4 ms·

Their hearts are in the right place, but the problem with campaigns like this is -- even if you trust, say, the United States government to hold to the spirit o

Their hearts are in the right place, but the problem with campaigns like this is -- even if you trust, say, the United States government to hold to the spirit of any such agreement, which I'm sure many here already wouldn't -- there is no reason to imagine that nations like Russia or China would. It's become well established that there is no penalty for violating international agreements as long as one is brazen enough about it.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
There are successful precedents with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Of course no treaty is perfect, but I'd argue that they've helped. As for punishments, isn't the standard punishment trade sanctions? They seem to be reasonably effective.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Not so much these days, since even the stereotypical bad actors have liberalized economies and so sanctions mean you're just leaving money on the table for a less scrupulous nation to scoop up. It's easy to put, and keep, global sanctions on a country like North Korea which produces and imports very little anyway (although even in that case they leak like a sieve.) But say, Iran, which has plentiful resources to export and a vibrant consumer economy? A very different story, as we're seeing right now. If there was ever a meaningful enforcement mechanism for these treaties, it no longer exists except in the case of the smallest, easiest targets.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    The actions of the North Korean government borders on genocide, if you have that level of contempt for your own people then trade sanctions are ineffective. However, in the case of Iran they appear to have done what they were intended to do, the stories I've seen from Iran indicate that the trade sanctions were a large part of what brought Iran to the negotiating table. Does this tie up with what you've read/seen?
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      Yes, it does. And to be clear, I'm not saying that sanctions were ineffective in this case: as you say, they'd be much more effective against a nation like Iran with a relatively open economy and society. However, that same factor makes most other nations much less eager to keep the sanctions, because they're losing the money they could make by trading with such a nation. So at the first chance to make a fig-leaf deal and abandon the sanctions, of course they jumped on it.
ijustcame 11y ago
>even if you trust, say, the United States government to hold to the spirit of any such agreement, which I'm sure many here already wouldn't -- there is no reason to imagine that nations like Russia or China would This is so wrong. When it comes to war, do not expect any side to be the innocent one. US would violate just as many frameworks and treaties as Russia or China can.
crpatino 11y ago
You seem to forget which is the only country in the world who has (twice) deployed a nuclear weapon upon a city full of civilians.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

There are successful precedents with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Of course no treaty is perfect, but I'd argue that they've helped. As for punishments, isn't the standard punishment trade sanctions? They seem to be reasonably effective.

13thLetter 11y ago
Not so much these days, since even the stereotypical bad actors have liberalized economies and so sanctions mean you're just leaving money on the table for a less scrupulous nation to scoop up. It's easy to put, and keep, global sanctions on a country like North Korea which produces and imports very little anyway (although even in that case they leak like a sieve.) But say, Iran, which has plentiful resources to export and a vibrant consumer economy? A very different story, as we're seeing right now. If there was ever a meaningful enforcement mechanism for these treaties, it no longer exists except in the case of the smallest, easiest targets.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  The actions of the North Korean government borders on genocide, if you have that level of contempt for your own people then trade sanctions are ineffective. However, in the case of Iran they appear to have done what they were intended to do, the stories I've seen from Iran indicate that the trade sanctions were a large part of what brought Iran to the negotiating table. Does this tie up with what you've read/seen?
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Yes, it does. And to be clear, I'm not saying that sanctions were ineffective in this case: as you say, they'd be much more effective against a nation like Iran with a relatively open economy and society. However, that same factor makes most other nations much less eager to keep the sanctions, because they're losing the money they could make by trading with such a nation. So at the first chance to make a fig-leaf deal and abandon the sanctions, of course they jumped on it.

ijustcame 11y ago

>even if you trust, say, the United States government to hold to the spirit of any such agreement, which I'm sure many here already wouldn't -- there is no reason to imagine that nations like Russia or China would This is so wrong. When it comes to war, do not expect any side to be the innocent one. US would violate just as many frameworks and treaties as Russia or China can.

crpatino 11y ago

You seem to forget which is the only country in the world who has (twice) deployed a nuclear weapon upon a city full of civilians.