Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

history.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#21

Post by erdos4d »

qiskit wrote: post #14
anikan_vader wrote: post #7

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it…

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

> Economic sanctions are an act of war.

This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#22

Post by belorn »

qiskit wrote: post #14
anikan_vader wrote: post #7

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it…

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

Not buying Russian oil and gas is not an act of war. Any nation has a right to decide if they want to buy a product, how much, by whom, and at what price they are willing to accept (tariffs and import tax, up to infinitive).

Calling sanctions war is like calling boycotts theft. Vegetarians are not stealing money from beef producers.

What boycotts and sanctions can be is passive aggressiveness. It harms people on a social level, and since humans are social creatures, it feel like violence. The problem of comparing violence with social violence is that not being invited to a party hurt, but it hurts in a different way from getting knifed. Our brain interpret social pain as physical phantom pain, but we must be able to distinguish between real and non-real pain. Society depend on it.

The reason blocking a port is a act of war is that the nation blocking that port is also blocking it for other nations who might be willing to trade. That is like a vegetarian going out during the night and killing off the beef productions herd of cows.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#23

Post by MattGaiser »

qiskit wrote: post #14
anikan_vader wrote: post #7

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it…

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

> War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war.

But it does require attacking or destroying. We aren’t engaging Russia at all. This is like calling a boycott theft.

> It's saying anyone who does business with russia is going to get attacked. It's why china was attacked for trading with iran when china doesn't have any economic sanctions on iran. It's saying the whole world can't do business with russia.

Sanctions are telling people that they must pick a side. We will not be friends with X and if you are friends with them, we will not be friends with you. China was not attacked. It was just told that it can be only with one group.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#24

Post by InsaneOstrich »

erdos4d wrote: post #21
qiskit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

> Economic sanctions are an act of war. This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.

What's the alternative? Doing nothing while Russia invades countries in Eastern Europe one after the other?

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#25

Post by stormbrew »

LanceH wrote: post #17
brandall10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silent treatment is cutting off diplomatic ties. Sanctions is starvation of resources, potentially impacting the war effort directly but indirectly by causing civil unrest. I agree it’s certainly not the same as direct warfare, but its definitely somewhere in the middle, and can particularly castostrophic when done in a concerted multilateral fashion (ie. North Korea).

Sanctions is not feeding them -- but doing nothing to stop them from feeding themselves. Certainly not stopping them from behaving nicely and getting to interact again. War is shooting people dead. There is a stark difference.

In the modern world, no country is self-sufficient. This isn't even an accident, it's an explicit goal of the modern liberal economic system, partly to try to dampen the conditions that lead to war.

At any rate, sanctions create consequences for trade for third parties as well, so any country that doesn't come along on it will also face the possibility of being shut off from trade with the EU, the US, and the rest of their allied nations. No country in the world save China can endure that for long without completely destabilizing their economy and their legal order.

And make no mistake, people will die due to these sanctions. Russia's medical system will not endure lack of trade for long, and it's likely there will be food shortages as well. This is entirely independent of whether or not it's the right thing to do. People need to understand that these actions have real human consequences, whether they agree with the cost or not.

Sanctions as enacted here are not "I'm not talking to you", they're "I will punch anyone who keeps talking to you."

Also, I guarantee you that if a country sanctioned the US in a way that actually impacted the american economy (again, probably only China could pull this off right now), the US would consider it an act of aggression. Just nationalizing American interests has been cause for American intervention before.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#26

Post by coldtea »

anikan_vader wrote: post #7

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it…

>Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion.

Well, some sanctions had more casualties than some wars.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#27

Post by DennisP »

erdos4d wrote: post #21
qiskit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

> Economic sanctions are an act of war. This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.

When both sides have nukes, you can't win by nuking things either.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#28

Post by thallium205 »

anikan_vader wrote: post #7

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it…

No. Sanctions are weapons of mass destruction.

They starve and kill the poorest in a nation. It's akin to carpet bombing a town without explosions.

This is not hyperbole. Look to history at the destruction of sanctions.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#29

Post by coldtea »

belorn wrote: post #22
qiskit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

Not buying Russian oil and gas is not an act of war. Any nation has a right to decide if they want to buy a product, how much, by whom, and at what price they are willing to accept (tariffs and import tax, up to infinitive). Calling sanctions war is like calling boycotts theft. Vegetarians are not stealing money from beef producers. What boycotts and sanctions can be is passive aggressiveness. It harms people on a so…

Sanctions are not independent country decisions for "not buying X". In real life they work by throwing a huge economy's and diplomatic power's might against lesser countries they don't like, and in pressuring satellite countries and global organizations a side controls to stop trading, sending supplies, even food and health kits, to other countries.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#30

Post by coldtea »

InsaneOstrich wrote: post #24
erdos4d wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economic sanctions are an act of war. This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.

What's the alternative? Doing nothing while Russia invades countries in Eastern Europe one after the other?

Ensuring Ukraine's neutrality instead of sacrificing it as a pawn?
Post reply on HN