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 -
The Australian military is in a similar position. We only field a very small force, so there are few economies of scale, little learning by doing. There aren't usually any serious threats that we can handle, so we can afford to bungle submarine procurement catastrophically. We've been trying to replace the dodgy Collins-class submarines (Swedish-designed but locally built) since 2007. First we were going with Japan. Then France. Now the UK and America. All of this indecision cost us enormous amounts of time and money.
The new plan is to buy Virginias from the US (America can't even produce enough for their own needs, let alone ours) and then acquire a joint Anglo-American sub that hasn't even been designed yet sometime in the 2030s, hopefully fielded by 2040.
Our defence procurement is addicted to buying only the most expensive technologies in tiny numbers and then modifying or changing requirements to cause even longer delays before they enter service. For instance, we buy US Switchblade drones. They're expensive and ineffectual compared to refitted commercial drones used on the battlefield in Ukraine but I'm sure they meet all the gilded requirements written up by some Canberra official.
Everything moves at an absolutely glacial pace since everyone knows the US will be doing all the heavy lifting in any serious war and that our own capabilities have basically nothing to do with outcomes. About the only thing we've done tangibly on the submarine front is funded US submarine construction to speed up Virginia production. We're buying massively underarmed frigates at ridiculous prices (though the US isn't doing very well with frigates either).
I suspect Canada is in the same boat, the Armed Forces have no incentive to be capable. Imagine if the Canadian military was a really top-notch force, superbly efficient. So what, the Chinese could sweep them aside because of the massive difference in scale. We have 7 frigates and 3 destroyers (each maybe half as capable as a US Arleigh Burke), Canada has 12 frigates. China has 50 destroyers and 47 frigates, many much more modern and capable than anything in our fleets.
Yeah, though I would argue subs is the one asset where it makes sense to put a lot into a few examples of expensive technology, especially if we're talking nuclear submarines. This is because once a nuclear submarine leaves port, it could be almost anywhere. Its potential is felt by your enemies even in its absence, because they cannot confirm its absence. So one nuclear submarine on patrol has the psychological and deterrent impact of many submarines.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link