traits as interchangeable proxies for each other is crazy.

Suppose you published the entire SAT answer key a week before the test. Conscientious students would memorize it and completely destroy the other students, but nobody would dare to claim that this improves the correlation of the test with IQ! This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

For any decent metric adding in confounding factors make it worse and the only reason you can conjecture the opposite is because grip strength is such a terrible metric to begin with.

The average SAT score is 520 on each test. The average Harvard admit has an average in the low 700s (white admits average 745 and African Americans average 704). The standard deviation on each test is around 100. This puts African American Harvard admits around 1.8 standard deviations above average.

And you think social incentives will transform your 3%-above-random-chance signal into something competitive?

You're conjecturing that grip strength and conscientiousness are positively correlated (citation?)

I'm conjecturing that outcomes on any arbitrary measure that will result in better social outcomes and can be influenced by planning and hard work is positively correlated with conscientiousness and intelligence. Give a random student in China a test on US History and tell them it doesn't matter, and there'll only be a small correlation between intelligence and score. Let them know four years beforehand that if they get a perfect score on the test they'll get a million USD and a visa to the USA, and there'll be a strong correlation.

just see these traits as interchangeable proxies for each other is crazy... This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

To quote myself in the comment you're responding to: "that would never become as strong a signal as SAT scores, which are fairly g-loaded."

But, you get at something real: I do think to some extent every objective metric is interchangeable. Choose an arbitrary objective metric to excel at and tell students that their future well-being depends on it, and conscientious students will outperform on it as much as possible, which will often be a lot for intelligent students. The questions are how much grip strength is trainable and how much intelligence helps training. If the trait is more like height, then measurements of it will fail as a proxy; if it's more like ability to play the piano, it will work well.

that conscientiousness and IQ are positively correlated (seems contentious at best after some Googling)

I acknowledge the studies on this do contradict my point, and I remain skeptical. My suspicion is that what they're measuring as conscientiousness doesn't capture what we think of as conscientiousness, but I've not had the chance to look into the studies in detail.

Suppose you published the entire SAT answer key a week before the test. Conscientious students would memorize it and completely destroy the other students, but nobody would dare to claim that this improves the correlation of the test with IQ! This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

I'm going to bite the bullet here and say that, given a choice between our current system (which is not purely test or test-and-GPA based) and a purely memorize-the-publicized-answers test, I think the memorize-the-answers test would select more for IQ.

More comments

Yes but we aren't asking gunners to order themselves by grip strength yet.

Part of the hypo is that we ask graduating seniors to test their mile time to get into elite schools. If you did that, high IQ high conscientiousness kids will understand the assignment and train the 1600m. This would improve the correlation for 18yo college applicants.

You think a system based on mile time would select more strongly for IQ than a system based on test scores and GPA?

The current system is dropping or de-emphasizing test scores, GPA is very gamed, and the system includes subjective factors like your personality as determined by the admissions officer's assessment of your race.

like your personality as determined by the admissions officer's assessment of your race

I would also point out that, in the recent Harvard case, interviewers who met the candidates still gave higher personality scores to Asians than to Blacks. It's only when admissions officers were evaluating the packets that Asian personalities suddenly became inferior.

To be fair GPA itself was never a great measurement. If you take easier classes you'll get a better GPA, so in some ways it's anticorrelated with IQ.

Universities can and do account for this during admissions, with the easiest classes being penalized. Internally they use a corrected GPA, which takes into account both classes taken and the rigor of the school that the applicant took the class. What makes test scores so special is that they allow universities to extract a signal from applicants who excelled in GPA at a shitty school (since there's a clipping effect in the measuring instrument).

Though even the SAT has a clipping effect, to the point where a 1550-1600 score is table stakes for admission to top universities.

Yeah, the SAT has ceiling effects. I don't really think it's being used as a talent search by the top universities to uncover the next Ramanujans. Otherwise, perfect scores on the SAT would be FAR rarer than they are now...more like one every couple years than a thousand a year or so.

it’s a fact that those who perform well on math & reading tests tend to perform more poorly on the 1-mile run, and vice versa.

I think this is false.

I don't understand how you credibly commit to defending Taiwan's independence immediately after abandoning Ukraine in what seems like a pretty symmetrical situation. Is the justification that we need Taiwan economically in a way we don't need Ukraine? But the article also commits to expanding domestic industrial capacity so we no longer need Taiwan. I don't know how, as the Taiwanese government, you read this any other way than America's independence guarantee having an expiration date in the near future.

Meant this to be a reply to the OP...

Taiwan is a rich developed country, Ukraine is not.

Absolutely. See his radio interview that was also attacked by the foreign policy establishment and got a lot of negative press. Defend Taiwan for strategic reasons related to chips, once they are no longer the bottleneck they can go back to dealing with the cold civil war on their own and notionally the PRC would have less strategic reasons to invade once the US was no longer dependent on Taiwan.

China doesn't really care about the chips. They're buying them anyway, if spending a bit more because of lower efficiency of hardware they can buy.

However, Taiwan is a key naval strategic point and a renegade province.

Just speaking for myself, it’s absolutely economics and strategic interest. Taiwan makes a lot of high end computer chips — and while we’re working on building plants elsewhere my understanding is that we’re not doing very well at that. Given how absolutely vital computers are to every aspect of society, letting a geopolitical rival control such a thing is nigh on suicidal. Without chips, our military can’t function, without chips, our manufacturing can’t happen, our communications fail. Basically, the only things that we can do without computers are systems that haven’t been updated since the early 1970s.

By contrast, Ukraine isn’t a vital national interest. It’s largely agricultural, and while it exports grains, that’s not something that we cannot either grow ourselves or import from elsewhere. And as far as Ukraine being a first stop, I kinda doubt that simply because NATO has a presence there even if the countries in question aren’t literal members of NATO. We know this, and so does Putin. The specter of Russia invading Poland or Romania isn’t based on something he said he wants to do, or moves he’s made. The claim is entirely about keeping the proles on board with the money, weapons, and supplies being sent to Ukraine. It’s not much different than the lead up to Iraq — fighting them “over three” so they don’t “come here” — even if the groups in question have no interest in coming here.

I thought at least South Korea was able to compete with Taiwan on more or less equal terms in chip production?

No, TSMC dominates the semiconductor foundry market by a wide margin. The nearest competitor is South Korea's Samsung, which is still at a very distant second place. And most of TSMC's competitors cannot compete at scaled manufacturing and development of 5/3/2 nm chips.

Reminder: Ramaswamy isn't running for president, he's running for the position of interesting primary candidate. Posting polarizing takes that the sophisticated libs will dunk on gets him more attention, makes him 'A Guy', and he can take his reputation and do something with it when this is over (e: yes, including running for office in the future). He knows the things he's saying are half-baked, and he doesn't care, because you (well, people on twitter and in the media who think like you) are talking about them. It almost feels like (from a liberal perspective) everyone who talked about him for the past six months was defecting in a big prisoners dilemma - you don't have to give people attention for saying dumb stuff, just ignore them!

Although I'm not entirely sure what that says about how he'd govern if everyone else in the race dropped dead.

I think he’s seriously running for office. He might not be serious this year but on a different timeline wants a political position.

He reminds of pre-neolib AOC when she was squad founder girl. Right now yes the ideas aren’t fully baked.

Ramaswamy isn't running for president, he's running for the position of interesting primary candidate. Posting polarizing takes that the sophisticated libs will dunk on gets him more attention, makes him 'A Guy', and he can take his reputation and do something with it when this is over.

So, basically what Trump did?

Yeah same approach, but different goals - Trump went after the other primary candidates, Vivek isn't even bothering to say anything negative about Trump, who he'd have to beat in the primary to win.

This is also a smart approach - Trump has the nomination and the undying loyalty of the GOP base. If you make yourself openly anti-Trump republican voters will kick you right the fuck out. The only reason to run against Trump as a candidate is to build a name for yourself, try and score a VP position, or to grift large amounts of money from the Koch brothers and other extremely wealthy anti-Trump lobbyists.

