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 -
The Nvidia H20 exports ban is back on?
Lets recap. DeepSeek stuns the world by dropping a model almost as good as SOTA models while flexing incredible performance gains through cunning Chinese hacking. It's revealed they used lower end H20 GPUs vs the more decadent A100 / H100 / B100 class chips that fat American programmers use. Thusly, the US moves to ban exports of H20s as well.
Except last week, on April 9th, following the news of Jensen Huang dropping a million bucks at a Mar-a-Lago dinner with Trump, the ban is apparently lifted, stunning all China hawks in the country (and AI safetyists) and demonstrating that Trump will sell out his country to fucking China for a $1 million donation.
But today, Nvidia announces the export ban is on. And ... apparently was never lifted? The market reacts and knocks them down a few points.
What... happened? Checking back, it seems the only source for the news that the H20 ban was lifted was "two unnamed sources" reported by NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5356480/nvidia-china-ai-h20-chips-trump
Weirdly, neither the USG nor Nvidia commented on it.
Can we read into the fact that since neither party commented on it, lifting the H20 ban was actually on the table? Was this leaked by one side to put pressure on the other? Was it a trial balloon? Or do we even trust that NPR actually reached out for comment like they said they did?
So two anonymous sources, whom they don't seem to have checked were legit, made them run a story that had everyone believing something to be true that wasn't. Or might be. Or could be true, or maybe it's false.
Do we call this fake news or not? I'm a lot more angry about the lack of fact-checking than any political manoeuvring here, I'm not going to say NPR is anti-Trump because I don't know one way or the other. But this kind of rumour-mongering is not helping any of us trust the media, or find reliable sources of factual information.
So right now we don't know if 'millionaire businessman pays bribe to get government policy reversed' is true or false or somewhere in Schrodinger's middle where it might be true until it got found out, or maybe it was false because two chancers fooled a news outlet.
At this stage, I think the media should put the kibosh on stories relying on "sources who can't be named", because they're only tabloid-fodder level reliable the same way you see stories about "close friends of Harry and Meghan say that Camilla tried to poison her with ricin at the last family dinner" trash clickbait.
I'd be okay still relying on "sources who can't be named unless their info is falsified in which case we'll shout their names to the sky", but in practical terms that's probably about the same as your proposal. In this case, for example, there's still no way to tell whether the sources were lying; they could have been, or they could have overheard a change that was legitimately planned but for which the plan wasn't executed. "Trump changes his mind about changing his mind" isn't implausible.
(Or if you want to go all 5D-chess, the sources could have overheard a change that wasn't legitimately planned. Trump hates disloyalty, so perhaps he leaks different false stories to different underlings every now and then, so that the stories which make it to the news identify the underlings he should stop trusting. Not likely but not impossible.)
If it's a tabloid running a gossip story about celebrities, I automatically discount "close friend of the above parties hinted at" as the paper making it all up but using the phrasing for plausible deniability, or a scammer sold them the story which they don't care whether it's true or not, it'll sell more copies if they run it.
For media with pretensions to being serious real journalism, I expect better. Again, most times I see "unattributed sources/sources in the government who will only speak off the record", I assume it's a leak and being drip-fed to the media for ulterior motives.
So this could have been a leak, I suppose, as a trial balloon to see what reaction would be like if Trump reversed his decision. Or it could be hot air. I wish NPR and other media would be a little more picky about their sources backing up their claims, but that may be too much to expect nowadays.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would say that NPR leans strongly anti-Trump, and is willing to perform standard journalism misrepresentation/spin/story selection in line with that. Outright falsehood creation using fake sources? Probably not.
Creating fake sources is generally out of style, but using fake sources- which is to say, giving attention, focus, and treating suspect sources as credible is on-brand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
$1 million donation is chump change at those levels. Possibly the donation was to secure the sit down dinner where they talked, not actually a promise for any kind of outcome. That seems way more in line with that amount of money.
Yeah, "pay for a face-to-face" is political standard, it doesn't promise anything more than that. If we believe that Burisma paying Hunter big bucks didn't get them anything more than maybe the hope of a phone call with Joe, then same here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone with a lot of networth in Nvidia I'm happy about this and if it were put up to a vote of the shareholders I'd vote to not sell these chips to China. We absolutely don't need to hand them the rope that the intend to hang us with.
