• 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

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

                  Came around to what? I’m saying this is the begining of another sanctions regime - actually it started with Trump’s tradewar bullshit. There’s a clear escalation that these wars follow.

                  In every country they’re used, sanctions only ever get worse until the government collapses. Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, DPRK, and now Russia. It’s almost always a one way street to worse and harsher sanctions until it sparks a civil war. China is next.

                  Learn some fucking history.