He’s now posting for physical fitness test for colleges in order to help black people get into college.

Either he doesn't know the obesity rates or he has the incredible chutzpah of shamelessly championing the end of AA and is now trying to "solve" the problem for black people by...creating a criteria that even further benefits the very people - Asians - who gained from the end of AA.

I believe there is a stereotype of black people generally being physically stronger and fitter than white people. It might not be true, but he's a politician, he need merely play to the stereotype.

https://twitter.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1696234841249857658?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

This is a pro-merit solution that rewards diverse talents: it’s a fact that those who perform well on math & reading tests tend to perform more poorly on the 1-mile run, and vice versa.

I don't think this is a fact at all. I ran track, poorly, in high school. I had a tie for the highest SATs in my year, while I was (as is tradition) the last 200m, 800m, and 2mile runner to get cut before the meet. The 100m and 200m Varsity stars were not academic superstars, but they all got into decent state schools. At any distance longer than a mile, AP kids predominated.

This is hilariously awful.

At any distance longer than a mile, AP kids predominated.

Username checks out.

At any distance longer than a mile, AP kids predominated.

I saw this at my high school. An AP statistics student looked at the (self reported) GPAs and mile times of our track team. Let's also say that my high school was pretty...homogenous. Distance runners seem like more conscientious, reserved, methodical people than sprinters.

it’s a fact that those who perform well on math & reading tests tend to perform more poorly on the 1-mile run, and vice versa.

Yeah, this is straight up false. I would expect performance to be positively correlated. The best at one thing probably won't be the best at the other, but still there will be a non-negligible positive correlation between the two.

Ramaswamy should be smart enough to know this given his achievements, if he doesn't that's a pretty big red flag of being a mindless grifter, and if he's lying then that pretty bad of him too.

It's more like, among the people who you observe getting admitted to competitive colleges, you have people who are admitted for exceptionalism in academics with no regard for athleticism either way; for exceptionalism in athleticism; and for well rounded ness. This creates a real negative correlation in college admissions even though there is a positive correlation among the general population. Simpson's Berkson's paradox.

Simpson's paradox.

I think it's Berkson's paradox in college: the unathletic without academic skill don't go to top schools!

It would indeed be Berkson’s and not Simpson’s.

Obesity rates alone surely suggest that the average Asian teenager is fitter than the average black or hispanic teenager? And even if they aren't, the kids that are motivated or forced by their moms to do 35 extracurriculars and volunteer and sign up for every possible AP class are obviously also going to be able to spend two hours a week running or in the gym if that's what they need to do to get into Harvard.

the kids that are motivated or forced by their moms to do 35 extracurriculars and volunteer and sign up for every possible AP class are obviously also going to be able to spend two hours a week running or in the gym if that's what they need to do to get into Harvard.

Assuming there’s any time left for this. I’ve often wondered how long that’s going to last and how bad it’ll get before the kids simply start to revolt. Then again, they might not- China and Korea seem a lot worse and with more obedient youths.

I think the whole “Vivek is smarter than Trump so he will succeed” totally misunderstands how government (or even very large) organizations run. In very large organizations, the CEO needs to rely on trusted lieutenants to help implement the CEO’s vision.

The government is an even more extreme version of this. The president being smart is a necessary condition but not sufficient to the president being successful. The main ingredient is predicated on the team he can build combined with knowing when and how to burn political capital.

Edit: Vivek has shown zero ability to delegate successfully in a large organization. Instead, his business success seems to have come from the ability to bamboozle investors instead of running a successful business venture.

Honestly, not feeling like he’s really demonstrating intelligence, either.

The intelligence required to come up with foreign policy is inversely proportional to one’s chance of enacting it. Protect Taiwan, abandon it, it’s all equally hypothetical to him. So he can come up with galaxy-brained plans optimized for sounding cool.

People have really summed up the issue with the guy; he really does sound like he's playing Paradox grand strategy games with actual grand strategy.

With Nixon and Monroe firmly in hand, we can now move into application. Let us start with our great power rival, China, and the jewel of their near-abroad, Taiwan. We have operated in strategic ambiguity with regard to Taiwan for far too long. I will move to strategic clarity, by which I mean that China must understand that I will defend American interests in Taiwan. If Taiwan wants any partnership in their defense, then they will need to raise their defense spending and military readiness to acceptable levels. Meanwhile, I will commit to making sure Taiwan has the weapons they need for that defense, both from a sea-borne invasion, and in future, for a long-term insurgency against any occupying foreign force, if needed.

Vivek has publicly said that he's going to tell China "we'll defend Taiwan until we get semiconductor independence". Which...I guess everyone is supposed to take well?

Can we consider one potential consequence of telling Taiwan that the US will defend them right now (against an enemy that continually states it'll declare war if Taiwan ever tries for independence) while also promising to throw them under the bus as soon as the US is sufficiently diversified?

In Paradox-land, only the player has agency so it isn't that big a deal. People are less cooperative.

Vivek has publicly said that he's going to tell China "we'll defend Taiwan until we get semiconductor independence". Which...I guess everyone is supposed to take well?

Well that's the reality of the situation, which everyone knows. Semiconductors are valuable. If Saudi Arabia had no oil, they would be much less influential. Taiwan also has important bases, submarine ports, sits on trade routes to Korea and Japan. Its value is not limited to semiconductors.

Its value is not limited to semiconductors.

It is to Vivek. He literally said "I will only defend Taiwan until we get semiconductor independence", with a nice timetable for when he'll make that happen"

"So, one of my objectives is by the end of my first term, I believe I will lead us towards semiconductor independence. During that time, I'm going to be very clear, move from strategic ambiguity in Taiwan to strategic clarity, where I am crystal clear with China that you do not make a move on that island because I refuse to put China in a position to hold an economic gun to our head," Ramaswamy said. "We'll take destroyers from the group we have in Japan, take one per month, move it through that Taiwan Strait. ... This is something that actually will send a strong signal to China they will not take the risk of making that move, especially if they know that the U.S. is only biding our time until we have semiconductor independence. That's where strategic clarity actually helps us."

....

"That's what I'm going to do, Hugh, to make sure that we don't put ourselves in that position," Ramaswamy told the host. "China will have no reason to aggress towards Taiwan between now and the end of my first term in 2028 if we show we're serious about it, but by being strategically clear that that commitment changes after we've achieved semiconductor independence. Now put yourself in [Chinese President] Xi Jinping's shoes. He has no interest in taking that risk."

He continued, "And the truth of the matter is, there are two reasons why China wants to annex Taiwan. One is to squat on the semiconductor supply chain, so they can exert leverage over the United States of America. That's not happening on my watch. I take a firm position on that. But the second reason why is that they have unfinished nationalistic business dating back to their civil war in 1949. And if that's the sole basis for Xi Jinping going after Taiwan, after we have semiconductor independence, then you know what, I am not going to send our sons and daughters to die over that conflict. And that's consistent with my position on Ukraine as well."

In fact, he's basically telling China: "don't bother, you can get them for cheap when I'm done with the semiconductor issue"

Interesting, didn't hear that part.

Wonder if the US can actually achieve strategic independence from Taiwan on semiconductors, especially if he's in charge. You'd think Taiwan would start slow-walking TSMC in America if that's the case. Just five years is a short time to move an entire industry, especially when Taiwan is much better at it than disorganized countries like America:

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20230313PD200/arizona-ic-manufacturing-morris-chang-tsmc-wafer-fab.html

https://www.anandtech.com/show/18966/tsmc-delays-arizona-fab-deployment-to-2025

I'm confident that the US needs way more chips than just from the Arizona plant, which shows little signs of profitability, should it open without more delays. Then again, it might be better losing Taiwan without a fight than getting the US military wrecked in China's home waters and losing Taiwan with a fight.

Yeah. If West Taiwan takes over Taiwan, it makes the US Navy's job of containing/tracking Chinese subs and othet ships significantly more difficult. At least, thats my understanding based on (limited) info of the sea depths.

