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 Abrams are for defense of a different part of Poland than the Korean tanks. Broadly speaking, Abrams are for the flat plains leading to the capital region, and less heavy, more rough-terrain tanks are for the more restrictive terrain areas.
This also comes back to 'just because you don't think a current threat is valid doesn't mean others don't.' Projection of one's views onto others, and all that.
Not really. 1500 tanks is only ambitious relative to the multi-decade draw-down by Germany, France, and UK since the Cold War. Much larger tank armies were managed by relatively more modest economies during the Cold War. Moreover, the Poles are doing this from a pretty modest procurement perspective- they're not approaching this tank force as in addition to a world-class major airforce, navy, and what have you that traditionally dilutes budgets. The Poles are structuring their military to bring the armor and the close-air support, which very nicely compliments the Americans bringing the Air Force, Navy, and rapid-reaction but limited capability ground forces to a contingency.
Nuclear weapons haven't been a decisive factor in any war since the invention of nuclear weapons, including the only war in which nuclear weapons were used. They haven't even been key in mitigating western aid to Ukraine, let alone stopping multiple major and embarassing operational defeats that have rendered Ukraine a strategic disaster.
The Polish use for a tank army is less for if Putin attacks Poland, and more if Putin were to try and attack the Baltic states to Poland's immediate NE, were Poland would be the only realistic force beyond American immediate buildup able to interven in a Baltic scenario. While Russia is many years from being able to threaten Poland, smaller Baltic states don't need Ukraine-war sized forces to be threatened, and here we come back to projecting one's own judgement of the probability of such a thing from the regional actors' perspectives.
The development of a Polish tank industry is less for Russia, and more of creating a non-German/French arms supplier in the EU. This is a matter not only of profit, but supporting the creation of an eastern-European block that won't be dependent, and thus can't be held hostage to, German/French supply line influence in occasions where German/French interests would be willing to sacrifice eastern European interests, as was repeatedly tried in recent years. Poland's development is generally consistent with a nation trying to set itself up as a regional power able to counter-balance other regional powers. It doesn't need to out-produce Germany, it needs to keep the neighborhood from becoming dependent on Germany.
If you REALLY wanted to be paranoid, the Poles may also be preparing for post-Russian security concerns centered around future attempts to centralize the power of the European Union, but that's far more hypothetical than probable motive.
Poland doesn't need to be on their list of priorities. Poland just needs to be part of the American alliance network and able to fly highly-valuable supplies in relatively short order in case of crisis, thus helping the higher priorities.
A key lesson of the Ukrainian war, besides that nukes don't decide conventional wars, is that no one nation can run a high-intensity war on their peacetime buildup. The Russians started a medium-scale war with an entire superpower's stock of military surplus and depots, and started running out of operational stocks of precision munitions in the first two months, and tapping their contingency stocks until the point of buying Iranian drones in lieu of cruise missiles. Even the US is seeing real dips in select categories of munitions, and it's not even directly involved. Whether you stockpile PGMs that go out in weeks, or dumb-rounds that are exhausted in months, high-intensity makes support needs immediate.
But another key lesson is that while no one can beat the logistics strength of the American alliance network, compatibility matters. The Ukrainians spent the first months of the war dependent on Warsaw Pact systems and aid delivery, first because it was all they were familiar with and then because it was all they could shoot. Trying to incorporate new artillery systems and ammo trains- even when made available- has been a real hurdle. Speed of integration can have operational relevance, both in immediate pre-war buildups, but post-war resupplies.
Sharing common production systems is what clears this hurdle, and is a key strength of being mutual members the American alliance network. In theory, the French and the Germans have been trying to do this for some time with their European Strategic Autonomy proposals for a common EU procurement, but 'Buy European' has tended to be 'Buy French/German,' and French/Germany wrangles have delayed numerous projects past the point of relevancy. What Korea has achieved is that someone else really will be maintaining a lot of compatible tanks, and is probably going to be more willing to part with armor (parts) than the Germans.
Nuclear weapons are like the sea to fish. They dominate the power structure wars are fought in, post-WW2 at least. There's a reason Libya and Iraq got hammered by the US but North Korea didn't. There's a reason no two nuclear powers have fought anything more than a few skirmishes, limiting the intensity of their wars. There's a reason the US and the other nuclear powers are so keen on nuclear non-proliferation. If nuclear weapons weren't decisive, they wouldn't care so much about them. If nuclear weapons weren't decisive, Russia wouldn't have dared to infringe upon NATO's interests in this war, since they have vast conventional superiority.
I suspect that the Yom Kippur war is the strongest example you have of nuclear weapons not helping defend a country. Yet when Israel threatened to use nukes, the US quickly moved to fly in huge quantities of military aid. They didn't care about the wrath of the Arabs causing hundreds of billions of damage to the US economy via oil prices. The superpowers put huge pressure on their clients to end the conflict in a stalemate before nukes could be used, they didn't let the conflict fester as in so many other wars. Nukes don't need to be used to be decisive in controlling the situation. If they were used, they would be even more powerful.
If Russia attacks, going for a fait accompli, why should the US end the war even if the Russians sweep through the Baltics in 48 hours? It makes the US look totally pathetic if they don't come in and retake that ground eventually. While I maintain that nuclear weapons are dominant, they favor defense over attack. Russia's nuclear threats to defend its army occupying the Baltic aren't as credible as NATO nuclear threats against Russian nuclear first use. Furthermore, Russia has only attacked non-NATO members in conflict with Russian minorities. Even if the Baltics get into a spat with their Russian minorities, they're still in NATO. It would be an incredibly risky and provocative move to attack the Baltics. It'd be a far more aggressive move than invading Ukraine.
I'm afraid I still don't understand why Korea would care at all about such a niche scenario. They plan for some kind of highly-urgent crisis where the Koreans suddenly need more ammunition, so they fly it in from Poland? Why not just plan ahead and buy your own ammunition from your own companies before hand, store it in your own country and keep the airlift capacity for moving things you don't make like US forces or Patriot batteries? There certainly has been a syndrome where NATO countries don't bother to produce ammunition, Russia has been firing off entire years of US artillery production in weeks. But surely the simplest cure is just to produce munitions and spare parts for the weapons one designs, builds and operates!
What if the crisis strikes quickly and there's no time to airlift supplies from Poland, through hostile airspace, to South Korea? What if Poland needs its supplies because it also faces a crisis? What if South Korean defence industry needs some more cash? I agree that the Koreans want to open up markets but this is too far.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link