More options
Context Copy link
I think Jensen actually got the verbal agreement from Trump after, in Trump's terms, kissing his ass at the dinner, and then somebody briefed Trump on what "H20" stands for. We'll probably never know but would be perfectly in style for this administration. I was stunned to see those news, because obviously Trump loves tariffs and export controls and has a thing for CHI-NA, this is one topic where there's a strong bipartisan consensus that China must be denied ML-grade compute, and the ban was already in place. Well, back to normality.
Is trade “selling out”? Is 1 million H20s strategically relevant? More than, say, rare earth ban from China, which could perhaps be negotiated?
I found this Klein-Friedman exchange interesting.
This whole AGI race is pretty unfortunate. From my point of view, very similar to Friedman's, the US is in deep shit. It has deluded itself into the belief that it has greater advantage than is actually the case and that Wang Huning's series of ideologies actually lead towards a global hegemony, from that premise invented the self-serving narrative of desperately needing to “contain” or “isolate” China (which has “betrayed American goodwill” by not becoming liberal as expected and even “backsliding” with Xi) at all costs, and then bizarrely procrastinated on doing anything effective (like these tariffs, or seriously arming Taiwan) for next to a decade, then attacked China with extreme vindictiveness, going after Huawei on half-baked pretext and trying to kill their national champion (the US today has no companies or entities held in such esteem by citizens – I don't know, it'd be like Soviets trying to kill Ford or something? Maybe NASA at its zenith?). The Chinese are temperamentally not disposed to total war in times of good trade and improving fortunes, but are capable of waging it, and have taken the clue and for the last 6 or so years have been working on their resilience. So here we are, the US is even more arrogant and delusional about its relative standing, its non-kinetic means of communication are running out, and nobody in either party even dares to raise the point of rapprochement or thaw, because it's a career killer. Literally Soviets were treated with more rationality and caution, and let me tell you, other than warhead count, Soviets had nothing on modern China. In short, when there's a real possibility that you will not secure a decisive win no matter how much more “serious” you get, maybe it's time to reassess the game board.
Anyway, H20s don't matter a great deal now, it's always been a gimped inference-only chip. Huawei can produce 910Cs (partially with those 2 million 910B dies they got from TSMC via shell companies, but domestically too), they're not great but close to H100 level, and Huawei is extremely good at engineering so it can make absolutely insane CloudMatrix 384 servers outclassing Nvidia's newest NVL72 Blackwells, though at the cost of much higher chip count and power draw – but power is one of many resources that China has in abundance, and will have even more in abundance as it takes offline some aluminum overcapacity to fulfill the KPI of “higher value added per Watt”. These are probably already supplied to DeepSeek for training V4/R2, and other businesses are known to run R1 and V3 on them.
As I've said 1 and a half years ago,
I failed to anticipate MAGA Juche, but oh well. Also the list of relevant companies from that side has shifted a lot, today I'd say also: ByteDance, DeepSeek, Moonshot…
The warheads counted for a lot.
But I think the Soviets leapfrogged or sidestepped the US on military tech more often than China has – maybe that's just vibes.
I'm not making a "China can't innovate" argument (in fact my understanding is for some period, perhaps continuing to this day, they were building iterative designs of major warships to keep pace with their evolving mastery of technology and technique, which certainly is not blind adherence to formula), but the impression that I have gotten is that China has for the last oh 20ish years focused on building out its tech base, bringing it in-house, and bringing its designs up to a modern standard. Their approach has been good and pragmatic but they have been pushing the limits of American military capability by sheer quantity and by exploiting hideous blind spots in American post-Cold War defense drawdowns, not by cutting edge or even funky designs, with maybe a few exceptions.
Nevertheless I tend to find that I am more impressed and amused by Soviet and later Russian engineering than Chinese engineering – perhaps because I have a tendency towards mild Russophilia, perhaps because I pay less attention to Chinese systems, perhaps because their innovations are still classified, but I find Soviet/Russians designs unusual and capable of solving problems in ways that are elegant even in their brutality.
American designs in my opinion are often overly perfectionistic [which I think is tolerable for some high-end systems but the tendency has begun to wag the dog after the Cold War] and Chinese designs lend themselves towards being calmly pragmatic. They are, I think, just now in the past decade or two beginning to feel increasingly confident in many areas of stepping out of the shadow of Russian engineering, and one of the most interesting things about the recent aircraft reveals from China is the chance to see truly unusual airframes that are likely to be very different from their American, European, or Russian counterparts.