This also sounds as "we will defend Taiwan, but only while it is profitable for us, and only if Taiwan is very nice to us and does exactly what we say". Which, consequently, means that if China either manages to make Taiwan takeover not threaten "American interests" (like promising to put TSMC into a special economic zone of something, Chinese are very practical in such matters, they'll find a way), or, alternatively, make costs of defending it higher then giving it up (like saying "if you intervene, we'll nationalize all your factories and kick you out, and to heck with economic consequences, people starved in China before many times, who cares, that's why we have this fascist regime to be able to pull of such things") - in either case Taiwan is out to dry. And since the condition was "if they behave nicely" - this will be presented as them not behaving nicely and "provoking" China and being unreasonable and ultimately their own fault.

Cynically, this is what would happen in any case - I mean, if defending Taiwan is too hard, US won't do it anyway. But declaring it upfront is inviting China to make it so, and any person who doesn't understand this has no business even talking about those things.

Agreed.

"Here is a list of exactly what needs to happen for my government to stop defending Taiwan".

The US President is a small part of the overall military-industrial complex. Additionally, a politician is never to be taken on their word, let alone one on campaign trail.

There will be back channel conversations and there will be back channel promises.

The US wants to pressure Taiwan into spending more on its own military. It wants Taiwan to give the US better assurances because the US holds the cards. By making your support of a nation conditional, you can extract far more. As long as the power differential stays similar and Taiwan remains fundamentally opposed to the CCP, the US can continue being a bit of a hard-ass ally.

The US wants to pressure Taiwan into spending more on its own military. It wants Taiwan to give the US better assurances because the US holds the cards. By making your support of a nation conditional, you can extract far more.

Vivek isn't making it conditional in a Trumpian "pay 2% or fuck you" way. He is saying, in plain view of everyone, that he will simultaneously work to weaken the current (kinda-moribund) compromise with China based on ambiguity, while weakening Taiwan's strategic value to the US while also telling China that US concern in general is a temporary state of affairs.

There's nothing good about this for Taiwan.

Additionally, a politician is never to be taken on their word, let alone one on campaign trail.

If you're suggesting that the above is just 4d chess to get Taiwan to buck up, then Vivek's stated policy - which is arguably damaging even as a campaign policy - is not his actual policy so what are we talking about?

Are we supposed to assume that he has very smart and secret plans and the best generals and he'll tell people when he gets elected? That's a fraught strategy, historically speaking.

I assume you are referring to a Nuclear Taiwan. It’s the obvious thing Taiwan would do if the US security guarantee had a sell by date. And about 30 other countries would go nuclear if the U.S. removed their security guarantees.

I was thinking openly secessionist Taiwan but nukes would likely be a prereq.

Americans wrecked Taiwanese nuclear program in 1980s, there's no way they'd get away with it now.

Taiwan is an ultra-high tech wealthy country. If it wants nukes, it can’t be stopped from building them, and honestly the sanctions regime that could even slow it down is the kind which can’t be imposed on the seat of TSMC.

If it wants nukes, it can’t be stopped from building them,

Well, Americans asked them nicely to stop it ~35 years ago and Taiwan did stop. There's little evidence they're diverting bomb-suitable material or making their own.

Ramaswamy proposes sharing nuclear submarine technology with India, with the expectation that India will help block Chinese shipping in the event of a US-China war. I don't believe India will ever do this. It has a vast population with very little disposable income. Although its GDP of 10 trillion dollars (PPP) is sizable, most of it is needed for sustenance. There is little left over for war. Thus, if India did get involved in a US-China war, it would probably not make a huge impact. India would risk antagonizing China further without substantially increasing the probability of a Chinese defeat. It would be better for India to hope that China loses without joining the conflict herself.

Besides, Taiwan falling isn't nearly as big of a deal to India as it is to Japan/US. India's conflict with China is at their land border in the Himalayas. Taiwan is in a totally different direction.

Ramaswamy proposes sharing nuclear submarine technology with India

If candidate Judeberg Shlomostein proposed giving SSBNs to Israel in order to counter Russian influence in the Middle East, we wouldn't be analyzing what this implied about his Ukraine policy. Confounding factors must be considered.

Counterpoint- India hates China and its biggest rival is one of China’s more powerful Allies in the middle of a world war.

Honestly I’d bet on ‘China sinks the 7th, draft riots collapse the US government and the states balkanize’ before I’d bet on ‘India stays neutral’.

Wait, do countries consider using nuclear subs for anti-shipping?

I was under the impression they exist as deep stealth nuclear deterrents rather than offensive weapons.

Edit: I was thinking of the Ohio-class dedicated ballistic missile subs. The rest of the US SSNs are outfitted for a bunch of roles, including torpedoes.

Harpoon was a long time ago, but aren't Los Angeles class subs also nuclear driven?

Thanks for reminding me about playing Harpoon, now thats a game I'd like to see a modern remake.

Yeah, everything we field now is nuclear. I don’t know when’s the last time our subs sank anything.

Edit: apparently never. The British made the only attack using a nuclear sub when they sank this guy.

As I understand it, the only nuclear sub to sink a ship is HMS Conquerer vs ARA General Belgrado. Although I've seen it with the caveat that it's "only nuclear sub to sink a surface ship with a torpedo", so maybe a missile took one out (not counting SinkEx, of course).

In terms of nuclear propulsion vs armament, this graphic may be helpful. The US, UK, and France have only nuclear powered subs - everyone else also has conventional. Of note on that list, India and Brazil's nuclear subs aren't indigenous - they were bought (leased?) from Russia and France, respectively. Also note that Israel gets a "to be confirmed" in the armament category due to their policy of strategic ambiguity. Also also note that at one point some attack subs had nuclear tipped torpedoes. And nuclear tipped sub-launched anti-submarine rockets, some of which, as you might expect, had an anticipated kill ratio of "both".

TL;DR "nuclear" almost always refers to the propulsion of a sub, not the armament. "Boomer" is the slang term for a nuclear armed sub, but sadly USS OKLAHOMA is an attack sub.

Ha, I started looking into the Conqueror and got sidetracked reading bean's Naval Gazing blog.

India would risk antagonizing China further

India and China are already political enemies. They are economically tied to the hip (with India being the more dependent one), but none of the products consumed by India from China are essential (food, clothing, infra). The Indian populace also hates China, so assisting US in a US-China war would be aligned with all of India's interests. The economic hit received by India will be harsh, but the popular hatred for China is a good mechanism for allowing people to productively suffer through it.

There is little left over for war

A US-China war is a world war. Pakistan will mobilize in Gwadar for Hormuz and India will move as a counter balance.

India will help block Chinese shipping

India won't need to block Chinese shipping, because US is going to unilaterally sanction anyone who takes in Chinese shipping. But if it comes down to it, India will move to secure its neighborhood.

India's conflict with China is at their land border in the Himalayas

And why would India not leverage a US-China war to recover areas of Aksai-Chin that would block the Karakorum highway ?

Most of the world has more trade with China/Russia than with the US.

Would they even care?

Ramaswamy's policy on Ukraine is to essentially freeze the conflict. Russia would keep whatever territory it has occupied. Ukraine will not be part of NATO, but presumably it would continue to receive arms and economic aid from the West. And though Ramasamy does not mention it, presumably the sanctions against Russia would have to be dropped as well.

I don't think the Russians will take this deal. Because the war is on Ukraine's soil, and because Ukraine has a smaller economy, they are being attrited faster. Pausing hostilities thus benefits Ukraine more than Russia. And while Ramaswamy proposes keeping Ukraine out of NATO, it is inevitable that Ukraine will drift closer to the West. There is too much hatred towards the Russians for reconciliation.

Even dropping the sanctions isn't all that enticing. Trade relations that have been halted by the sanctions won't be restored overnight because of the fear that the war will resume. It would take decades.

Thus, for the conflict to be frozen, Ukraine will have to make greater concessions, which they are not willing to make. The only way for the United States to get the Ukrainians to make such concessions would be to threaten to abandon them. This is not only dishonorable, it would erase America's reputation for reliability and hamper its ability to form alliances for decades to come. (This would not be the case had the United States not intervened on Ukraine's behalf in the first place. But given that we offered them NATO admission 15 years ago, and that we have been giving them military aid since 2014, there is an expectation that we should continue to support them for longer.)

