> economic sanctions should be recognized as the weapons they actually are

You don’t need a study to conclude the mortality of actual weapons.

Sanctions are bad. But war is horrible.

Did you skip right over the Lancet sentence that concluded the annual toll caused by unilateral sanctions (over 564k) is comparable to armed conflict?

> the annual toll caused by unilateral sanctions (over 564k) is comparable to armed conflict?

In aggregate. America isn’t in armed conflict with those folks. If everyone we sanctioned were attacked, more people would die.

I am saying that sanctions are weapon of sorts and have worse effects than people realize, and you seem to be saying their effects are not as bad as those of kinetic weapons. Despite Lancet concluding their tolls are comparable.

What are the economic death tolls of wars? It seems like those should be included.

Moreover, it's kind of consequentialist morality ignores the distinction of active harm versus failure to Aid.

This should play a role when one considers something an attack or weapon.

Is less than maximal charity an attack?

Is it an attack when someone refuses to sleep with someone else?

Norms around choice versus entitlement distinguish the two.

If I blockade you in your house, is that failure to aid? Or something else? Sanctions occur via commission, not omission. They’re not a failure to render aid or to be maximally charitable. They’re active harm.

Blockade and sanctions are entirely different.

Sanctions are omission, blockade is comission. These words are currently being conflated.

> International sanctions are restrictions on international transactions imposed by governments in pursuit of foreign policy objectives.

Imposing a restriction where one did not previously exist is quite obviously a commission.

If I decide to stop buying bread from the baker in boycott, is that a commission? It is certainly a change of state, but the status quo does not entitle ongoing purchases. This is a sanction. I can also extend this boycott to anyone else who shops at the baker. That still is not a commission. It is a refusal to interact.

A blockade is different. It is a threat to use force for disobedience. IF I threaten to beat other who willingly shop at the baker.

Disagree

If economic sanctions aren’t weapons, then why do sovereign nations deploy them against other sovereign nations to achieve their will?

Because actual weapons are much worse, don't you try to exhaust all options until you stop dropping bombs on people?

I replied to a comment mentioning deaths from sanctions.

Other than our monkey brains prioritizing physical violence as worse, I don’t see a functional different between deaths from sanctions and deaths from bombs.

Sanctions are the prelude to inevitable war, as WW2, Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine have shown.

US Treasury Secretary in Davos this week:

When asked, “Do sanctions actually work (on Iran)?”, Bessent replied:

If you look at a speech I gave at the economic club of New York last March, I said that I believe the Iranian currency was on the verge of collapse, that if I were an Iranain citizen, I would take my money out.

President Trump ordered treasury and our OFAC division, (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked because in December, their economy collapsed, we saw a major bank go under, the central bank has started to print money, there is a dollar shortage, they are not able to get imports and this is why the people took to the streets.

He added, “This is economic statecraft, no shots fired, and things are moving in a very positive way here.” https://the307.substack.com/p/at-the-wef-scott-bessent-says-...