China has made the supercarrier obsolete. Is that not impressive? You know those Iskander missiles that have never been intercepted yet because they evade and allegedly can also drop countermeasures? Well, China has gliding anti-ship versions deliverable across half the planet. Is that not impressive?
No they have not.
I probably would not take either side of this bet.
I think the most impressive part of ballistic missiles (which are fairly simple) is the glide vehicle (as you mention) and also getting the guidance systems necessary for an anti-ship version to withstand the stress and heat of high-speed travel. Definitely very impressive, but essentially just pairing an antiship seeker with a ballistic missile. I tend to find the P-700 (fielded in the 1980s by the Soviet Union, designed to operate as part of a swarm targeting carriers) more conceptually interesting, although Dase may very well be correct that it is too clever by half.
Few modern Iranian missiles were intercepted in the last attack. Almost none. And these aren't as flat flying or as evasive as Iskander. Jamming satellites might work perhaps but it has inertial guidance so who knows how well..
That's your supposition, yank. Ask yourself what is a carrier group going to do when 128 maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicles appear over it.
Ask yourself how the carrier group is going to fare when it has what, 200 anti missiles. Even with perfect interception rates that's only 100 intercepted inbound missiles. Chinese LOVE large number production and they dug 1000kms of tunnels in mountains north of beijing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Great_Wall_of_China
They can shoot a lot of missiles out from China.
The earlier version solved this elegantly, the missiles just delivered guided bombs with a speed of
1000 m/s high up, maybe terminal 800 m/s. You can have seekers then no problem. It'd still probably work because100 of these would be very tough to intercept and even 5-10 hits would seriously degrade operations from a carrier. Ships are hard to sink but the internal operations aren't very redundant for reasons of space.I'm not sure how the later version solve this, the HGV ones.
I mean - the DF-series has limited range, and carriers give a fleet a huge advantage over hostile fleets even if they are forced to stay out of it. Having a floating airfield is pretty neat, and forcing them away from shore does not make them obsolete, it makes them less
Well this sort of assumes some things - I think you're smart enough to know about the kill chain problems with anti-ship ballistic missiles. The US has the same (perhaps better) apparatus to kill Chinese missile launchers that China does to kill carriers, does that make ASBMs obsolete? (The answer is no). I don't think this makes ASBMs useless or carriers invulnerable, it just means that they aren't some sort of magic invincible weapon.
Are you asking realistically, or at full capacity? At full capacity a single Burke can carry nearly 400 surface-to-air missiles if it is simply going for quantity by quad-packing ESSMs. Most likely it will be carrying a mix of anti-air and possibly anti-surface stand-off, and any carrier will likely be escorted by a Tico and two Burkes, maybe more. That's about 314 cells. So even if they don't have full cells because US industrial capacity sucks and some other cells are full of Tomahawks and ASROCs, I think you can guess something like 300 anti-air missiles conservatively (50 x cells dedicated to ESSM, 100 x dedicated to Standard, 100x Tomahawk, 50x empty or ASROC) before getting to SeaRAM/CIWS, and of course the carrier itself can carry hundreds of AMRAAMs and the new AIM-174 which can likely intercept anti-ship missiles.
Now, I don't rate the ESSM as much against ballistic missiles (although they might be useful in terminal defense, I suppose, apparently they can pull 30gs - but I would not count on them) - you're really looking to the Standards to provide you with air defense. Of course, if the Navy really intends to get dirty and play with ballistic missiles, they would know this and so, at the cost of a great deal of time, you might see them send two CBGs with something like two Ticos and a dozen Burkes (the Navy has more than 70). Both the SM-3 (of which the US has probably a couple hundred) and the SM-6 (of which the US probably has four-figures) have ABM capability in theory, so you could in theory put let's say 600 ABM-capable missiles on such a fleet easily.
And, since the carrier can generate strike packages outside of the known range of the DF-21 (albeit with great difficulty due to Dick Cheney canning the A-12 and advanced F-14 variants) the BIG question is if 500 Standards can intercept the DF-26s in the Chinese arsenal, assuming we want to split the difference with the carrier group and let it operate at extreme range rather than risk the more numerous DF-21. Assuming also that the Chinese haven't burned all of their DF-26s on Guam (which frankly is probably a better idea than trying to shoot at a carrier if China can catch the planes there on the ground) they have, what, 200 missiles to shoot at the carrier group realistically (launcher was revealed in 2015, I found a 2021 .mil source that said 100 missiles or so, so let's assume they've doubled that and ignore the question of how many of those are earmarked for nuclear warheads by assuming zero.)
