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

Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

scholars-stage.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#11

Post by bee_rider »

gsatic wrote: post #7

So what's the plan when China takes Taiwan?

Maybe we'd defend them, and, if so, the US naturally wouldn't be trading with what would be our enemy.

Maybe we'd do sanctions, cross our fingers, and hope that heavily entrenched Taiwan would be able to defend itself.

Who knows? It is the mystery of strategic ambiguity. They've been, while maybe not getting along, getting by for the last couple decades. So, hopefully we'll never find out what exactly the plan is.

Luckily Taiwan built a modern economy, where most of the value is in the people who live there (rather than natural resources). And they are pretty well entrenched. The amount of force required to conquer the place would probably slay the golden goose as a side effect. Surely China's government can see the benefit of doing peaceful business there...

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#12

Post by pain2022 »

glogla wrote: post #6
yorwba wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point of the article is that sanctions as an instrument of attrition have the same problems as strategic bombing as an instrument of attrition: it works, but causes a lot of collateral damage that doesn't contribute much to attrition, so if you hope to achieve quick results by turning the enemy's civilians against their military, you'll be disappointed.

I wonder how much can we even talk about collateral damage when almost all the enemy civilians support an aggressive war. I get that they're non-combatants, but they're not innocents. Especially when the "collateral damage" is in this case is "I can no longer buy iphone".

I’m curious what is your source for Russian civilians supporting the war?

My counter-point is that almost everyone from my friends, family and colleagues are upset about the war, and many left the country

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#14

Post by barry-cotter »

glogla wrote: post #5
turtledove wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are punishing people for rolling poorly on the parental lottery. Some kid starving to death because of sanctions doesn't understand what's happening. Their parents will be too poor and hungry to meaningfully fight back against their leaders. It's only going to hurt the vulnerable people in a country - militaries and oligarchs will not be impacted unless you target them specifically and narrowly . Imagine if China…

[flagged]

No post body was provided.

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#15

Post by fuoqi »

bee_rider wrote: post #11
gsatic wrote: post #7

So what's the plan when China takes Taiwan?

Maybe we'd defend them, and, if so, the US naturally wouldn't be trading with what would be our enemy. Maybe we'd do sanctions, cross our fingers, and hope that heavily entrenched Taiwan would be able to defend itself. Who knows? It is the mystery of strategic ambiguity. They've been, while maybe not getting along, getting by for the last couple decades. So, hopefully we'll never find out what exactly the plan is. Lu…

Neither Taiwan, nor Ukraine are about economic value. It's about "historic justice" and protecting vital long-term national interests as seen by rulers of China and Russia respectively (e.g. in the Chinese case the latter is about breaking the first island chain). The economic aspect certainly plays a major limiting role, but it has limits as we can see today with Russia.

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#16

Post by hef19898 »

glogla wrote: post #6
yorwba wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point of the article is that sanctions as an instrument of attrition have the same problems as strategic bombing as an instrument of attrition: it works, but causes a lot of collateral damage that doesn't contribute much to attrition, so if you hope to achieve quick results by turning the enemy's civilians against their military, you'll be disappointed.

I wonder how much can we even talk about collateral damage when almost all the enemy civilians support an aggressive war. I get that they're non-combatants, but they're not innocents. Especially when the "collateral damage" is in this case is "I can no longer buy iphone".

In tge case of strategic bombing it's easy: Targeting of non-combatants in war is a war crime. As colleteral damage it still sucks, but it is not a crime.

That's where the buck stops, because definibg what a non-combatant is is easier then deciding who is "innocent".

Sanctions are trickier, I just fail to come with an alternative to them.

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#17

Post by alar44 »

eastbound wrote: post #9
glogla wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much can we even talk about collateral damage when almost all the enemy civilians support an aggressive war. I get that they're non-combatants, but they're not innocents. Especially when the "collateral damage" is in this case is "I can no longer buy iphone".

The more I get old, the more I notice that people’s opinions are not really their own, but are function of the nation’s medias. Can we blame people for their opinion?

Yes, ffs.

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#18

Post by hef19898 »

pain2022 wrote: post #12
glogla wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much can we even talk about collateral damage when almost all the enemy civilians support an aggressive war. I get that they're non-combatants, but they're not innocents. Especially when the "collateral damage" is in this case is "I can no longer buy iphone".

I’m curious what is your source for Russian civilians supporting the war? My counter-point is that almost everyone from my friends, family and colleagues are upset about the war, and many left the country

Well, even if 100% of Russians, including the infants, supportrd the war it wouldn't change the fact that a potential strategic bombing campaign against Russian cities would be a war crime.

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#19

Post by landemva »

glogla wrote: post #5
turtledove wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are punishing people for rolling poorly on the parental lottery. Some kid starving to death because of sanctions doesn't understand what's happening. Their parents will be too poor and hungry to meaningfully fight back against their leaders. It's only going to hurt the vulnerable people in a country - militaries and oligarchs will not be impacted unless you target them specifically and narrowly . Imagine if China…

[flagged]

If sanctions don't work, is there hypothetically a number of years after which USA should drop the sanctions? How many more years of sanctions on the people of Cuba?

Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

#20

Post by throwaway0x7E6 »

glogla wrote: post #5
turtledove wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are punishing people for rolling poorly on the parental lottery. Some kid starving to death because of sanctions doesn't understand what's happening. Their parents will be too poor and hungry to meaningfully fight back against their leaders. It's only going to hurt the vulnerable people in a country - militaries and oligarchs will not be impacted unless you target them specifically and narrowly . Imagine if China…

[flagged]

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN