[codeflo]

I have two issues with this reasoning.

First, as a German (!), I always have a hard time with articles that claim bombing Germany in WW2 somehow wasn’t justified. What would have been the alternative? Leave the regime in power? Concede half or more of Europe? Shrug your shoulders and accept the industrial scale genocide? Note that almost the entire population was part of this murderous machine in some capacity, and to some extent willingly so. To have any hope of democratizing Germany at all, the defeat had to be total. I haven’t seen very credible evidence that this could have been accomplished with milder measures.

Second, there’s an important ethical difference between sanctions and strategic bombing. The attacker chooses what to bomb. With sanctions, the target nation can choose which sectors of their economy their limited resources keep going into. Yes, autocracies will reliably loot and starve their population for the benefit of the military and their political friends. But that’s still their choice, not ours, and I think that’s an important distinction in terms of the moral implications.

[jmyeet]

> I always have a hard time with articles that claim bombing Germany in WW2 somehow wasn’t justified. What would have bern the alternative?

There's a distinction between military action and indiscriminate bombing of civilian population centers (eg Dresden, Tokyo). "Strategic bombing" here specifically refers to a policy of total destruction that intentionally leads to massive civilian death. It's the same policy that led to the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This isn't an argument against any form of bombing.

> With sanctions, the target nation can choose which sectors of their economy their limited resources keep going into

In some ways that's worse. Put it this way: who do you think is bearing the brunt of sanctions in Russia? Is it Putin and the oligarchs or the poor?

Not that I'm defending strategic bombing (I'm really not) but at least there's a chance you may take out noteworthy targets. With sanctions you definitely won't.

The whole idea idea of sanctions is twofold:

1. Starve the war machine of resources; and

2. Prompt the populace to take actions against their leadership.

The second has shown to be incredibly ineffective. The premise is a dangerous one too. Why? Because it's the same argument used to support terrorism.

[codeflo]

I have no illusions about the effect, I hope my last sentences made that clear. But I disagree about framing the cause the way you do. Let’s say I somehow depend on you, and I want food and Pokemon cards, but you don’t give you enough money to buy both, just one of the two. And I go and buy the Pokemon cards. Is it really your fault that I’m hungry?

[jmyeet]

This is too binary.

Consider instead that 10,000 people collectively want food (necessities), Pokemon cards (luxuries) and electronics for military equipment (materiel). Before sanctions they bought all of these things. With sanctions they cannot. What will be the impact? The military will still get their requipment and the military as well as the rich and powerful will still get food (and probably their Pokemon cards) while the poor and vulnerable will starve.

[codeflo]

But again, who is it that makes that call?