We don’t really have any idea what would happen if the US pulled out of the war. It’s quite possible the day the US pulls out is the day Poland declared war while also probably starting a nuclear weapons program. And Poland in full war mode would likely crush Russia. They have no interest in Russia closer to their border.

Fwiw war twitter seems to be indicator some breakthroughs for Ukraine now. These things pop up from time to time between sudden land grabs and despair their failing but we will see.

Russia is almost certainly cut off from the west now without a full surrender and political change. Germany is never depending on Russian gas again.

Poland in full war mode would likely crush Russia.

What on Earth makes you think that? Is this a typo?

I don't think the Russians will take this deal

They might not, but this would be colossally stupid from their part.

Because the war is on Ukraine's soil, and because Ukraine has a smaller economy, they are being attrited faster.

Right now Ukraine economy mostly runs on Western money.

Pausing hostilities thus benefits Ukraine more than Russia.

It absolutely doesn't. Pausing + removing sanctions means Russia can load up on munitions and material for the next attack, and import all the technologies they need to manufacture drones, rockets, etc. in-house. That's what they are constrained with currently - they have tons of people, and don't mind losing hundreds of thousands of them, but their communications, hi-tech weapons, etc. are seriously lacking - they have to buy drones from fricking Iran, which is not exactly a leading technological powerhouse. If the sanctions are removed, they can have any technology from China, Israel, US, Germany, etc. - and don't be deluded there wouldn't be somebody in the US that is willing to sell them anything for the right price too, after all if there's no sanctions anymore, it's OK. They'd also have full access to oil/gas markets, so money would not be an issue, they could pay very generously for the necessary technologies. No "soft" export limitations would be able to withstand that.

Meanwhile, Ukraine will suffer a huge drop in Western support, because the war is off TV screens, so the budgets for it would dry up, especially on long-term projects like building drone factories or artillery ammunition or HIMARS rockets and anti-ship capabilities (Russia still has a fleet in the Black Sea, and will beef it up seriously once passing Turkey is no longer a problem because the war is over). The popular sentiment would be "the war is over, how great, let's relax and maybe give them some money for repaving the roads and that's it". Nobody would be able to sustain a level of investment even close to what is happening now, it will probably drop even below of what it was in 2014-2022 - the war is over, after all, we need to move on.

Which means, in 4-5 years Russia would be fully restocked and ready for the next phase of war, while Ukraine... well, they would have nice roads which will serve very well for Russian tanks to get where they need to get.

we have been giving them military aid since 2014

You must be kidding. No serious military aid was given until the start of the 2022 war, even shipment of things like anti-tank weapons, which you can't use until the enemy tanks are already in your face, was hugely controversial. Most of the aid was "helmets and blankets". Heavier and more advanced weapons - which are absolutely a must when fighting an army of Russia size over a 1000km front - were flat out of the question, and Ukraine had no budgets to get them on their own.

I'm unconvinced about either side of this argument (stopping now would make Russia's long-term trajectory look better than Ukraine's; continuing means the conditions will favour Ukraine more and more).

For the former, on one hand I'm not convinced that American support (and really that's the one that matters the most) would dry up so fast, considering the endurance the US has shown in unpopular and not particularly televised campaigns since 1945 (and I think supplying Ukraine is still much cheaper than Afghanistan was, all these years); and Ukraine's main problem right now seems to be that it's "kept on its toes" and can't actually catch a break to accumulate supplies and temporarily swing the balance, whereas being able to save up even from a much slower trickle in peace for a few years (specifically in the domain of air defense, where the problem is not so much the cost as the absolute low amount and production bandwidth) would solve this. On the other, Russia's economic sprezzatura has to crack eventually, and I don't think that nominal sanctions relief (which I doubt would be executed in any more good faith than the grain agreement or Iran's nuclear deal) will be enough to reverse the downwards trend. I would therefore actually expect that in 5 years, a rested, rearmed, hardened and sure-footed Ukraine could roll over a Russia that is possibly torn apart by hyperinflation and internal instability.

For the latter, I think that after Ukraine's resilience surprised most Western commentators in the opening days of the war, everyone has way overcorrected in the other direction and is now assuming that it's silly or likely Russian psyop to insinuate otherwise. I actually think that the mechanisms determining a society's will to fight and die are obscure, and the channels by which we would gauge them are even more encumbered than usual, and it's not at all impossible that Ukraine could one day just suffer from a sudden vibe collapse and fold. The human losses are getting more and more painful, and I hear another mobilisation wave is being prepared; and at the same time the West is playing the dangerous game of snorting its own supply regarding Ukrainian motivations, which may result in a critical misstep if too many people honestly believe that it's safe to remain noncommitmental about EU membership out of internal considerations (say, only promising NATO). From a Russian perspective, holding out for this chance, however slim it may be, seems as reasonable as anything in its current situation.

considering the endurance the US has shown in unpopular and not particularly televised campaigns since 1945

That was a different US. Right now, the question of support for Ukraine has become intensely tribal, and the red tribe wants nothing to do with it. The blues want to support it, but how long it will last? The example of Afghanistan shows us the 180 degree turn is possible at any second, and when it happens, nobody would try to do a smooth transition - the mode of operation would be "dump and run".

Ukraine's main problem right now seems to be that it's "kept on its toes" and can't actually catch a break to accumulate supplies and temporarily swing the balance

They don't have any supplies to accumulate, their own production facility is tiny and can't be upgraded to the necessary level for a long time, at least not without a massive Western investment. Ukrainians spent a lot of time in the last decades selling off their stockpile and production capacities - including to Russia, btw - because they didn't believe Russia would dare to launch the full invasion. Getting their own capacities to the level they could do more that temporarily hold off the Russians would take many years. The years which Russia wouldn't be sitting and waiting.

On the other, Russia's economic sprezzatura has to crack eventually

Why? No it hasn't. Russians have certain problems with both selling the hydrocarbons and obtaining the technologies, which limit their capacities somewhat, but not ruinously so. They still largely have enough weapons to essentially grind the situation to an expensive stalemate, and they can keep on keeping on like that for a very long while. Yes, the life of an ordinary citizen of Russia under such regime would be somewhat shitty, but the life of an ordinary citizen of Russia has been somewhat shitty for centuries, it's absolutely nothing new. Economically, Russia is not close to breaking and the current level of sanctions won't break it, at least not for a very long time. They can muddle through just enough to get to the point where the West gets tired and removes the sanctions, or at least weakens the support of Ukraine, at which time they'll resupply everything they need to grab a bit more territory and repeat. They are banking on Western attention span being short and resolve being weaker with time and expense, and I can't honestly say that it's a completely baseless assumption.

I would therefore actually expect that in 5 years, a rested, rearmed, hardened and sure-footed Ukraine could roll over a Russia

If you expect that you are horrendously deluded. Nobody is "rolling over" anybody there, not with Ukrainian capacities. They are smart and brave people, but in this war God is on the side of big battalions. They just don't have the capacity to roll anything, without substantial air force, naval capabilities, far strike capabilities and with numerical and resource disadvantage. They are much better warriors than Russians, but it's just not enough. The absolute best Ukraine can hope for is slowly (and very, very expensively) pushing Russians back to pre-2014 borders, and that would cost a lot and require a lot more Western help that is being given now. If Russia is given time to resupply and rearm and upgrade their technological level and turn all the occupied territories into a massive fortification, the best Ukrainians can hope is when the Russians attack the next time (and it will be them attacking, Ukrainians would never dare to break the peace and risk jeopardizing the Western support) it won't cost them more than a couple of minor cities until the Russians are ground to a stop again. Then there would be the next time, and the next time after that, until the West would reasonably decide that since 40% of Ukraine territory is occupied by Russia anyway, and in the current form it's not economically viable, it's better to broker a permanent solution where Ukraine becomes Russia's bitch protectorate and the war finally stops. And all the armchair strategists would lament that we should have done it decades before and saved all the effort and trillions spent.

