site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   25731 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The amount of resources required to sustain the Ukrainian military is astounding and completely unsustainable.

The amount of resources required to sustain the Ukrainian military is similar to that required to sustain the russian military, only the west is economically about 30 times greater. So assuming the russians go all-in and marshal about 50% of their economy for the special military operation effort, and Ukraine, the sanctions, and technological superiority do nothing, the west needs to assign 1,7 % to that nuisance. That’s relatively high but completely sustainable for a distant power like the US, and outright cheap for the threatened countries of europe.

The amount of resources required to sustain the Ukrainian military is similar to that required to sustain the russian military,only the west is economically about 30 times greater.

Yet the west doesn't produce 30 times more artillery shells, doesn't have 30 times the capacity to train troops, doesn't produce 30x the amount of rocket artillery or the amount of SAM-systems. Russian systems tend both to be substantially cheaper, and Russia is spending a higher portion of its GDP. Considering purchasing power parity, Russia's GDP is 1/5 of the US GDP PPP. Money isn't necessarily the biggest bottle neck. The amount of surface-to-air missiles isn't only limited by money, it is primarily limited by production capacity. The west most definitely doesn't produce 30 times the number of artillery barrels or ATGMs.

The issue is that the US and Russia has completely different war aims. The US is trying to dominate the world and is running into a classic limit that large empires face, in which the upkeep of the empire is greater than the ability to sustain it. Russia may lose, Russia may suffer a lot more. However, the combined weight of maintaining the empire is beyond what is sustainable, and the war in Ukraine makes sustaining the empire a lot harder. Spreading queer theory in Afghanistan, having a larger force than the American presence in Vietnam at the peak in Ukraine fighting a much more intensive war and keeping up with China's industrial juggernaut is infeasible. The US is losing its empire at the edges, while costs are running away.

The US military is financed by borrowing money at almost five percent interest. With compound interest, that is destined to run away.

If the entire west doesn't have the industrial capacity to sustain a Ukraine-sized war, then the case for Ukraine aid becomes vastly more urgent, because we need to develop that capacity.

If you want to argue "not worth it, who cares about Ukraine", I disagree but ok, priorities are a thing. But if the argument is that the US, France, Germany, UK, Australia, Italy, etc, etc, etc can't match Russia even while someone else is providing the actual soldiers? That's a catastrophic indictment and we need to dectuple our spending on Ukraine immediately to get weapons manufacturing up to the level we need to be capable of.

Indeed. It's pretty shocking to me just how anemic our war production is. And yet... here we are. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-industry/2023/04/unprepared-for-long-war-us-army-under-gun-to-make-more-ammo/ Most of our 155mm artillery shells (the most common size, and probably the most important weapon for Ukraine) are all made from this one plant in Scranton. And the only reason that plant still exists is that it's on the National Historic Registry of Historic Places, so the building can't be knocked down or altered, and the locals wanted to keep it running for its high-paying jobs.

The numbers are pretty shocking.

Already, the U.S. military has given Ukraine more than 1.5 million rounds of 155 mm ammunition, according to Army figures.

But even with higher near-term production rates, the U.S. cannot replenish its stockpile or catch up to the usage pace in Ukraine, where officials estimate that the Ukrainian military is firing 6,000 to 8,000 shells per day. In other words, two days’ worth of shells fired by Ukraine equates to the United States’ monthly pre-war production figure.

Together, the plants are under contract for 24,000 shells per month, with an additional $217 million Army task order to further boost production, although officials won’t say how many more 155 mm shells are sought by the task order.

The Russians are firing 40,000 shells per day, said Ustinova, who serves on Ukraine’s wartime oversight committee.

So Russia really does outproduce the US in artillery. Ukraine is quickly burning through artillery shells faster than the US can produce it. Instead it's buying artillery shells from other countries, mostly former Soviet Bloc countries like Bulgaria that have a lot lying around. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EMEpxX7rS5I

All I can say is... it's a good thing those countries are on our side! Can you imagine if west to fight against all of these countries working together, back during the cold war? We would have been massively outgunned!

Money is not the issue. Cost disease and institutional inertia is. You're right it's a catastrophic indictment, but it's not one that can be fixed by allocating more spending or putting out large quantity bids. It's a question of long-term commitment, which requires credibility the US government no longer has and which US industry has totally given up on.

Europe has a bigger economy in the sense that we produce luxury goods that are much more appealing and valuable. It doesn't mean that we just produce more of everything. This is particularly true in cost disease vulnerable sectors... Like defense. French winemakers are maybe more productive than Russian factory workers... But unlikely to win a war.

This isn't to say that Russia has the upper hand, but it's closer than the economic data gives credit for. That's how North Korea can be a threat to South Korea despite the economic imbalance.

We still have German heavy precision manufacturing. Anything there is dual purpose by default. Glock, Heckler and Kock, Beretta - all EU manufacturers. You have the various soviet arms manufacturers in Eastern Europe. Not sure how fast airbus could produce rafalle and eurofighter airframes, but I am willing to bet it is way faster than any EU adversary would like. I am not sure about how fast we can produce nitro compounds that make boom - but with Bayer and Merck being German - I guess fast.

And hell - we have inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder coming trough the Balkans and the mediterranean.

We could supply Ukraine with material and people no one cares about to be wasted in their east for ages without breaking a sweat. For one reason on another we don't want to.

And hell - we have inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder coming trough the Balkans and the mediterranean.

They've ran away to Europe because they didn't want no wars. How exactly do you propose to incentivize them to fight in another one? Promise them citizenship? You would need to make staying as an asylum seeker or an illegal a terrible experience first.

Just press gang all of them, they’ll stop coming or they’ll comply. Win-win.

I agree. If Putin's plan is to run Germany out of machine tools, he isn't going to succeed. If the plan is to take advantage of the fundamental non-seriousness of the current German elite, he probably is.

The biggest known unknown is keeping the Russian factories going. We can see that Russia is still busting sanctions in order to import western-made spare parts - presumably because there are certain parts they need which don't have a direct Chinese equivalent (see the massive increase in German exports of machine tools to Kyrgyzstan - they aren't staying there!). We are already seeing Russian civilian airliners grounded due to lack of Western spare parts - does something similar happen to Russian shell-making machines if the EU gets serious about stopping back-channel sanctions-busting?

EU gets serious about stopping back-channel sanctions-busting?

If the EU gets serious about stopping back-channel sanctions-busting their entire economy disintegrates overnight as they lose access to Russia-sourced fossil fuels. Right now they're paying a premium to India in order to evade the sanctions, but nothing was actually done to remove their dependence upon Russian energy. Right now Germany is subsidising domestic energy usage due to the massive cost spikes caused by the Ukraine war, and making that problem substantially worse is probably not going to do their manufacturing sector any favours.

Europe doesn't have anything. The entire EU together couldn't come up with its promised million shells. Meanwhile North Korea just pulls that out of its back pocket when Russia calls. It's not a video game, they can't just magically turn GDP into ammunition and arms factories instantly.

Funny that the other Korea is doing the same thing for the other side of the equation.

There's a limit on how long Korea can do that though. Yes they have a lot of shells but they also, you know, need them for their national defense. And like Ukraine, while they do have a lot of old shells stockpiled, they don't really have huge production to build new ones.

To which Korea is that most applicable you think?

Both to some extent, but NK has nukes for deterence and isn't bound by cost disease. They're probably much happier to trade their old shells for hard cash.

I do find the "it's a Korean peninsula proxy war" commentary to be amusing precisely because it's not completely wrong.

Doesn’t need to be instant. I haven’t seen this deficit of european arms and great north korean bonanza result in significant russian victories. To carry on war, three things are necessary: money, money, and yet more money.

Doesnt need to be instant. I havent seen this deficit of european arms and great north korean bonanza result in significant russian victories.

You've seen the Ukranian counteroffensive flop while NATO officials openly tell you to "expect bad news" in days to come.

To carry on war, three things are necessary: money, money, and yet more money.

No, you need weapons, which come from factories, which the west by and large doesn't have anymore. The US hopes to produce 100k shells per month by fiscal year 2026, while Russia is expected to ramp up to 2 million per year in the next couple years. Meanwhile the EU says a lot of happy horseshit but gets dunked on by North Korea singlehandedly.

Russia is expected to ramp up to 2 million per year in the next couple years

That would be disastrous for Russia if it's true, given the rate they're burning through their artillery stocks. However, you should take into account the possibility that Putin may be able to divert more of Russia's economy to shell production.

“Wars develop in phases. We have to support Ukraine in both good and bad times. We should also be prepared for bad news, Stoltenberg said ”

That’s what you pinned your hopes on, cryptic nato comments? Let’s just wait for this crushing north korean industrial superiority to bear fruit. Even if "the factories are gone!", it's helplful to have this low-stakes operation to reflect on and correct our weaknesses.

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