Now in a "shoot shoot look shoot" doctrine the US can "shoot shoot look shoot" all 200 missiles.
I think intercepting ballistic missiles is hard and would personally prefer never to be in a situation where I was trusting my ABMs to intercept ballistic missiles. Even if you make optimistic assumptions (50% inception rate, for instance) you can still run into bad situations where leakers get through just due to bad "rolls" and contra your suggestion that 5-10 hits would seriously degrade operations from a carrier I am going to courageously suggest that even a single ballistic missile warhead will absolutely ruin a carrier's day unless it is very lucky.
Fortunately, the US Navy doesn't just have to rely on interceptors - the missiles will be using radar, most likely, for terminal targeting. [ETA: it looks like they are also believed to have optical sensors, which have both advantages and disadvantages over radar. I'd say this makes me slightly more bullish on the DF-series if true, but it's not as if optical systems are invincible either.] And radar sucks, modern ships could employ barrage or seduction jamming as well as decoys and chaff. My intuition is that this is especially true if they are actually going to descend on a glide profile rather than a straight-down profile, there are a lot of soft-kill options.
Now, you can sort of "adjust the sliders" to make the assumptions you want here - if you assume US softkill systems work reliably, then you barely need to worry. If you assume Chinese long-range sensors are neutralized early in the conflict, you barely need to worry. If you assume that the Standards will work poorly, or that the Chinese have say 300 or 500 DF-26s they are willing to launch at ships (neither of which seem implausible to me), then it starts to look much worse for the carriers.
All that being said: I would not want to be on a CBG that was going into DF-26 range. There are too many things that can go wrong, and ships don't have a lot of room for error. (This is...worse for China than for the United States in a Taiwan scenario). It's possible the US has Secret Sauce Technology that makes them much more confident in their carrier defense; the same is plausible for Chinese missiles. My main point in writing this up is simply to say - the situation is much more complex than simply "I have a missile with a 3000 mile range and an anti-ship guidance system, checkmate."
(As an aside, I found out while researching this long reply that the Chinese are latecomers to the ASBM game: the Soviets fired the first anti-ship ballistic missile in 1973.)
Also that China does have satellite dazzlers ready. In short US wouldn't be likely to acquire these launchers, wouldn't have much to hit them with - cruise missiles aren't great at following moving targets and also planes wouldn't be able to get near.
I am familiar with the SCUD hunt. I also know what SENTIENT is. Are you familiar with Soviet attempts to find carrier battle groups?
To establish air supremacy or superiority, yes. Obviously it did not take the Ukrainians weeks to penetrate the Russian air-defense grid once they got the right capabilities, nor would it take the US weeks to penetrate it if they wanted to.
I do not necessarily think stealth aircraft are the best assets the US has against mobile ballistic missile launchers. Nevertheless we've learned that modern air defense systems do not render even non-stealthy aircraft incapable.
Now frankly I think it would likely be stupid to waste munitions on something the size of a ballistic missile launcher that might move at any moment. (And my understanding is that US doctrine was actually to avoid striking Chinese launchers anyway.) But my point is that the US having the theoretical capability does not make the missile useless! I agree with you that there are countermeasures against targeting mobile ballistic missile launchers! It's hard to do!
And the US has ways of operating despite dazzlers - stealth satellites, [likely] high-altitude hypersonic recon/(strike?) aircraft, maneuvering spacecraft, non-optical recon satellites, some dude with a quadcopter, SIGINT, etc.
Moving the launchers around constantly is unlikely (although moving them consistently is). (And, for the record, at least some modern cruise missiles are capable of hitting moving targets, although I agree with you that the moving complicates matters.) But as I said above, I think it would be a dumb use of munitions. Which, again, goes to my point: having the theoretical ability to destroy something does not mean that such a course is easy, or even a good idea.
Really, everything you've said about hunting missile launchers is also true of hunting carriers, although carriers are much larger and more valuable targets, making them much more reasonable to target than a single ballistic missile launcher.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Personally, I think more about torpedoes. Some are very long range, with impressively hard to defeat terminal guidance, and they are absolutely ship-killers in terms of payload/mechanism, rather than just mission-killers.
