Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
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.
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
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.
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”
No they’re not. Economic sanctions meet no definition of siege warfare
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.
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
I just quoted a definition. Here, I’ll quote from your link.
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.
“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
I was referring to the other , more heavily sanctioned nations that I also mentioned. Obviously.
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”
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.
I’m not buying your slippery slope fallacy, but again, I’m glad you came around