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 -
I wouldn't be so sure. History actually has some good examples of nations in very similar circumstances - ever read up on the history of the Kingdoms of Outremer? So far I haven't seen a single bit of data that convinces me Israel isn't on the same historical trajectory.
Huh. I've never met someone for whom the Israeli policy of nuclear non-acknowledgement actually worked so well.
The Crusader Kingdoms, after all, fell to conventional invasion by neighboring Kingdoms/Empires more interested in fighting them than eachother. Israel, by contrast, is generally believed to have nuclear weapons, and as such its neighboring Kingdoms who could conduct conventional invasions are not particularly interested in fighting them directly anymore.
I'm entirely aware that their nuclear weapons exist, I just fail to see how they'd be useful in saving the country. Yes, they're capable of preventing a massive ground invasion from the arab states around them right now, but there's no guarantee that will last forever, nor is there any guarantee that military annihilation is the only way Israel could come to an end. While it was the foreign invasions that dealt the deathblow in the case of Outremer, they could only have happened as a result of longer term problems that simply weren't solved, and several other calamities could have taken their place - such as a plague or famine. Heavy reliance on foreign western powers, complicated and expensive social arrangements (the orthodox population of 'useless eaters'/christian scholars), a strategy revolving around keeping the various islamic nations at odds with one another and unable to unite in any real way... these are all serious issues, and having nuclear weapons only helps with that last one, and even there that effectiveness just might dwindle over time. If the Muslim brotherhood knew that attacking Israel from Egypt would get the current government nuked, they'd take that deal in a heartbeat. A hypothetical united Arab world would be an exceedingly difficult problem for Israel to deal with, and far too complicated a problem to simply nuke into submission.
Well, that's certainly a novel theory, and given the longevity of the Crusader Kingdoms and rarity of total state collapse without external intervention, a generally non-falsifiable one that would outlast either of our time on the mortal coil.
I generally am not moved by conditionals that already failed to occur (Egypt was already ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood- it did not take the deal in a heartbeat), presumption of uninterupted trend lines that justify inevitable disaster without shaping (the othrodox population claim), or hypotheticals that run contrary to historical experience or macro trends (lol, said pan-Arabism, RIP), so as such I'll just leave that I find your failure to see how nukes would be useful in saving a country unconvincing as evidence that they don't have more relevance that historical metaphors with fundamentally different assumptions.
No, the theory I'm proposing is actually extremely testable. Maybe you're in your late 60s, but I don't see American support for Israel lasting for the rest of our lifetimes, and that's the most significant of the factors that I listed. We can't really test that right now, but when you look at the demographics of the US and the views of the populations that are going to be a majority in the future I don't think there's any guarantee that financial support to Israel continues.
Yes, because Egypt was being ruled by the Muslim brotherhood - why would they want THEIR government to get attacked by Israel given that they know they'd lose? I'm talking about a situation where the Muslim brotherhood aren't in power, yet have the ability to elicit a military response from Israel targeted at the government that's throwing them in jail and declared them a terrorist organisation.
There's no presumption of trend lines here - the orthodox population is simply a weight hanging around Israel's neck. They have complicated social reasons for maintaining a large population who cannot help militarily or economically in any real way, which is a problem given that Israel itself doesn't have enough of an economy to support itself and the outsized defence expenditures it needs to stay safe. Even assuming that the orthodox all stopped having children, that's still a dependent population of some size that Israel will have to support for no gain. They can do that now, but that's going to become a bigger issue as support gets cut off.
I don't think it is terribly contrary to historical experience for extremely warlike and quarrelsome populations to be united by charismatic leaders. This has happened multiple times throughout history, and while it doesn't have to be pan-Arabism I don't think the idea of some movement or charismatic leader uniting a few countries into a larger coalition is terribly ahistorical.
Nuclear weapons are a solution for a fairly narrow set of problems. Domestic political unrest spurred by economic issues after the collapse of material western support despite a continued need for outsized defence expenditure doesn't fall into that category. And if you really don't see any evidence or historical analogues for nuclear weapons being unable to save a country from internal problems, please point out where the USSR is today and explain how their nuclear arsenal saved them from collapse.