Yes, apparently wake homing torpedoes keep the US Navy up at night long enough that they tried to field anti-torpedo torpedoes onto our carriers before withdrawing them because checks notes they couldn't get them to work.
I am not sure how effective they are, but I also like supercavitating torpedoes because I have not put my inner eight-year-old to death.
However, I am not sure China has gotten their submarine force in good enough shape for it to be a solid option for them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The current analyst opinion is that in submarines at least, Russia's are far more capable whereas China's building capacity is unmatched. That may very well simply be a reflection of previous national priorities and decades of experience, though.
My understanding is that Russian and Chinese submarines are intended to operate in very different waters and for different purposes. Chinese subs are intended to operate in the South China Sea and within the first island chain, so it makes sense for them to focus on smaller submarines with much less need for nuclear subs. Could they catch up to Russian capabilities? With time, I'm sure, but they don't really have a need to until they take Taiwan and start playing force projection games.
More options
Context Copy link
I think China's manufacturing edge is less than one would think, in submarines.
It looks like since 2010, China has built 4 SSGNs (plus one Qing technology testbed), 4 nuclear attack submarines, and 16 conventional submarines.
The US has built 19 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines in that period. Those Chinese conventional submarines are about half the tonnage of a Virginia and the nuclear attack submarines are smaller, too, so if I am eyeballing it correctly the US built fewer submarines but more submarine, if that makes sense.
(Sorry, I went off on a tangent: yes, I agree about the submarines. Which is very relevant in a Pacific war, in US doctrine submarines have been the intended ship killers and surface fleets are for ground attack, although I think this may be changing a bit.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the problem is that Westerners like gimmicks, and Russians/Soviets are not different. We all love our “no analogues!” Wunderwaffes and clever self-contained breakthroughs. That's just how European brains work I believe. But their brains work differently (see 2nd part and responses), their gimmicks are too large-scale to easily appreciate – supply chains, system integration building out entire cities, that's not just ant-like slave labor, they are just predisposed to logistical autism and a lot of cognitive effort goes into this. Yes, it doesn't result (at least not yet) in magic-looking individual devices, but does it matter much if their ships are half a generation behind when they can build literally orders of magnitude more? That's a whole different dimension of magic. I also suspect that Americans overindex on their triumphs through technological superiority – nukes, Desert Storm… But it probably won't apply to the conventional war with China. They aren't that behind, they have functional radars, they have VTOL cells on their ships, it will be reduced to a matter of quantity, which as you know has a quality of its own. Soviets even at their peak could not approach this degree of production dominance.
Semianalysis has just released a report on this Huawei server and it illustrates the philosophy well:
It's truly beautiful in its own way. I am not well versed in military hardware but I think the slight qualitative edge of Western tech doesn't matter as much as production capacity.
This is true lol. I just think Russian gimmicks are often very amusing (as well as being original). But the fish doesn't know the water in which he swims.
On the one hand, I agree.
On the other, I think technological edges are much more likely to matter in sea combat than in land combat. I've revised my estimation of American tech up (and correspondingly of Chinese countermeasures down) as specifically applies to naval combat after Ukraine.
But the war in china will be naval combat for US and land combat for them.
I wouldn't say this. Any confrontation between China and the US will be predominantly by air and by sea. In a Taiwan invasion scenario the US, Taiwan, and Japan will need to sink the Chinese amphibious attack fleet to "win." The Chinese (and US!) land-based forces will be important force-multipliers, particularly the aircraft, but the ships are the vulnerable part.
What's relevant here is that in this time of warfare a single cruise missile or mine that would kill a single tank or even a single person can sink or incapacitate a warship (obviously not necessarily the same system, but the maritime equivalents.) So instead of facing 10,000 targets as you are in a land fight, you're facing a couple hundred.
The reason my analysis of the relative advantage shifted in the Ukraine war is that Russian air defenses - which are generally considered quite good (and have performed a number of impressive deeds) were unable to stop Ukraine from hitting high-value targets with their pocket force of stealthy cruise missiles. The US has a lot of stealthy cruise missiles. Counting decoys, the US can probably deploy more missile "targets" to the Taiwan Strait than the Chinese Navy has VLS cells.
