site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28734 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ramaswamy proposes sharing nuclear submarine technology with India, with the expectation that India will help block Chinese shipping in the event of a US-China war. I don't believe India will ever do this. It has a vast population with very little disposable income. Although its GDP of 10 trillion dollars (PPP) is sizable, most of it is needed for sustenance. There is little left over for war. Thus, if India did get involved in a US-China war, it would probably not make a huge impact. India would risk antagonizing China further without substantially increasing the probability of a Chinese defeat. It would be better for India to hope that China loses without joining the conflict herself.

Besides, Taiwan falling isn't nearly as big of a deal to India as it is to Japan/US. India's conflict with China is at their land border in the Himalayas. Taiwan is in a totally different direction.

Ramaswamy proposes sharing nuclear submarine technology with India

If candidate Judeberg Shlomostein proposed giving SSBNs to Israel in order to counter Russian influence in the Middle East, we wouldn't be analyzing what this implied about his Ukraine policy. Confounding factors must be considered.

Counterpoint- India hates China and its biggest rival is one of China’s more powerful Allies in the middle of a world war.

Honestly I’d bet on ‘China sinks the 7th, draft riots collapse the US government and the states balkanize’ before I’d bet on ‘India stays neutral’.

Wait, do countries consider using nuclear subs for anti-shipping?

I was under the impression they exist as deep stealth nuclear deterrents rather than offensive weapons.

Edit: I was thinking of the Ohio-class dedicated ballistic missile subs. The rest of the US SSNs are outfitted for a bunch of roles, including torpedoes.

Harpoon was a long time ago, but aren't Los Angeles class subs also nuclear driven?

Thanks for reminding me about playing Harpoon, now thats a game I'd like to see a modern remake.

Yeah, everything we field now is nuclear. I don’t know when’s the last time our subs sank anything.

Edit: apparently never. The British made the only attack using a nuclear sub when they sank this guy.

As I understand it, the only nuclear sub to sink a ship is HMS Conquerer vs ARA General Belgrado. Although I've seen it with the caveat that it's "only nuclear sub to sink a surface ship with a torpedo", so maybe a missile took one out (not counting SinkEx, of course).

In terms of nuclear propulsion vs armament, this graphic may be helpful. The US, UK, and France have only nuclear powered subs - everyone else also has conventional. Of note on that list, India and Brazil's nuclear subs aren't indigenous - they were bought (leased?) from Russia and France, respectively. Also note that Israel gets a "to be confirmed" in the armament category due to their policy of strategic ambiguity. Also also note that at one point some attack subs had nuclear tipped torpedoes. And nuclear tipped sub-launched anti-submarine rockets, some of which, as you might expect, had an anticipated kill ratio of "both".

TL;DR "nuclear" almost always refers to the propulsion of a sub, not the armament. "Boomer" is the slang term for a nuclear armed sub, but sadly USS OKLAHOMA is an attack sub.

Ha, I started looking into the Conqueror and got sidetracked reading bean's Naval Gazing blog.

India would risk antagonizing China further

India and China are already political enemies. They are economically tied to the hip (with India being the more dependent one), but none of the products consumed by India from China are essential (food, clothing, infra). The Indian populace also hates China, so assisting US in a US-China war would be aligned with all of India's interests. The economic hit received by India will be harsh, but the popular hatred for China is a good mechanism for allowing people to productively suffer through it.

There is little left over for war

A US-China war is a world war. Pakistan will mobilize in Gwadar for Hormuz and India will move as a counter balance.

India will help block Chinese shipping

India won't need to block Chinese shipping, because US is going to unilaterally sanction anyone who takes in Chinese shipping. But if it comes down to it, India will move to secure its neighborhood.

India's conflict with China is at their land border in the Himalayas

And why would India not leverage a US-China war to recover areas of Aksai-Chin that would block the Karakorum highway ?

Most of the world has more trade with China/Russia than with the US.

Would they even care?

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