For the latter, I think that after Ukraine's resilience surprised most Western commentators in the opening days

That is true, Ukrainians proved to be much more capable warriors than the West expected. That's the reason why Ukraine still exists as a nation. But it's not enough. Long war is a question of resources, and Ukrainian's own resources are small compared to Russia. If the West is not willing to commit enough resources to overcome that disadvantage, the Ukrainians will lose. And if Russia is able to resupply and refit their resources, then the disadvantage will only become more pronounced. Heroism can only take you so far.

Afghanistan

The presumable problem there was always deployment of US personnel, not equipment and costs. Are there examples of the US suddenly abandoning an important geopolitical project that can be sustained with inanimate resources alone?

They don't have any supplies to accumulate

They do, though, from the West. Figures from around June place total US military aid alone at around $50 billion since the start of the war, which is in the ballpark of Germany's annual military budget (80 billions or so), with the latter presumably mostly paying for Germany's much more expensive human element. (Ukrainian military still gets paid Ukrainian wages and benefits!) This is not even including the other Western backers; Germany gives its own military support at about $20 billion, and I'm struggling to find a good cumulative figure. With the tone you are taking, it's hard for me to interpret your non-mention of it as being anything other than phatic speech to cheer on the Ukrainians.

(For full disclosure, I went to look for figures and found that the number of tanks Ukraine was given so far was much lower than I had thought. I figure I've multiple-counted single batches as they were talked up before actually being delivered.)

naval capabilities, far strike capabilities

It seems that Ukraine is already close to successfully denying the northwestern chunk of the Black Sea to Russian surface ships, and yesterday they successfully struck an airport in Pskov like 600~800km away from the Ukrainian border with drones (800km if we don't assume they risked flying through Belarus).

and it will be them attacking, Ukrainians would never dare to break the peace and risk jeopardizing the Western support

I remember the exact same line being used in the context of the pipeline attack last year, perhaps even by you, to argue that it could not possibly have been the Ukrainians. Now most Western newspapers are freely carrying reports that it seems to have been the Ukrainians. Do you see any sign that Western support is in jeopardy because of it?

Ukraine can do whatever it wants. To the extent this is possible, Western end-user media will bury any reports on it (such as when they firebombed a university in Donetsk a month ago); if this is impossible, they will claim that the Russians did it themselves no matter how absurd (as with the pipeline and the repeated cases of anti-personnel mines being fired into Donbass cities last year); if this too fails, they can concede that Ukraine did it and still people will nod sagely and be like "well, they are being invaded by an overwhelming power that does not adhere to any principles after all" (as with the pipeline now). Claims to the contrary, that there is any threat to Western support from actions that Ukraine takes against Russia, should be furnished with evidence.

They do, though, from the West.

Correct, but that will be drying up as soon as we achieve "agreement". The war is over, why waste money anymore?

Figures from around June place total US military aid alone at around $50 billion since the start of the war

The correct figure of the aid actually delivered (not promised, not allocated, not potentially available if the President wants to, but actually sent) is a little below $20 billion. The economic assistance about the same. The total figure (military and economic aid) is about $38 billion. To compare, US spent in Afghanistan about $110bn (only military expenses, not counting humanitarian/economic aid) Source: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/factcheck-washington-post-false-claims-about-size-of-us-aid-to-ukraine/

These figures, however, are hot-war figures. Once the shooting stops, sustaining this level of investment will be politically impossible. That's my whole point - the situation now is radically different from the one that would be when the "peace" is achieved.

in the ballpark of Germany's annual military budget

Germany is not really a good benchmark, even they agree now their military is hilariously underfunded and is not capable of any serious task. They were mostly relying on US coming in if any shit is going to go down, and that's why Trump was screaming at them to shape up (to which they reacted with derisive laughter).

and yesterday they successfully struck an airport in Pskov

Ukrainians are pretty good at pulling of spectacular one-off strikes where Russians don't expect them. It's a great thing, awesome for morale, and keeps Russians on their toes. But it doesn't win a war. It doesn't even win a battle. While Ukrainians successfully neutralized the threat of naval invasion on the south, the sea blockade and the constant bombardment from sea-based missile carriers still continues, and Ukrainians can do nothing about it. If Russia is allowed to upgrade their Black Sea fleet (which is largely blocked by Turkey not letting them pass into the Black Sea in war time), the threat of the invasion from the sea will be restored, and given time, the Russians will find a solution for Ukrainian sea drones too. Again, the current situation will change once the sanctions and the wartime impediments will be removed. And the sporadic harassment of Russian airports, while great at embarrassing them, does little to decrease their strike capability, which they regularly exercise against Ukrainian (mostly civilian) targets, and which are limited only by available rockets/drones - again, this capacity will be hugely increased once the sanctions are off.

Now most Western newspapers are freely carrying reports that it seems to have been the Ukrainians.

I can write a report claiming it was Martians. The factual basis would be about as strong. By the grace of Almighty, we still manage to maintain some freedom of speech in the West, but that also means anybody can "freely" publish anything in the papers. If we talk about Pravda, if something is printed there, you can be sure even if it's a lie, it's an officially approved and vetted lie. In the Western newspapers, it only means somebody thought it will bring clicks. And so it would.

Do you see any sign that Western support is in jeopardy because of it?

Do I need to explain the difference between a strike at enemy's vital economic asset at wartime and initiating warfare after a ceasefire agreement, in peacetime?

Ukraine can do whatever it wants

Not if we achieve "peace in our time". In the middle of the war, it's one thing, peacetime is quite another.

such as when they firebombed a university in Donetsk

Spare me the histrionics. Donetsk is a war zone city, and that building is no different from any other building, thousands of which were destroyed (by both sides, but mostly by Russians). The fact that an organization calling itself "university" (no idea what kind of education it can do in the middle of the war zone, probably none) owns the building means absolutely nothing. And if your best complaint about Ukrainian atrocities is that they set on fire a roof on a building that required three (!!!) ladders to extinguish, no damage, no casualties, then I say Ukraine is doing an unexplainably bad job at striking back, they should have much more impact on Russians than that.

"well, they are being invaded by an overwhelming power that does not adhere to any principles after all" (as with the pipeline now).

Again, strike at enemy's economic capacity is a long-existing principle of war, and Russia did that - and much more, as they had striken at purely civilian infrastructure like electrical grid in the middle of the winter, clearly to maximize impact on civilian population, not just blew up a pipeline in the middle of the ocean. Trying to present this clearly legitimate act - which, I emphasize again, not proven at all, but legitimate even if we assume for a second it was Ukrainians - as some kind of outrageous atrocity only emphasizes the dearth of any other examples. If you had anything else but the pipeline and a wooden roof on fire, you'd mention it - but you mention these ones, so I assume that's the best you have. And man, is it weak sauce.

Claims to the contrary, that there is any threat to Western support from actions that Ukraine takes against Russia, should be furnished with evidence.

You can evidence it amply from the speeches of red tribe politicians. Carlson is now in all out PR war against Ukraine. He was also the one who tried to force (and still is trying) the idiotic biolab conspiracy. There are many others that are on the crusade against Ukraine on the red side. On the blue side, it's all pro-Ukraine now, but it will change in a moment once they'd have "peace in our time" signed.

The correct figure of the aid actually delivered (not promised, not allocated, not potentially available if the President wants to, but actually sent) is a little below $20 million.

Here I was, nearly spitting out my drink, all ready to quote your point about free speech and bringing clicks (which in fact I disagree with) back at you, but it turns out you just mistyped "billion".

Sorry, of course it's "billion". That's why I gave the link - in case I mistype something (which happens), you can always go to the source and see. I fixed it.

What conflicts since WWII would lead someone to believe that America is a reliable ally?

It’s almost conventional wisdom at this point that America will ride in with guns blazing, then fight a war of attrition until they don’t want to fight it anymore, and on top of that will forsake the indigenous that put their lives and families at risk to work with America.