That is an impressive number of mis-chosen historical allusions that don't quite demonstrate what you think they do and even less about nuclear deterrence, but as already noted we'll be dead before it would be disproven by not manifesting as relied upon so again, general shrug at unconvincing perception in lieu of evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
The USSR collapsed out of apathy. The Russian Soviet Republic was replaced by the Russian Federation, they were and are a majority. The Palestinians winning would wipe the Israelis off the map in a way the crumbling of the USSR didn’t kill all Russians. the rationale for use of nuclear weapons is completely different.
As for American support, most current US migrants are Central American Christians (largely Catholic, but many Latin Catholics convert to Evangelical Christianity after moving to the US) fleeing leftist regimes (chiefly Venezuela), not generally a particularly anti-Israel demographic.
I was under the impression that they collapsed due to a deeply flawed economic system in combination with a dramatic over-expenditure on military spending in order to keep fighting the cold war. But the main point is that they did in fact collapse and nuclear weapons weren't able to stop that from happening. I still just don't see how nuclear weapons would be able to save Israel from an economic collapse or social unrest.
Attitudes towards Israel are far less positive among younger populations in the US to my knowledge - if you've got some evidence regarding youth attitudes towards Israel that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it. That said, I don't think it matters that they aren't particularly anti-Israel, because what matters is that they're not as fanatically pro-Israel as the current population. You need much less negative animus to cut off existing support than initiate a hostile action, and I think that's very possible given shifting attitudes towards Israel in younger populations.
Common misconception and oversimplification. Incorrect, but common.
The actually relevant point, however, is that the Soviet Union didn't collapse from external invasion, or from people who already identified with the core identity unit wanting to leave. This is relevant, because the thing that will actually end Israel as a nation-state- and what ended the crusader states- is external invasion, not civil unrest in the national core. Civil Unrest can weaken a state's capacity for militarily resisting invasion, but if invasion is already negated by other ways- such as nukes- the you have a weak state, not a dead state.
The Soviet Union collapse is a poor historical metaphor because the parts of the Soviet Union who left the Soviets were the Russian imperial sphere that never wanted to be part of the Russian empire. The Russian national core was never challenged or militarily endangered. In the Israel metaphor, this is Gaza and West Bank not being occupied, and the Israeli core existing uninterrupted and without a military threat.
The crusader state metaphor from earlier is likewise bad because that was a case of military invasion destroying the state- which is precisely what did NOT occur with the Soviet Union, for a reason of (among other things) sustained nuclear deterence despite major economic and democraphic and social regression.
Because economic collapse or social unrest don't actually destroy nations, and this is so well established it's easier to identify the exceptions- which are almost universally states without an underlying national identity to bind the state.
This is basic not-understanding-why-states-fail, both historical and mechanically.
Obviously states collapse for a variety of reasons and I only provided the two that seemed the most prominent. This is, as far as I can see (especially since you called it common), the conventionally accepted wisdom as well - economic hardship lead to reform attempts which then lead to dissolution and breakup. If you've got a more compelling theory or hypothesis I'd unironically love to hear it.
Yes, it didn't collapse from the kind of problem that nuclear weapons prevent, given that it had nuclear weapons (though if the Russians all decided to leave I don't think nukes would help there either).
But Israel is in fact surrounded by dangerous threats in just about every direction but the sea, and this means that they are going to need to spend a huge portion of their GDP on the military budget - far more than they do currently, and to the point that it is going to have a big impact on society. That's an extremely dangerous position for a nation to be in, nukes or no nukes.
Then please enlighten me! I just don't understand how an Israel that sustains severe economic damage due to the removal of western support manages to maintain itself in such a dangerous security environment.
And to answer your other post..
I see this happening well within my lifetime. Probably not before the next culture war thread, but I don't see US aid to Israel lasting for another 20 years.
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
I have always cynically assumed that the real purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons is to blackmail western governments into continuing enthusiastic support, via the 'Samson option'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link