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 -
I see I have misjudged you. I didn't realize I was speaking with a "Putin is too much of a pussy to go nuclear" kind of guy.
Uh... alright then. I mean if that's what you actually believe. Glad it's out there.
The position is MAD, which is still the only real response to nuclear threats. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, every capable nation in the world starts its own nuclear weapons program. How does that fare for global nuclear war?
Every capable nation in the world is already working on it's own nuclear weapons program. The precedent was set when Ghedaffi disarmed, and ended up with a bayonet up his ass inside a decade. North Korea brings it up every time we try to get them to disarm. History didn't start 4 years ago. Nukes have gotten you a seat at the table, and some level of caution for your sphere of influence. Disarming gets USAID sponsoring a color revolution in your country. The US will literally fund the same terrorist organizations that launched the largest terrorist attack on our own country, if it means they also get to coup some petty dictator that pissed them off once and then was foolish enough to back down.
I mean, who's even left to worry about getting nukes, that isn't already trying?
There are very few states right now who are trying in earnest. Most still act as if the Non-Proliferation Treaty is real and that the U.S. nuclear umbrella will protect them. Ukraine thought they were still safe because they were in line with U.S. interests. They had the Budapest memorandum, and destabilizing Russia was a perennial U.S. interest. Now, suddenly, U.S. interests are... the fleeting whims of the current president, entirely divorced from geopolitical realities. So now there is a new lesson to learn: the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, no longer a benevolent hedgemon. It's a very different lesson than one anyone learnt from Gadaffi's fate, and a dramatically different state of affairs to live in.
All these states formerly relying on U.S. protection are going to want their own nukes now: Finland, Poland, Romania, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand; perhaps Singapore and Taiwan as well, although those may be less practical (no land to test with, risky that Malaysia and China respectively would be aggravated by such programs before they get off the ground).
On top of that, states which were grumbling and maybe learnt from Gaddafi and were maybe doing things slowly in secret but were still somewhat checked by U.S. soft power are now certainly not going to hold back. That's at the very least Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan accelerating their programs.
And what's stopping Mexico and Brazil from starting a nuclear program at that point, other than lacking state capacity?
More options
Context Copy link
Let's not forget that Ukraine had inherited a ton of the USSR's nuclear stockpile when it had collapsed and they were pressured to give them up and transfer them to Russia in exchange for security guarantees. Oops!
Ukraine did not have either the PAL codes or control over the troops that operationally controlled the nuclear weapons. "US stole our nukes" is going to be Ukraine's "stabbed in the back" narrative but the truth is that Ukraine never had the nuclear weapons except inasmuch as they were parked on Ukrainian soil. Quite possibly Ukraine would have gotten invaded 30 years ago if they had tried to touch the nuclear weapons on their territory, and it might very well have been a joint US-Russian operation.
[Now, to be fair to Ukraine, I really do suspect they were treated rather badly by the US.]
Yes, I don't disagree on either point, although I would note that the Budapest Memorandum was not a security guarantee from the US (at least, not one that obligates the US to defend Ukraine) and that in any event the US has maintained that it was nonbinding (and of course spinning up a nuke program might be more of a hazard to some than no nuke program.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nukes you can't fire aren't really nukes per se. They were pressured to give them up because they weren't useful to Ukraine and having the raw materials floating around is incredibly dangerous.
But yes, everyone who doesn't have nuclear weapons should want them. I suspect one of the original reasons America started playing World Police is to reduce the incentives for smaller countries to obtain nukes.
As an American it remains an insane oddity to me that Pakistan wasn't given the Gulf War treatment in 1998 after its nuclear tests. We didn't even totally suspend aid!
The Gulf War was against states with no nuclear weapons, no? The theory is once you have nuclear weapons, you will not get messed with, and that still holds here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Spare me your irony ,you got any actual arguments other than twisting my words? You think Putin would go nuclear over a conventional loss in Ukraine? Ukrainian soldiers have captured Russian villages for months and they are still there , and you think he would use nukes ( even tactically) because the Ukrainians won inside Ukraine? I highly doubt it, and if you are ready to be bullied on a MIGHT then you might as well disolve NATO right now and go home.
I mean, yeah, that's kind of my thinking.
Just what exactly is your theory of mind with Putin? That he's this bloodthirsty thug that will only respect coming down on him with the full force of the US and NATO combined forces, but that he's also too scared to use his nuclear weapons to backstop a conventional loss on the battlefield a days drive from Moscow? I just don't get it. He's simultaneously this enormous belligerent and also a pushover to you.
When did I say that Putin is a bloodthirsty thug? I think you are projecting someone else's opinions on me. Whatever else he may be he certainly is an enemy of NATO , and at the same time I think he is a relatively rational actor. RELATIVELY. I never said he is scared , I said that I doubt he will nuke kiev as a result of losing conventionally inside Ukraine. In fact if you disagree with this then its you saying he is a bloodthirsty thug that would murder millions over bitterness. Maybe he will use tactical nukes but tactical nukes won't really do much , nukes are a strategic weapon and I doubt he will nuke Kiev over his army getting routed. The 'days drive from Moscow' is inconsequential , it's not the 40s anymore , we can track enemies in real time and just like in kursk today , it would be clear to him whether Ukrainian formations have stopped at the border for example , or if they are heading for moscow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link