I mean, they spent 20 years in Afghanistan for no reason. I reckon Ukraine can get at least 30 years of US support, and if the war can't be won in that time, it can't be won at all.

I want to say the Balkans are better off now than they would have been without NATO intervention. Don’t get me wrong, Kosovo is still a shitshow, but we headed off some ethnic cleansing.

Ask South Korea and Kuwait.

Korea? South Koreans seem to be doing pretty decently. Also, Japan. Also, to some measure, all of Western Europe, which has been relying on US military coverage for decades. Also, Israel (not without caveats, but there has been sustained support).

I'd love if we could get their health coverage in exchange for our military coverage.

You spend more money on healthcare than any single European nation does. If the results do not suffice, that's on you

What conflicts since WWII would lead someone to believe that America is a reliable ally?

The first Gulf War was pretty cool.

But, arguably, this is the wrong question: what conflicts haven't happened because the US is a reliable ally? Territorial conflicts in East Asia, for example, have probably been suppressed by the US. Would people like Mao take such a genteel approach to Taiwan without needing to come to terms with America?

And I'm sure people took a lesson from Saddam's first spanking.

What conflicts since WWII would lead someone to believe that America is a reliable ally?

The Korean War would qualify, I’d argue. South Korea is likely our most significant and closest partner in the region after Japan, and we absolutely still have major, ongoing security commitments there that we’ve held to for the better part of a century now.

Good point, we haven't abandoned the South Koreans.

“I will accept Russian control of the occupied territories and pledge to block Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO in exchange for Russia exiting its military alliance with China. I will end sanctions and bring Russia back into the world market. In this way, I will elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia.”

You don’t have to be a professor of international relations to see why this idea is retarded. So you accept Russian control of Eastern Ukraine and lift all sanctions on Russia, and then Russia has to ‘exit’ (ambiguous) its ‘military alliance’ (something that only partially exists on paper anyway) with China….or else…what? Vivek restores sanctions on Russia for not sufficiently breaking ties with China (pointless, even a temporary break in sanctions will allow for large scale repatriation or transfer of Russian capital in anticipation of future sanctions)? Are you going to trust Putin? How will that be measured? Why wouldn’t cooperation continue in an underhanded way? Once you force a Ukrainian defeat and unilaterally lift sanctions you’re not in a position of strength toward Russia, you’re in one of total weakness. And Vivek can’t threaten Putin with Ukrainian NATO membership because, as Putin knows, there are other member states that would be amenable to vetoing it regardless of what the US says.

And most importantly, Russia can never be a ‘strategic check’ on China’s designs in East Asia. What does Vivek think he can do, get Putin to invade Manchuria in case Gyna threatens to bomb Taiwan? Send Russia’s three remaining seaworthy warships to the South China Sea? And Vivek is an isolationist who only cares about Taiwan until 2028 or whatever anyway (when he believes TSMC will no longer be critical) so why care about a long-term ‘check on China’ at all?

Still, Vivek is a high verbal IQ arch-grifter who has never created a substantial, profitable business, bilked investors out of $400m to buy a $5m failed drug from GSK (and burned through that entire capital in a doomed pivot) and then himself pivoted into politics when the cheap money dried up. He has never accomplished anything that is both impressive and good for society in his entire life. Even Trump is a better businessman, so perhaps this is what America deserves.

And most importantly, Russia can never be a ‘strategic check’ on China’s designs in East Asia. What does Vivek think he can do, get Putin to invade Manchuria in case Gyna threatens to bomb Taiwan?

One of the biggest limitations China has is a dependence on imports of oil and natural gas; if those are cut off sufficiently, any invasion of Taiwan is stillborn (and Xi runs the risk of his head ending up on a pike). Russia (and areas in Central Asia in which it has a lot of influence) is a very important backstop; with Malacca closed off, land-based imports of oil would still allow China to wage a war on the scale of a couple years instead of months. Russia offering a credible promise not to export fossil fuels to China would be worth a lot, if it were possible.

Oil and gas only matter if a war is fought on the years scale, not the weeks or months scale. This is virtually guaranteed not to be the case. Any Taiwanese conflict is going to be a months-long affair at best. And if it's longer, there are larger macroeconomic considerations more important than oil. I think you dramatically overestimate how much oil a country goes through mid-conflict. No one is going to boycott selling China oil in peacetime, either. In short, this entire line of reasoning is irrelevant and severing the so-called Russia-China military alliance (which mostly only exists on paper, it's not like the Russian fleet would ever, under any circumstances, fight alongside China against the US, which is the only thing of real value Russia even has in that theater.).

How would US even figure out whose submarines are attacking them?

They don't even need to surface. Even if you sank one, odds are that finding whose sub was it would require a deep diving ROVm

How would US even figure out whose submarines are attacking them?

As any Clancy reader could tell you, from their distinctive audio signature.

The war will last for only a couple months if one side or another gets a decisive victory. If it's more evenly matched, it will extend for years. Though I agree that if China does get that decisive victory, Russian oil will have been irrelevant and the world will quickly adapt to the new norm and eagerly sell fossil fuels to the new hegemon in the Western Pacific.

China obviously wants a 6-week campaign of victory after victory to happen, but that's not guaranteed. And if it gets stuck in long attritional warfare, it'll end up losing, but only after years of rationing and hopeful delusions being dashed. Without Russia enabling China to continue a war, all those delusions would be crushed much sooner, which is best for everyone involved.

The war will last for only a couple months if one side or another gets a decisive victory. If it's more evenly matched, it will extend for years.

There's pretty much zero chance that a conventional conflict over Taiwan lasts years. Maybe either a blockade or an insurgency could lass that long, but even those are unlikely. Taiwan is less than 6% of the size of Ukraine, while also being an island. Either a Chinese invasion gets stopped on the beaches, or it's pretty much game over. Taiwan's rugged terrain could plausibly let it fight for a few months, but little beyond that.

I really cannot understand how you can believe that China, a nation with 1.4 billion people, would lose a war of attrition with Taiwan, a small island with a population of 23 million. Could you please explain or elaborate how China loses the war of attrition with Taiwan?

A war of attrition with the US, Japan, and every country which doesn't want China to be hegemon in the Western Pacific. Which is to say, all of China's neighbors. Vietnam and other regional players would maintain neutrality to not get too much on China's bad side, but they'd be rooting for US victory.

Here, Chinese victory would mean gaining control of Taiwan; US victory is not-Chinese victory.

So why would attrition mean China losing? If China can't get victory over ~3 months, its existing capabilities can't win it Taiwan. Over time, its warmaking capabilities will face increasing degradation relative to the US and its allies due to its sea lane imports being cut off. That's the core dynamic.

There are wildcards: China will be doing terribly economically, but so will US allies and the US itself. But less so than China. (Taiwan will be doing worst of all, but its military capabilities are irrelevant compared even to Japan's). That could cause domestic issues in those countries that would undermine warmaking efforts.

Over time, its warmaking capabilities will face increasing degradation relative to the US and its allies due to its sea lane imports being cut off.

This is the bit that I can't understand. The US is currently unable to fully extricate Chinese gear from military supply lines and has frequent issues with counterfeit Chinese equipment showing up in military procurement. At the same time, the US navy agrees that China has approximately 232 times the amount of shipbuilding capacity that the USA does. Ukraine has proved that drones are now an increasingly important element to modern wars, and China's manufacturing capacity in that arena so dwarfs the US that there's barely even any comparison possible. At the same time, China's manufacturing base has made it a far more crucial trading partner to a lot of the world than the US. I just don't see how the US is going to interdict trade to and from China without causing the entire global economy to disintegrate overnight and make dedollarisation take place overnight rather than over a longer timespan.

In short, it comes down to oil. You need oil to make an economy run, which includes making jet fuel but also civilian purposes. China consumes around 15M barrels/day and produces only around 5M barrels/day domestically, with a strategic supply of around 1B barrels. There are workarounds--rationing, increasing imports from accessible sources--but the deficit after the strategic reserves are exhausted within 3-6 months will be crippling and destabilizing. You can run a pretty effective war machine on 5M barrels/day, but you can't sustain civil society on an 80% cut on civilian oil consumption.

