So what's the plan when China takes Taiwan?
Biden recently said for the third time, war. The plan is war with China.
Appear weak when you are strong. Appear strong when you are weak.
Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
71–80 of 88 posts
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#72So what's wrong with sanctions as an instrument of attrition?
Three reasons: 1. They're highly ineffective in that they've almost never led to regime change; 2. "Economic sanctions" is a euphemism. They are violence that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. The article correct likens them to strategic bombing; and 3. They're a form of collective punishment. In many circumstances this constitutes a war crime. Let me give you an example of (3). Imagine there are a spat…
> 1. They're highly ineffective in that they've almost never led to regime change;
The inability of the Soviet Regime to freely trade with the west greatly contributed to it's demise, so sanctions have been proven to contribute to regime change, for a counter example see China or Vietnam, they opened their markets and their Regimes are very much still in power. Additionally the aim of these sanctions is not regime change but hindering the Russian offensive.
> 2. "Economic sanctions" is a euphemism. They are violence that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. The article correct likens them to strategic bombing;
I don't believe I have to say this, but dropping bombs on cities (strategic bombing) and refusing to buy natural gas (sanctions) is not the same thing.
> 3. They're a form of collective punishment. In many circumstances this constitutes a war crime.
That makes no sense. First of all most of the sanctions are not "punishment", they prohibit certain transactions and are not aimed at people. i.e. The EU decided to stop buying petroleum from Russia, that cannot be possibly construed as punishment. In the cases where the sanctions are actually "punishment" seizing of assets and such, it is very targeted to people and organizations with actual decision making power and influence in Russia or somehow connected with the regime or the Russian State (Oligarchs, banks, etc).
An example of how I view sanctions. Let's say Bob goes to a bank and takes a loan, then Bob proceeds to buy a gun with that loan and rob another bank, sanctions are equivalent to the bank refusing to loan more money to Bob until he stops robbing banks.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden recently said for the third time, war. The plan is war with China.
Appear weak when you are strong. Appear strong when you are weak.
I am sorry but I don't agree, that statement presumes that the goal is to defeat the enemy in a conflict.
The goal is clearly to avoid having the conflict in the first place. To do that you must make clear to the opposing side where the line is and that they should not cross it.
The policy until now was not to appear weak, but to maintain an ambiguity, cynically allowing the US to partly deter an attack, preventing Taiwan from declaring indepence and maintaining the option of not getting involved without losing credibility.
By my armchair amateur analysis I think that while the policy worked great in the past, it looks like now it is starting to fail to deter and the option of not getting involved without losing credibility was always an illusion. The only thing it achieves now is the prevention of Taiwan declaring independence.
To me at least it looks it's time to make it clear that Taiwan will be defended, in order to deter war.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#74> The most important technology of the First World War was not the machine gun but the railroad I disagree. First, the railroad already existed. You can argue its use in war was new. The Germans notably built railroads to the front at huge scale. But this presupposes a relatively static front, which was the reality of WWI. Probably the most important technological development was neither of these things: it was artil…
> First, the railroad already existed. You can argue its use in war was new
You cannot, the Prussian victories against Austria and France during the latter half of the 19th century were achieved on the back of their very efficient use of (military-designed) railways.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three reasons: 1. They're highly ineffective in that they've almost never led to regime change; 2. "Economic sanctions" is a euphemism. They are violence that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. The article correct likens them to strategic bombing; and 3. They're a form of collective punishment. In many circumstances this constitutes a war crime. Let me give you an example of (3). Imagine there are a spat…
> 1. They're highly ineffective in that they've almost never led to regime change; The inability of the Soviet Regime to freely trade with the west greatly contributed to it's demise, so sanctions have been proven to contribute to regime change, for a counter example see China or Vietnam, they opened their markets and their Regimes are very much still in power. Additionally the aim of these sanctions is not regime ch…
> The inability of the Soviet Regime to freely trade with the west greatly contributed to it's demise
Ah yes, the demise of the USSR is everyone's pet reason for [insert policy here], be it sanctions, military build-up (by Reagan predominantly), Afghanistan, economic factors and even cultural influence. Sanctions against the USSR lasted ~50 years and had limited effectiveness [1]
> When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a major debate broke out over the contribution that the campaign of economic sanctions had made toward the fall of the Soviet empire. Many former officials in the Reagan administration credited sanctions with a significant role in the disintegration of the Soviet economy and therefore of the Soviet Union itself. On the other hand, the leading work on the effectiveness of economic sanctions—Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (vol. 1, p. 137)—concludes that although the United States did succeed in denying some arms and key technologies to the Soviets, the collapse stemmed from internal inefficiencies rather than U.S. economic sanctions.
> That makes no sense. First of all most of the sanctions are not "punishment".
Of course they're punishment. Or do you want to play semantics and argue it's mere "coercion"? Here's an exercise: set up a store selling whatever. I'll put a cordon around it and say no one can buy from you or sell to you because you don't pay your workers enough. Then tell me it's not "punishment".
[1]: https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Embargoes-and-S...
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#76Earlier 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…
> You are punishing people for rolling poorly on the parental lottery. If you accept this argument, you are letting the dictator hold his population hostage. Also the same argument applies to killing the invading soldiers. Also it's not like Russian people are dying from hunger.
No, because broad sanctions don't hurt the dictator. It won't make their country more likely to get rid of him.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#77Earlier 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…
Nope, they are good policy. Speaking as one affected. Those who can move -- move out of the country (usually the most economically active people), weakening the regime ability to make weapons. Those who starve have nothing to lose, so they start fighting the regime. Revolutions never happen in well fed society.
> Revolutions never happen in well fed society.
What? My understanding was that the revolution in Iran happened during a period of relative economic prosperity.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#78“the Biden team has hit the right diplomatic notes at each stage of the crisis. Their actions have been substantive—but also measured, proportional, and carefully planned. The purpose of their actions on the security front have been clearly and convincingly articulated. They possess a coherence that our sanctions regime against the Russians lacks.”
This is a major flaw in the analysis of the Ukraine situation. The Biden admin has bungled this affair and placed the Ukrainian people in the position of pawns with zero chance of victory who are getting their country blown up to only end up with less land and likely less sovereignty. The administration has focused the entire conflict straight to war, discouraging diplomacy and encouraging brinksmanship.
The sanctions were foolishly over estimated when applied to a country like Russia which is one of the most self-sufficient countries in the world with huge trading partners that are not afraid of the US’s empty threats. Is the US going to go after China for trading with Russia while the vast amount of its technology and goods are assembled there? The US gave up its dominance by pushing globalization as a “strategy” that eviscerated its manufacturing of critical hardware and technology. The US is now a paper tiger.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#79Earlier 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…
Nope, they are good policy. Speaking as one affected. Those who can move -- move out of the country (usually the most economically active people), weakening the regime ability to make weapons. Those who starve have nothing to lose, so they start fighting the regime. Revolutions never happen in well fed society.
These actions only galvanize a country further to be even more dependent on manufacturing weapons to defend themselves, become more self-sufficient, and potentially seize nearby resources from adjacent countries. The people that do leave tend to be the wealthy aristocracy with the resources to leave for their own selfish reasons.
Re: Sanctions and Strategic Bombing
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, they are good policy. Speaking as one affected. Those who can move -- move out of the country (usually the most economically active people), weakening the regime ability to make weapons. Those who starve have nothing to lose, so they start fighting the regime. Revolutions never happen in well fed society.
> Revolutions never happen in well fed society. What? My understanding was that the revolution in Iran happened during a period of relative economic prosperity.
Everyone in the Matrix was well fed. All kidding aside, people want more than just food.