But it's unlikely to need to win a war of missile attrition with China, as sea-based missile interception is notoriously difficult. So my priors have shifted from "Chinese air defense will be relatively effective" to "China is going to have serious problems with leakers" since my guesses are that Chinese air defense is as good or perhaps slightly worse than Russian (I could be persuaded they are better, but I don't see a reason to assume that), but they will perform worse simply because it's harder to do air defense at sea. (Of course this assumption might be wrong, too, because missiles can use terrain masking better at land. The problem with missile defense at sea, as I understand it, is that missiles blend into the churning sea surface very well, but perhaps newer radar systems have solved this).
And that's without even getting into mines, submarines, and simply sinking amphibious ships with artillery, unmanned boats or suicide drones in the last few miles before they hit the beach, all of which will be fundamentally a question of "naval combat" for China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Western military might is impressive but fragile. Show that you have the capability to sink carriers and US is contained for a couple of years. You don't even have to sink them - 4000 bodies make peace negotiations hard.
Uh yes but that's not necessarily good for China.
I think his argument is that they won't destroy a carrier with personnel abroad, if they want to have negotiations. Blowing off some surface features as a show of strength would be good (though obviously not too realistic).
Yeah, I (now) realize that.
I agree with you on the realism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
China showing that they can bitch slap US naval power, but choosing not to inflict massive casualties is absolutely good for china. You can destroy as much material as you like and as long as the body count is low it will be shrugged.
Admittedly, times have changed a lot, but this was the same calculation Japan made in 1941, which didn't quite work out for them as they had planned.
The body count was not low. And it was unprovoked attack on US state. If the same ships were doing freedom of navigation between manchuria and japan and the japanese sunk them, without too many US casualties do you think that the reaction would have been the same?
China doesn't want japan, if they want korea they just have to wait, so the only possible hot war is over taiwan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.
This thinking reminds me a lot of the advice to police and beleaguered homeowners to "just shoot them in the leg." The Chinese have been fielding very large land-based ballistic and air-launched anti-ship missiles, I don't think they intend to tickle a supercarrier as a flex. (Now, it is quite hard to sink a super carrier).
I think this notion will be challenged at some point. Fairly sure that things are more fragile than expected.
Shoot them at the leg is different. If there was strong castle doctrine, killing them would be the best option.
Dealing with another country military is a bit more like trying to kill a made man. Scaring them away is usually the better approach unless you are prepared to wipe their entire organization away.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Quite a few possible explanations.
NPR fucked up and was talking to people who wouldn't realistically have knowledge of the plans.
The officials they used as sources were normally fine but they were making up shit for some reason. Maybe they weren't privy to the particular details or saying stuff on purpose to make trump look bad/make NPR look bad, hard to tell intent there. Hell it could have been said just because it appears some people within the Trump admin are taking advantage of insider knowledge for the stock market.
There was an internal plan to move against the ban and that got leaked before anything finalized. Perhaps the sources went to NPR precisely because they wanted to pressure against it.
The problem with anonymous sources being the standard is that it's really hard to tell the difference between a journalist fuck-up, the source being a lying piece of shit, or just internal plans that were decided against.
Generally, "sources close to who can't be named" are leaking on behalf of the government, either pro- or anti-something. The thing to figure out here is who is leaking and for what purpose.
To make Trump look bad? Maybe some of those federal workers under the threat of the DOGE axe, or otherwise unhappy with what is going on there, who want to throw a spanner in the works?
The problem with anonymous sources like this is that there is all the possibility of whatever conspiracy theory your little heart desires, but no hard information.
More options
Context Copy link
You missed #4: the journalist is a lying piece of shit and the sources do not exist. This wouldn't be my first pick, but it is a possibility.
Claas Relotius did the Atlanticist media no favors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The lack of named sources coupled with lack of comment from both the USG and Nvidia would seem to hint that the story was false from the start.
Personally, NPR's presentation of themselves as a bastion for "serious people" also doesn't help the story's credibility.
The real question is wether this pressumed fabulism stemmed from "orange man bad" or some beltway-bandit trying to pull a pump and dump on Nvidia's stock.
Why wouldn't the USG have just denied it with a statement like "lol fake news, more made up trash from NPR"?
Because as soon as you declare one story to be lies, it's assumed that you confirm any story you don't explicity denounce. It's the old sitcom trope of guessing a surprise: after you've said "nope, wrong" a few times, as soon as you switch to "I'm not saying" you've given everything away.
Hence the Glomar Response (We can neither confirm nor deny....).
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