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 -
no, retaliatory strike may also use weapons that survived initial strike (or second strike)
MAD is not limited to launch on warning
for example all kinds of real or theoretical systems are possible. See Perimeter AKA Dead Hand, fail-deadly system that would release ability to launch missiles to low-ranking personnel in a case of decapitation strike*
*sometimes described as being able to launch nuclear weapons completely autonomously, without any human oversight at all, but that is fairly dubious. And even more exotic systems are possible.
Though in practice, boomer launching missiles hours or months after first strike is perfectly sufficient.
this is mostly irrelevant due to second strike capabilities, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike
For start USA, UK and France have boomers. One of main roles of ballistic missile submarine is to be not destroyed in first strike and to retaliate. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine
Which is why Russia putting nukes on hypersonic missiles is not changing much here.
Also irrelevant as you can launch nuclear strike from ballistic missile submarines (they are also useful for attack!) or Finland. Or planes. Adding ability to launch nuclear strike from Ukrainian soil adds little to nothing here.
why I would do so? this is mistake in general in politics, but in case of Russia this is especially stupid
Maybe for Russia these are not helping. But potential attackers have them so ability to launch nukes from Ukrainian soil does not meaningfully increases risk. And for Russia their war eaten enormous resources, including ones that would fund nuclear deterrent. What they did is in fact indicator that they are not scared by NATO or China invading Russia.
even assuming this: what about road mobile launchers and hardened siloses?
being infinitely scared by Russian nuclear arsenal is (in addition to Libya vs North Korea) something that will greatly encourage nuclear proliferation. South Korea is serious enough to get official USA reaction ( https://www.reuters.com/world/us-designated-south-korea-sensitive-country-amid-talk-nuclear-weapons-2025-03-15/ ) but there is potential for more.
You can probably also add Poland to that list in the future
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link