This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Isn't the real issue that Canada simply lacks incentives to do "military" well? In the extremely weird world where Canada is attacked, the military’s role would be to offer a token defense while the 800-pound gorilla - not lumbers - comes screaming in the form the west and the south.
Canada was in the Afghanistan war, we had soldiers peacekeeping during the breakup of Yugoslavia. We've had soldiers die because their equipment was inadequate. It's entirely plausible one day there'll be another 9/11-esque attack, but on Canadian soil, and we'll need to carry our fair share of the response. We need a navy that can patrol the arctic to assert our sovereignty on it over Russia.
Yes, Canada doesn't need to be as militarized as say Israel or South Korea. But at the very least I think it's totally reasonable for Canada to try to avoid some needless waste due to stuff like politicians pandering or avoiding responsibility.
Good points. I would also add that Canada needs to have a functioning military in case the United States ever Balkanizes or falls into political instability.
Yeah, that scenario or any other sort of black swan scenario we can't place numbers on like societal collapse post-super volcano or the invention of like a Chinese super weapon that leads to a WW3 would also benefit from a better military
More options
Context Copy link
The main hotspot for spillover violence Canada would have to worry about in a second US civil war scenario is in the far west, with eastern Oregon/Washington. This doesn’t take an enormous military.
Other than that, it’s mostly refugees to deal with- the crises which will cook off with a collapsing federal government are mostly well away from the Canadian border.
If it's gorilla war, I'd say all bets are off.
Planet of the apes reboot: Caeser is named Harambe instead, zoomers flock to his banner and cosplay as monke. Opponents retreat due to sheer cringe, the new Ape Together Stronk nation immediately descends into civil war as the Pepes of Tendietopia demand dakimakura of 9000 year old loli dragons.
This comment gave me a stroke
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My understanding is that BC is a continuation of the dynamic found along the west coast, where an urbanized coast politically dominates a mostly rural interior in broadly progressive ways, to the very great displeasure of the interior, and that the dividing line is a mountain range. So BC spinning into a crisis/drawing inter mountain west violence northwards is totally plausible.
Of course that doesn’t account for Alberta secession/prairexit or any number of Canada doomsday scenarios which seem to get more likely and not less with increasing US chaos. The Canadian prairies have inescapable economic interests in a continent dominated by oil interests and not the laurentian elite.
In terms of an actual invasion of Canada, a fragmenting US is unlikely to have a power center near that part of the border. Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas are all backwaters and the west coast states will have their hands full. In a U.S. as failed state the power centers are northeast, west coast, and Texas. While Alberta can perfectly rationally prefer one of these as continental hegemon(hint: oil), it’s just too far for this to be a near term issue.
I think the economic interests are one piece of that puzzle, but the other one is infrastructure.
A good chunk of US power centers are wholly dependent on the surrounding rural areas for power and water (especially out West) and so the strategic circumstances there disproportionately favor the rural areas for reasons that are shaped like rivers, natural gas pipelines, and electrical transmission towers.
This is a strategic nightmare for urban areas that most depend on that power for their survival, and I really don't see them solving that one. The Northeast, Southeast, Texas, Upper Canada/Ontario, Lower Canada/Quebec, and California might be self-sufficient and individually productive enough to pull that off, but I think the map of the US in case of Federal collapse would most likely end up looking more or less like this (extend Texas, or at least its sphere of influence, all the way up to the Arctic Ocean, leave Quebec as-is, truncate Ontario's territory at Thunder Bay, and add Vancouver Island and Vancouver to California).
And yes, this also means that only Texas would have custody of the former US' nuclear arsenal.
The history of this gamble is one where, in situations where the balance of political power is as lopsided as it is in the far west, that the metropole just cracks skulls in the hinterlands until the lights stay on and the water flows. California probably doesn't have the resources or sympathetic manpower to truly control the interior but it doesn't need to; failed state conditions for people who are de facto disenfranchised anyways is fine as long as you can control the truly important bits, or bribe/threaten the people who do.
Now this is different in places like Texas or modern Russia, where governments rely on extensive rural support to counteract a disadvantage in the cities. But even in places like this urban interests generally come first.
Specifically in the west, urban areas need to obtain water from rural areas, regardless of what those rural areas have to say about it, and there's not really another option, so California can't just leave the hinterlands alone but probably can't afford to control them outright(you can extend this further inland). That makes a conflict hot spot through most of the intermountain west.
Texas's geography militates for a hyperinterventionist/expansionist foreign policy, true, but the northeast's geography militates for sea power and federalism, so I think you're leaving out at least that.
I also doubt Texan expansionism crosses the Mississippi before the Rio Grande post federal government collapse; land powers tend to expand in the general direction of trouble spots, of which northern Mexico is the largest.
As an aside, when the USSR broke up most of it experienced falling fertility, but the Islamic regions saw their fertility rise fast. It's interesting to think what regions might see this if the US federal government falls- maybe certain Indian tribes, to start with, possibly parts of Appalachia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The kind of military Canada would need in that situation is such a difference from the kind it would have any use for in the current situation that it's impractical to prepare for that or view the current military as preparation for it.
It can be done, you could be like the Swiss, who not only draft everyone, but have rigged their bridges and tunnels with explosives, and issue every man a weapon they have to take home just in case, and still build bomb shelters under new buildings, even though Switzerland is surrounded by the EU and has been for a while, just in case. But if the Canadians were like that, they'd already be doing it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link