site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15750 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That’s what second strike capability is for, to maintain the threat of MAD even if a stealth first strike successfully eliminates one of the parties. Russia maintains second strike capability in two ways: 12 nuclear submarines (nuclear here meaning armed with nuclear weapons, not just nuclear powered) and a system of road mobile ICBM launchers that would be dispersed out into the Siberian countryside in the likely event of a conflict. Both the submarines and the road launchers carry high-yield warheads that are designed for counter-value attacks, that is destroying enemy cities and economic targets, not just the enemy’s nuclear weapons. Each submarine carries sixteen missiles each carrying four half-megaton warheads. Meaning that just one surviving submarine could destroy most of the major US cities east of the Mississippi River, or all the capitols of Western Europe. And like @functor was saying, there are systems in place to allow for launch even if the political leadership is dead. The United States has similar capabilities, both in the launch infrastructure and backup launch authority.

That’s what second strike capability is for, to maintain the threat of MAD even if a stealth first strike successfully eliminates one of the parties. Russia maintains second strike capability in two ways: 12 nuclear submarines (nuclear here meaning armed with nuclear weapons, not just nuclear powered) and a system of road mobile ICBM launchers that would be dispersed out into the Siberian countryside in the likely event of a conflict.

Historically, the submarine commanders don't have the launch codes. The soldier's with the roadmobile ICBM launchers don't have the launch codes. A second strike has historically required authorization from the two of the three launch code holders. That system doesn't work with 10 minute launches.

Russia would have to go from 3 people having launch codes and two having to push the button and having 30 minutes of time to dozens of people individually having the power to do so.

That's definitely not true for tactical weapons – the Russians (allegedly) almost fired a nuclear torpedo off of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, a decision that was up to three naval officers onboard the ship.

I would not be tremendously surprised if modern nuclear submarines had the ability to launch strategic under their own recognizance, although almost certainly not on the initiative of merely one officer. Perhaps they don't have the codes, but it seems plausible that the message they are actually waiting for is not mechanically necessary to use the nuclear weapons, it is merely an authentication code.

Now, under this circumstance, if the entire C&C chain was wiped out instantly, their response would be delayed. But presumably they would still be able to come to a decision once the BBC announced which world cities had been destroyed, and by whom.

Historically, the submarine commanders don't have the launch codes.

I believe public British doctrine is that their submarines sail with "Letters of Last Resort" from the Prime Minister in the event of war and contact is lost, which are acknowledged to (potentially) include instructions to retaliate. If the PM chose this option, they'd presumably have the launch codes.

Britain also notoriously issues its submarine commanders launch codes when the other powers don’t because ‘it would be invidious to suggest that sworn personnel would act in defiance of orders’.

There are apocryphal (unconfirmed) reports that the US launch codes were set to something trivial (all zeroes?) for a long time under similar arguments.

Google says some serious people claim that was real.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

I will caution that the DoD claims that it isn’t true (which they would) and more critically that the PAL was never used for the Minuteman, and the codes for the Minuteman never had eight digits

I can't read that article, but when I first heard the story it was six zeros.

Clod speculates that the letters could also say things like "In the event that the UK is vaporized, please put yourself under the command of an ally" or "there's no point in retaliation, simply ends more lives. Just live your life in peace the best you can". They're rewritten by each incoming PM, and the letters are ripped up when they leave. Imagine what Keir Starmer might have put in his!

Jeremy Corbyn remains the only (potential) Prime Minister ever to say publicly that he would instruct commanders never to fire nuclear weapons under any circumstances. It was hugely politically damaging for him.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/30/corbyn-i-would-never-use-nuclear-weapons-if-i-was-pm

Corbyn's only redeeming feature is being honest about how terrible he is.

If I were writing those letters, I very well might do that. But I would never disclose that I would do that.

Well, quite.

Don't the Russians operate a dead hand system (Perimeter) precisely to maintain second strike capacity in the event of a disruption of the chain of command?

Do they? Despite this being a plot device in Dr. Strangelove, I've only heard what functor said above.

AFAIK yes, but it it is neither fully automatic nor impossible to switch off.

For reasons that should be fairly obvious, see Dr. Strangelove.

The Russians claim it exists, anyway.

https://www.kp.ru/daily/25805/2785953/

Both sides have ways around this, they just aren’t well publicized because they are scary and unconstitutional. If President Reagan and his government had been eliminated in a first strike, retaliatory launch orders would be given out by an unelected triumvirate headed by Dick Cheney, hidden in a bunker in the Appalachian mountains. If the Soviet presidium had been wiped out launch codes would have been dispensed by a Soviet AI called Dead Hand, hidden in a bunker in the Urals. After the Cold War both sides of course scrambled to claim that neither of these systems were actually used, but I’m sure modern classified equivalents exist. Neither the American or Russian deep states are going to gamble the fate of the country on the President getting hustled out of bed in time.

Even if the US President and most of his successors were to be taken out at once, there are a set of planes ("Nightwatch", also known as the "doomsday planes"), at least one of which is kept ready to launch at a moment's notice (and would likely be launched once a specific DEFCON level is reached) that is presumed to have the capability to relay launch codes to remaining nuclear assets.

Presumably the plane can't relay the codes on its own though.

Officially, indeed.

But since they have to be ready to launch at a moment's notice, probably aren't close enough at all time for the president or vice-president to be taken up in one within a couple of minutes, there's some guesses that can be made as for what purpose they are kept on a hair trigger to launch for.

The system as it's officially defined and depicted in public media, that only the President can authorize nuclear weapons using specifically the "football" that follows him, is nonsensical and does little to deter an adversary that believes it can do a decapitating strike on DC. It seems highly likely (although we probably won't have confirmation of such) that it is symbolic and that authority to launch is delegated. It has already been revealed that it has been delegated in the past. There's only three people in the line of succession being likely prepared and ready to act decisively within minutes (VP, SoS, SoD). Should the authority fall on another, getting a football to their location, codes, onboarding them, explaining their options, etc... is impractical, if a response is required within minutes.

Presumably the plane can't relay the codes on its own though.

For now.

I would not presume that.

Neither the American or Russian deep states are going to gamble the fate of the country on the President getting hustled out of bed in time.

Asuming we know where all of their nuclear weapon infrastructure is, ~5 minutes isn't enough time to confirm and launch before they're obliterated though, no?

Part of nuclear weapon infrastructure is engineered to move, specifically to not be easily located (boomers, road-mobile launchers)

Part of nuclear weapon infrastructure is engineered to be obnoxiously hard to destroy (nuclear silos), see term "nuclear sponge".

Second strike capability exists specifically to avoid need for launch on warning.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident and other why it is a good thing.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats