Someone recently explained their view, that sanctions are akin to siege warfare in days of old. Whether you agree with that analogy or not, there is an underlying valid point that not all warfare requires physical violence. We use the term cyber warfare as another example.

> there is an underlying valid point that not all warfare requires physical violence.

All warfare requires physical violence. If it's not physically violent, “warfare” is being used as a loose metaphor, not a factual description.

> We use the term cyber warfare as another example.

Cyberwarfare not directed at or effectuating physical destruction of materiel and/or persons is merely metaphorical rather than actual warfare, or is part of the information component of a broader war. (OTOH, cyberwarfare can be, in fact, a direct means of achieving physical destruction of materiel and/or persons.)

No, sorry. It doesn’t. You can destroy bridges. No violence there. Yet now you can’t feed the troops.

That is still a form of warfare.

Is destruction of property still violence?

Sanctions aren’t hindering anyones property, it’s just refusing to do business with your hated enemy.

Cyber-warfare is in most instances comparable to sabotage as used in warfare.

I can see the point you're making about sanctions being similar to siege warfare. The main difference being that sieges separate you from your own forces and allies in a way that sanctions don't.

They are more like blockades, they just use diplomacy and legal systems instead of parking ships with big guns outside the harbor.

And I suppose the difference between a siege and a blockade is pretty much whether or not you fire those big guns into the city.

I mean, they're really more like trade embargoes, which have existed for hundreds of years. Thomas Jefferson reacted to the Chesapeake affair, for example, by cutting off all international US trade. In retrospect, probably a pretty ineffective foreign policy choice, since it tanked the US economy and didn't particularly hurt the Brits, who were happy that France could no longer trade with the US. (This occurred during the background of the Napoleonic wars and the Royal Navy impressing US sailors).

Yes, but when people say war in isolation, the vast majority of the population take that that, rightfully so, to refer to the conventional bullets flying tanks rolling, literally death dealing war.

Axlees post above reads in amazingly bad faith. It's just a "oh, you're not using this nonstandard definition you fool" type sarcastic response to dismiss the point, contributing nothing in itself.

Yes, but when people say war in isolation, the vast majority of the population take that that, rightfully so, to refer to the conventional bullets flying tanks rolling, literally death dealing war.

They can be analogous to war, but the whole response about"oh no, what sanctions are also war" is just playing rhetorical games.

When people say war, the vast majority of the population will take it to mean boots on the ground, military involved, bullets flying war. The sarcastic

That’s what he’s saying. Sanctions are war without bullets.

War is diplomacy with bullets.

Sanctions are economic warfare.

By that standard, all international intercourse is one or another form of warfare.

When intended to harm one party, yes. When the US technically and financially supported the groups that caused the illegal removal of the previous elected Brazilian president, it was warfare.

When Putin financially supports the French far-right, it’s also warfare.