I've read every post on your substack to this point...gotta say this was very much weaker than your normal content. Not very engaging, not a new take on things, very biased but not in a fun or interesting new way.
Oof... You're being very harsh on my guest contributor.
He's done a series on military matters that touch on and about Ukraine I'm going to be hosting (of which this is the lightest content), in addition to my usual output, that I've found quite interesting/informative.
Thus my decision to host him.
For reference though this doesn't affect my output... my recent lightness is down to travel and illnesses picked up in airports
No, I don't think I was being harsh enough on him.
The Anarchonomicon take on air defense I'd expect would be something like citing Herodotus's account of the Xanthians:
The Pedasian stronghold being at length taken, and Harpagus having led his army into the plain of Xanthus, the Lycians came out to meet him, and did valorous deeds in their battle against odds; but being worsted and driven into the city they gathered into the citadel their wives and children and goods and servants, and then set the whole citadel on fire. Then they swore each other great oaths, and sallying out they fell fighting, all the men of Xanthus. Of the Xanthians who claim now to be Lycians the greater number — all saving eighty households — are liars.
150 When the fleet had gone to Samos, the Babylonians revolted;1 for which they had made very good preparation; for during the reign of the Magian, and the rebellion of the seven, they had taken advantage of the time and the disorders to prepare themselves against the siege; and (I cannot tell how) this was unknown. At the last they revolted openly and did this: — sending away all the mothers, they chose each one woman from his own household, whom he would, as a bread-maker; as for the rest, they gathered them together and strangled them, that they should not consume their bread.
151 When Darius heard of this he mustered all his power and led it against Babylon, and he marched to the town and laid siege to it; but the townsmen cared nothing for what he did. They came up on to the bastions of the wall, and mocked Darius and his army with gesture and word; and this saying came from one of them: "Why sit you there, Persians, instead of departing? You will take our city when mules bear offspring." This said the Babylonian, supposing that no mule would ever bear offspring.
Estimates for the number of North Vietnamese civilian deaths resulting from US bombing range from 30,000–65,000.[29][4] Higher estimates place the number of civilian deaths caused by American bombing of North Vietnam in Operation Rolling Thunder at 182,000.[30]
The real success of the North Vietnamese over US bombing campaigns wasn't based on destroying a relative handful of American aircraft, it was based on the government successfully rallying the population of Vietnam to wage a "People's War in the Air":
The northern economy was decentralized for its protection, and large factories, located in the heavily populated Red River Delta region, were broken up and scattered into caves and small villages throughout the countryside. In the more heavily bombed southern panhandle, entire villages moved into tunnel complexes for the duration. Food shortages in North Vietnam became widespread, especially in the urban areas, as rice farmers went into the military or volunteered for service repairing bomb damage.[72] When the nation's transportation system came under attack, destroyed bridges were repaired or replaced by dirt fords, ferries, and underwater or pontoon bridges. The system proved to be durable, well built, easily repaired, and practically impossible to shut down.[73]
Perhaps North Vietnam's ultimate resource was its population. During 1965, 97,000 North Vietnamese civilians volunteered to work full-time in repairing the damage inflicted by U.S. bombs. Another 370,000–500,000 civilians worked part-time.[74] When the nation's lines of communication came under attack, railroad supply trains and truck convoys were split into smaller elements which traveled only at night. The logistical effort was supported by citizens on sampans, driving carts, pushing wheelbarrows, or man-portering supplies on their backs to keep the war effort going. They were motivated by slogans like "Each kilogram of goods...is a bullet shot into the head of the American pirates."
Like the Xanthians and Babylonians before them, the Communist Party of Vietnam didn't so much prevent civilian casualties and the destruction of their productive capacity as they despised them, dismissed as not worthy of notice. The nation was capable of enduring privation, food shortages, deaths, and hard labor in order to win. "Nothing is more precious than freedom and independence." So let's question whether strategic bombing of civilian targets is likely to achieve any goals, or merely to inflict suffering that will be ignored by the nationalist psychopaths who seem to be running Ukraine, while allowing the globalist psychopaths than run NATO et al to provide even more destructive weapons to the Ukies.
And that doesn't even get into the question of why focus only on USSR and post-Soviet systems? Why ignore every other missile defense system in existence? Why focus on Russian use of these systems against the Ukrainians' handful of jets, while ignoring the much more apt and important comparison between the inferior Ukrainian forces (with outside support) successfully preventing Russian air dominance from exerting significant impacts on the battlefield? It's just regurgitated Russian talking points memos. I want the angles I haven't heard before.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've read every post on your substack to this point...gotta say this was very much weaker than your normal content. Not very engaging, not a new take on things, very biased but not in a fun or interesting new way.
Oof... You're being very harsh on my guest contributor.
He's done a series on military matters that touch on and about Ukraine I'm going to be hosting (of which this is the lightest content), in addition to my usual output, that I've found quite interesting/informative.
Thus my decision to host him.
For reference though this doesn't affect my output... my recent lightness is down to travel and illnesses picked up in airports
No, I don't think I was being harsh enough on him.
The Anarchonomicon take on air defense I'd expect would be something like citing Herodotus's account of the Xanthians:
And his account of the siege of Babylon by Darius
The best air defense is having the balls to not care about civilian casualties on your own side. "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed".
To bring this back to critique of Sloppy Goppy, he states that:
That's kind of like saying the Ravens' cornerbacks remained undefeated because they completed the game even though they gave up six touchdowns in the process. Wikipedia tells us:
The real success of the North Vietnamese over US bombing campaigns wasn't based on destroying a relative handful of American aircraft, it was based on the government successfully rallying the population of Vietnam to wage a "People's War in the Air":
Like the Xanthians and Babylonians before them, the Communist Party of Vietnam didn't so much prevent civilian casualties and the destruction of their productive capacity as they despised them, dismissed as not worthy of notice. The nation was capable of enduring privation, food shortages, deaths, and hard labor in order to win. "Nothing is more precious than freedom and independence." So let's question whether strategic bombing of civilian targets is likely to achieve any goals, or merely to inflict suffering that will be ignored by the nationalist psychopaths who seem to be running Ukraine, while allowing the globalist psychopaths than run NATO et al to provide even more destructive weapons to the Ukies.
And that doesn't even get into the question of why focus only on USSR and post-Soviet systems? Why ignore every other missile defense system in existence? Why focus on Russian use of these systems against the Ukrainians' handful of jets, while ignoring the much more apt and important comparison between the inferior Ukrainian forces (with outside support) successfully preventing Russian air dominance from exerting significant impacts on the battlefield? It's just regurgitated Russian talking points memos. I want the angles I haven't heard before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link