The USA, for all its issues (both military and civilian), is not gonna be starved for oil. When China sinks its ships, the USA can rebuild them: it's true that China accounts for 48 per cent of global shipyard output, but South Korea (less likely) accounts for 25 per cent and Japan (more likely) does 15 per cent. Purely legal regulations prevent the US from taking advantage of those capacities, regulations that will be promptly discarded in the case of a real war.

I just don't see how the US is going to interdict trade to and from China without causing the entire global economy to disintegrate overnight and make dedollarisation take place overnight rather than over a longer timespan.

It will happen, it will be brutal, and it will restructure the world economy. But I'm counting an obliterated world economy where China has failed to take Taiwan as a loss for China and a "win" for the US.

More comments

What would you offer Putin? Other than "nothing, the trap is shut and it's not coming open until you die and whoever replaces you crawls back to grovel".

And most importantly, Russia can never be a ‘strategic check’ on China’s designs in East Asia.

The PLA is small for a country the size of China, because China, like the USSR before it, is afraid of its own army even with commissars and the CMC.

If Russia ends up in the American sphere of influence, China will have a 4000 km long border it will have to adequately man, drawing both funds and manpower away from its other military endeavors. It will also end up locked out of Central Asia. Outbidding Russian interests is one thing, outbidding Russian interests backed by American interests is another.

What would you offer Putin? Other than "nothing, the trap is shut and it's not coming open until you die and whoever replaces you crawls back to grovel".

Direct, immediate, quid pro quo total sanctions relief (codified, in a treaty) in exchange for a withdrawal from all occupied territory (except Crimea), with the withdrawal happening first. Once a withdrawal occurs, sanctions are lifted and the US helps build a fortified defensive line in Eastern Ukraine, the risk of future invasion is minimal.

This might work with his replacement, but I doubt Putin cares about sanctions this much. He wanted to be "the Great", so he'll either succeed (and it's the definition of success that is negotiable) or die trying.

Putin's not going to go for that. It's defeat.

It's a better deal than the one the West is offering him now. If he doesn't want to take it, the flow of arms to Ukraine can continue indefinitely at only a tiny percentage of US/Western European GDP.

Europe doesn't even have the weapons production capacity of 1935.

It could after three more years barely provide artillery shells Ukraine needs at their modest expenditure rates.

As I understand, anti-aircraft missile situation is very bad, ditto for tanks (Leo-1 now supposed to be mainstay lol).

GDP is irrelevant, production is everything. US officials are openly declaring that they can't sustain the flow of supplies that's going to Ukraine. It will take at least 5 years just to have a chance of refilling reserves of key munitions like Javelins and Stingers.

The US might have a high GDP, based on financial trickery and service sector shenanigans but its actual military production capacity is pathetic. It's a bare shadow of what it was in 1994. 100 Stingers per year!

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/230109_Military_Inventories_Graphic.jpg?V07Bh5IFz5cOgg9qXyu.wrwD7BYakT7C

/images/16933586986378465.webp

Actually, it is a substantially worse deal. He's currently winning in Ukraine - why does he want to withdraw? If he accepts the deal he ends up in a worse situation than he is now. Russia and China have both been working on a replacement to the USD as global reserve currency for some time, and the sanctions have directly contributed to the growth of their alternative to western financial systems. They no longer trust the dollar or western financial bodies because they understand that the sanctions can just get turned on and their assets stolen. They'd obviously enjoy being able to get back all the wealth that just got confiscated and stolen, but there's no level of compromise that would get them to stop building and using their alternative systems. What does he have to gain from giving up territory in this deal? The trust relationship between the BRICS and the Western Financial system has been completely broken, and de-dollarisation is picking up pace around the globe because everyone else is correctly realising that the dollar is now a weapon.

Furthermore, what sort of assurances would the US be able to provide that he could actually trust? I don't think there's any deal which both the US and Russia would accept. Do you remember the Minsk accords? Because Russia sure does, and they also remember the following prank call to Francois Hollande.

https://tass.com/world/1600325 (I know this is a Russian news source, but you can just go listen to the phonecall if you want)

The ex-president of France reiterated that the sole objective of the Minsk agreements was to [buy time to] strengthen Ukraine’s combat capabilities. "And this is why we should speak in support of the Minsk negotiations, as it was precisely during that seven-year period that Ukraine obtained the means to fortify itself," he concluded.

Russia and China have both been working on a replacement to the USD as global reserve currency for some time

For core structural reasons related to the underlying nature of China’s economy, this is impossible. To become a true reserve currency, they’d have to reverse the balance of trade, which is the one thing they’re desperate not to do.

My understanding was that they wouldn't be using the Yuan as a reserve currency but creating something new (or bringing back an old barbarous relic). I totally agree that the Yuan is deeply unsuitable for use as a reserve currency, but that doesn't mean the BRICS nations can't work on a replacement to the USD.

I’ve heard a lot about the dangers of a non-western reserve currency but you’re saying it’s not viable? For China at least.

Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail? I don’t have a good grounding in macro finance.

More comments

If Russia ends up in the American sphere of influence, China will have a 4000 km long border it will have to adequately man, drawing both funds and manpower away from its other military endeavors.

You think the Russians are a credible threat to the Chinese short of nuking them? Hell no, if Ukraine wasn't sufficient evidence already.

I don't think the level of US support, both financial, military and logistical, needed to get Russia to be a credible threat to China is anywhere near the Overton Window, then I have a bridge crossing the Strait of Malacca to sell to you.

I just want to remind everyone that China might be a bit less corrupt than Russia, but it has the same problems with a top-down army at well below paper strength- and almost no recent combat experience, to boot.

Counterpoint: Russia didn't fully unleash its cyberpower against Ukraine because it expected to occupy Ukraine afterward and didn't feel the need to. However, in a hypothetical US-China conflict, China has a high chance of going pretty high-stakes to win (shooting down GPS and other satellites, unleashing their tried-and-tested cyberpower troops who might even be more experienced than US ones, etc). Their primary opponents would be the US Navy (which while relatively battle-tested has also shown signs of rot and corruption) and the Taiwanese military (which is even more dysfunctional and abandoned than China's). I think Western theorists strongly underestimate the threat China poses in such a conflict. They also have a ridiculous supply-line advantage (literally their entire coast right there), so they don't need to project air or naval power very far at all.

I agree that ‘China is militarily irrelevant’ is not true, but ‘Russia’s army is too dysfunctional for China to have to worry about under any circumstances’ is also not true, because China’s army has many of the same structural issues. Russia probably has lower force quality generally, sure, but it’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

Russia probably has lower force quality generally, sure, but it’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

Is that even true? Russia was actually deploying armed troops/PMCs to theatres such as Syria and parts of Africa before Ukraine and there they engaged in combat operations. The PLA combat experience of the last several decades has been non-firearms close combat with India along the border and ADIZ missions while Chinese PMC/PSCs supporting Belt and Road efforts has been entirely unarmed non-combat support, focusing instead on equipment delivery, training and unarmed advisor roles. The error bars around the PLA seems much larger than the ones around Russian forces.

That’s exactly my point. China seems less corrupt and to have better maintenance standards, but 1) Russia doesn’t have a 3rd world military and 2) China has some of the same systems that limit Russia’s military capabilities at maneuver warfare.

You think the Russians are a credible threat to the Chinese short of nuking them?

Alone? No. With Ukraine-style lend-lease? Definitely. The Ukrainian army is not the only one that is gaining valuable combat experience first-hand.

I don't think the level of US support, both financial, military and logistical, needed to get Russia to be a credible threat to China is anywhere near the Overton Window, then I have a bridge crossing the Strait of Malacca to sell to you.

Many in Russia also, rightly or wrongly*, blame the US for the last round of "development" that led to a ton of corruption and cronyism.

* Wrongly imo

What would you offer Putin? Other than "nothing, the trap is shut and it's not coming open until you die and whoever replaces you crawls back to grovel".

