7 ms·

> As a means of forcing someone to unwillingly settle a dispute in your favor that is. what kind of strange take it is? What do you think war is ?

• user3939382 5y ago
  Someone recently explained their view, that sanctions are akin to siege warfare in days of old. Whether you agree with that analogy or not, there is an underlying valid point that not all warfare requires physical violence. We use the term cyber warfare as another example.
  • chaosite 5y ago
    Cyber-warfare is in most instances comparable to sabotage as used in warfare. I can see the point you're making about sanctions being similar to siege warfare. The main difference being that sieges separate you from your own forces and allies in a way that sanctions don't.
    • zardo 5y ago
      They are more like blockades, they just use diplomacy and legal systems instead of parking ships with big guns outside the harbor. And I suppose the difference between a siege and a blockade is pretty much whether or not you fire those big guns into the city.
      • anikan_vader 5y ago
        I mean, they're really more like trade embargoes, which have existed for hundreds of years. Thomas Jefferson reacted to the Chesapeake affair, for example, by cutting off all international US trade. In retrospect, probably a pretty ineffective foreign policy choice, since it tanked the US economy and didn't particularly hurt the Brits, who were happy that France could no longer trade with the US. (This occurred during the background of the Napoleonic wars and the Royal Navy impressing US sailors).
  • esyir 5y ago
    Yes, but when people say war in isolation, the vast majority of the population take that that, rightfully so, to refer to the conventional bullets flying tanks rolling, literally death dealing war.
  • esyir 5y ago
    They can be analogous to war, but the whole response about"oh no, what sanctions are also war" is just playing rhetorical games. When people say war, the vast majority of the population will take it to mean boots on the ground, military involved, bullets flying war. The sarcastic
  • esyir 5y ago
    Yes, but when people say war in isolation, the vast majority of the population take that that, rightfully so, to refer to the conventional bullets flying tanks rolling, literally death dealing war. Axlees post above reads in amazingly bad faith. It's just a "oh, you're not using this nonstandard definition you fool" type sarcastic response to dismiss the point, contributing nothing in itself.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > there is an underlying valid point that not all warfare requires physical violence. All warfare requires physical violence. If it's not physically violent, “warfare” is being used as a loose metaphor, not a factual description. > We use the term cyber warfare as another example. Cyberwarfare not directed at or effectuating physical destruction of materiel and/or persons is merely metaphorical rather than actual warfare, or is part of the information component of a broader war. (OTOH, cyberwarfare can be, in fact, a direct means of achieving physical destruction of materiel and/or persons.)
    • bradlys 5y ago
      No, sorry. It doesn’t. You can destroy bridges. No violence there. Yet now you can’t feed the troops. That is still a form of warfare.
      • dismantlethesun 5y ago
        Is destruction of property still violence? Sanctions aren’t hindering anyones property, it’s just refusing to do business with your hated enemy.
• BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  Sanctions are economic warfare.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    By that standard, all international intercourse is one or another form of warfare.
    • rbanffy 5y ago
      When intended to harm one party, yes. When the US technically and financially supported the groups that caused the illegal removal of the previous elected Brazilian president, it was warfare. When Putin financially supports the French far-right, it’s also warfare.
• tc313 5y ago
  That’s what he’s saying. Sanctions are war without bullets.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    War is diplomacy with bullets.