4 ms·

There is historical precedent for economic sanctions leading to war. Notability the US froze Japanese assets in the US and embargoed selling US oil to them in

There is historical precedent for economic sanctions leading to war. Notability the US froze Japanese assets in the US and embargoed selling US oil to them in July 1941. Less than 5 months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. You aren’t wrong but you also have to consider that economic sanctions have historically been a precursor if not the friction point that caused a war.

syntaxing 5y ago
I’m not sure if that’s a fair cause and effect statement though. Most sanctions were placed to pressure the opposite side without going to war and arguably prevent physical conflict. Hard to say the hypothetical result, but the timeline would of been, no sanctions and go to war anyway or push for sanctions and hope it’s enough to scare the opposite party but if it fails, you go to war anyway
- pmorici 5y ago
  The point is one shouldn’t be so naive that you fool yourself into thinking that the range of possible responses to sanctions doesn’t include war. Analogies of sanctions being like giving the school yard bully the cold shoulder seem like just such a naive interpretation given how they have played out historically. I’m not saying they can’t work or that they shouldn’t be used just to be aware of the full range of possible outcomes.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    There is also the other side to consider. By not boycotting or sanctioning an aggressor you're supporting their efforts by supplying material or funds through trade. When a government has a proven record of bullying or annexing their neighbors I think boycotting is the least one can do. And collective sanctions among allies is a reasonable next step where diplomacy fails. In the case of Russia sanctions weren't even enough to stop them after they annexed Crimea. No one wants to continuously cave into a bully then pretend it's "peace in our time".

syntaxing 5y ago

I’m not sure if that’s a fair cause and effect statement though. Most sanctions were placed to pressure the opposite side without going to war and arguably prevent physical conflict. Hard to say the hypothetical result, but the timeline would of been, no sanctions and go to war anyway or push for sanctions and hope it’s enough to scare the opposite party but if it fails, you go to war anyway

pmorici 5y ago
The point is one shouldn’t be so naive that you fool yourself into thinking that the range of possible responses to sanctions doesn’t include war. Analogies of sanctions being like giving the school yard bully the cold shoulder seem like just such a naive interpretation given how they have played out historically. I’m not saying they can’t work or that they shouldn’t be used just to be aware of the full range of possible outcomes.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  There is also the other side to consider. By not boycotting or sanctioning an aggressor you're supporting their efforts by supplying material or funds through trade. When a government has a proven record of bullying or annexing their neighbors I think boycotting is the least one can do. And collective sanctions among allies is a reasonable next step where diplomacy fails. In the case of Russia sanctions weren't even enough to stop them after they annexed Crimea. No one wants to continuously cave into a bully then pretend it's "peace in our time".