Why is this such a bad thing? As-is, that seems to be what the Americans are doing, and it's going just fine for them

For purely humanitarian reasons and in case Trump wins and screws something up.

Bad how? What deal should people offer, would it be better than the status quo, and would it actually be feasible?

Bad as in several hundred thousand more deaths.

The Ukrainian nation seems pretty resolved to keep fighting. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

Much like dealing with a drug addict in the family -- you can support them and help them to survive, but you need to do so without enabling the addiction that is destroying them.

More comments

What would you offer Putin?

Nothing, you don't reward people for doing things to which you are opposed, especially when you don't have to.

Other than "nothing, the trap is shut and it's not coming open until you die and whoever replaces you crawls back to grovel".

"Do not call this a grave, it is the future you chose". Putin has been given off-ramp after off-ramp, chance after chance and he has refused every single one. He is not interested in any resolution of this conflict other than near-total victory and is apparently willing to stake everything on a war he lost months ago.

If Russia ends up in the American sphere of influence, China will have a 4000 km long border it will have to adequately man, drawing both funds and manpower away from its other military endeavors.

Firstly, Putin would rather burn Russia to the ground than even consider thinking about imagining the possibility of "Russia in the American sphere of influence". Secondly, Russia is a spent force for at least a generation, having burned through more men and materiel than the modern Russian state can credibly replace. Thirdly, the war in Ukraine has revealed that the armed forces of Russia are incompetent, hollowed out by an institutional culture of lying. Of course, China is probably in a similar state, but they also have substantial advantages in both manpower and materiel. Additionally, the forces that would be used to fight a war with Russia (a land campaign) are not the same as the forces that would be used to fight the US (air and naval) and China already has both.

hollowed out by an institutional culture of lying. Of course, China is probably in a similar state,

Chinese ships don't accidentally crash into civilian shipping, nor do their light carriers burn down in port, nor is their fleet actually shrinking year-on-year. When it comes to quality and naval professionalism, China seems to be well ahead of the US navy.

As for an institutional culture of lying... the Afghanistan War? The defeat against the Taliban with about 1/100th the funding of the US/NATO force, supported by no foreign power at all? Staying on ten years despite it being clear that the US was not going to achieve its objectives, while the Taliban was? Constantly lying to the public and saying things were going fine? Junior officers being ignored when they pointed out the entire thing was a massive farce with zero chance of success, that the 'allies' they were trying to train were drug addicts and pedophiles?

/images/1693360022033126.webp

Chinese ships don't accidentally crash into civilian shipping, nor do their light carriers burn down in port

No, the ports themselves burn.

Or, maybe yes

Case in point:

The entry into service of the new Chinese amphib makes for a stark contrast with the apparent loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard to a shipyard fire in San Diego. Although Bonhomme Richard would have been more capable than the new Chinese ships because of its ability to operate F-35B fighters, otherwise the two ships would have been quite comparable in capabilities. For its part, in April the first Chinese ship had its own minor fire, although the apparent damage was rapidly repaired and the fire did not seem to slow progress on construction.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/chinas-first-type-075-amphibious-assault-ship-begins-sea-trials/

Even Trump is a better businessman, so perhaps this is what America deserves.

It's such a shame that, because Trump has the GOP in his pocket, this line will never be used on Vivek.

I get similar thoughts reading him on geopolitics. He’s either grifting or just dumb and I’m not sure which.

Russia won’t accept that deal. Personally sure maybe they should accept a pot of gold and become good Russia for the US. But Russia still wants more land and not the pot of gold.

Geopolitically the best day for Russia to leave Ukraine was yesterday. It hasn’t made any sense for them since the fail of the 3 day war. The best case scenerio for not is Ukraine is rubble but I don’t see that as a win in the modern world.

But for Vivek (and his people overall) they need to be realist and not claimed realist. Which to me understanding what your opponent is trying to do.

Roivant is like a $10 billion company now which Trump never created. Though admittedly I can’t understand why the company went up as their study on the drug that appears to the cause of the stock up doesn’t seem to impress me in a first quick look.

You are correct. The die was cast Vivek wants to put the paste back into the bottle. He can’t. It is one thing to criticize the outcome of the support given to Ukraine based on the outcome but this proposal is just dumb.

Excellent summary. I’d only add that I think a lot of these nonsensical foreign policies come from a “strategy-game understanding” of geopolitics. You can’t just offer Russia a big pot of gold to get +100 relations. Russia and China currently have deeply aligned interests. Both are non-status quo powers. Russia has already paid a significant cost in involuntary decoupling from the West and is now rebuilding those value chains with China. The Russian public is as anti-American as they’ve been for decades. Given the above, even if you could extract a promise from Putin to play nice, there’s no reason to expect it to hold.

The whole vulgar geopolitical mindset that believes that we just have to achieve "multipolarity" and then whatever desired outcome (generally something like the advancement of socialist economics or socially conservative culture) happens also often comes off like the person advocating it has this huge complex game board inside their head where this piece moves here and that piece moves here and good things happen and everything just seems to be based on so much wishful thinking.

I understand why Russians and other peripheral countries would advocate for multi polarity. What I haven’t really grokked is why an American would expect that to improve our situation.

Because maintaining the Empire is really expensive, to the point that the US government cares more about it than actually doing the job it is supposed to back home. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but huge swathes of the US are in absolutely terrible shape - drug addiction, economic malaise, continual border crises, unsustainable birthrates, infrastructure falling into malign neglect... the portion of the US population that directly benefits from the empire is shrinking day after day, and the portion for whom it is an unbearable burden is growing. One of the reasons for Trump's enduring popularity among his base is that he has directly advocated for pulling American funding out of a variety of overseas shitholes and focusing on America - that's a large part of what America First actually means.

Everyone except them (the master strategist) is a robot NPC whose actions can be predicted by economics 101 game theory.

Indeed. Not to mention that the last guy dumb enough to trust a deal with Putin famously just got murdered.

Yeah, this foreign policy just seems straight up retarded. Actually the more I read about Vivek the less I seem to like him in terms of whether he will be good for the world. I still prefer him over most of the Republican field for symbolic status reasons of putting white racists in the "uncomfortable" position of having to vote either for a Democrat or a non white person in the general election. Same reason why I wouldn't mind Nikki Haley either, but it's a lot more on the nose with Vivek.

  • -12

Nearly all white racists would hold their nose and vote for Ramaswarthy without having to think twice about it. Anti-Hindu sentiment exists in the red tribe, but anti-democrats is a much bigger deal even for the people who hold it.

So to stick it to the racists, you want a candidate to succeed based on the color of his…skin?

Do you think Republicans dislike Clarence Thomas? Do you think they dislike Tim Scott (a man who really hasn’t done anything but is considered a super star for…reasons)?

Nah, not really. I've changedy mind on Vivek over the last few days when I actually got to read more about him and now I'm negative on him. Were I to have a real vote at this point I would not use it on him.

My post was just a bit of wishful thinking, an innocent daydreaming fantasy of seeing white racists go red in the face as they overload deciding whether they are going to vote for the brown man or vote for the white man who's policies they hate, and the despair they will feel when they realise that those two are the only real options available to them. I thought of it as a small microcosm, completely insulated from its impacts on the rest of the world (as all good fantasies are).

It's nothing important, we all have our fantasies, probably a good thing they don't come true.

"an Indian Republican? That will really make their heads explode"

Nothing happens

"Well, nevertheless"

The capacity of WNs to endure despair is probably far beyond what you can imagine, and the notion that they retain any kind of hope in the two party system is totally laughable.

How many white racists even are there who would identify Nikki Haley as non-white?

Her parents are named Ajit Singh and Raj Kaur. I don't think you get more Sikh than that.

She looks white. I don't think most Americans even know what a Sikh is.

To be fair, the (vanishingly few) hardcore wignats probably do. Same reasons they can provide a laundry list of which Hollywood stars have some drop of Jewish blood.

Her bigger problem is she has big ex wife energy

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats