• protist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No they’re not. Economic sanctions meet no definition of siege warfare

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Warfare in which the defender is trapped in a position (such as a fort or castle) while the attacker bombards and/or barricades them from outside.

      It’s a barricade erected around a country to block the flow of goods and travel and finance, with the goal of subjecting civilians to economic hardship so they turn on their government. It’s a siege, with the goal of creating enough pain within the country to encourage internal sabotage, revolt, and treachery.

      Sanctions are warfare.

      • protist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        These sanctions would be to ensure the US maintains a technological advantage through prohibiting the export of cutting edge technology. I’m wondering if you actually read what you quoted above before continuing to say this.

        If you’re interested in actual modern examples of siege warfare, please read on

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just quoted a definition. Here, I’ll quote from your link.

          The essence of a siege lies in the encirclement of a defended area and the subsequent isolation of the enemy forces by cutting of their channels of supply and reinforcement with a view of inducing the enemy into submission by means of starvation.

          How does this not describe a sanctions regime? Obviously the sanctions on China are minor compared to other sanctioned nations, but look at the sanctions on Iran or Russia or Cuba or the Taliban regime. Encirclement, isolation, cutting channels of supply and reinforcement, and the goal in all those casrs is to induce the enemy into submission. Starvation isn’t uncommon.

          The sanctions are meant to hurt the enemy.

          • protist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Starvation isn’t uncommon”

            Since the whole point is starvation, you should probably expound on how a ban on semiconductor technology exports to China will induce starvation

              • protist
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh ok, I didn’t realize we had strayed off topic. So it sounds like we’re in agreement these semiconductor sanctions against China are not “siege warfare”

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I say it’s an opening salvo. Do you think it’ll stop here?

                  Just because the siege hasn’t fully begun doesn’t change what it is at its core.

                  • protist
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not buying your slippery slope fallacy, but again, I’m glad you came around