this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
7 points (70.6% liked)

Technology

33717 readers
556 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I fully support industrial sabotage and hindering China's industrial development through economic warfare uwu

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Good idea, well said! Much better option to military warfare in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure, this isn't counter to that

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"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

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was referring to the other , more heavily sanctioned nations that I also mentioned. Obviously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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"

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.