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 -
Ukraine has lasted for years because Ukraine doesn't have nukes and doesn't have any way of getting rid of Russia's nukes, thus preventing false alarms leading to Russian launch (and because there is still significant deterrence against Russia using nukes proactively).
Direct war between the USA and PRC is completely different. You'll be lucky if it lasts six months without nuclear exchange.
Admittedly, this still means most Taiwanese die because Taipei/Tainan eat Chinese nukes, but you're assuming your way out of reality thinking that a Taiwan war would last for years.
Why would China nuke Taiwan? From their perspective it would be nuking their own people.
I don't pretend to be an expert on foreign policy in general or China-Taiwan relations in particular, so maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds unlikely to me.
The CPC consider the DPP and probably a decent chunk of voters for it to be "their own people in open rebellion", and want to kill them.
Moreover, we're positing a scenario in which nukes are (apparently or actually) flying at China and the CPC is trying to punish everyone it deems responsible, which necessarily includes Taiwan because if they'd surrendered the war wouldn't have happened.
Sure, but they're talking about killing the leadership, not nuking the whole island.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What scenario are you thinking of? US bombers attack Chinese missile launchers (assuming they're conventional) but they're actually nuclear/dual-purpose and it's interpreted as a disarming strike? Incredibly brave US submarine somehow infiltrates the sea of Bohai and sinks a Chinese missile sub, prompting worries about the stability of their arsenal? China wouldn't start such a big war unless they think they have a secure nuclear arsenal. The US nuclear arsenal is very secure.
And neither side has deployed many tactical nukes, unlike in the Cold War. Modern smart weapons are very potent and forces tend to be dispersed, the value of tactical nukes is not as high as it used to be.
And it doesn't seem wise for either party to escalate consciously, why would they? If they suffer a reverse, wait and try again. If China is losing, they'll probably try to extend/expand the war and their mobilization rather than go nuclear. They don't particularly want to irradiate and incinerate their own rogue province.
Does the US care that much about Taiwan? They won't even make an explicit security guarantee for Taiwan, let alone extend their nuclear umbrella so far.
More options
Context Copy link
US doesn't go nuclear over taiwan which means china doesn't go nuclear over taiwan. They're not treaty allies.
The Cuban Missile Crisis lasted what, two weeks? We had one accidental launch of nuclear bombers (the Duluth bear fiasco) and had a 2/3 majority onboard a Soviet submarine for "launch nuclear torpedo" (needed unanimous). Procedures have improved somewhat, but also that wasn't even a shooting war.
Sooner or later, there'll be a false alarm that gets treated as real. The chance per day is low, but it adds up.
Having missiles off our shores is pretty different to having them pointed at another country that isn't a treaty ally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link