Why can't we use economic boycotts and sanctions more and bombs and bullets less?

Answer 1

Bad for trade. If you never shoot the bombs or bullets then you don't need to replace them and then John Q public doesn't have a job at the local ammunition factor and christ that's bad for the local incumbent's popularity numbers and where are we going to distract the voting public's attention?

A less cynical answer might be that the economic sanctions take a long time to make a difference, generally punish the civilian population more than the government in power and sanctions are hard to enforce.

Answer 2

Economic sanctions are only effective against nations where the leader is responsible to the will of the people.

In an authoritarian form of government the end result of economic sanctions is poorer citizens, starving citizens, and a leader who is personally unaffected.

Economic sanctions by the US against Cuba have remained in place for over 50 years with absolutely no change on the policies of Fidel Castro.

Conversely, economic sanctions against a democracy work in about a week. Observe how the Japanese get the US jumping through hoops every time there is whiff of Mad Cow Disease.

Economic sanctions cause a dictator no pain at all and a democratic leader all of the pain in the world.

Answer 3

Thats a worn out idea. When is the last time that worked. I can tell you the last time it didn't work. The sanctions on Iraq were ineffective because they were bypassed by U.N. officials lining their own pockets, the French, Russians, and Germans. No coincidence these were the same governments who opposed the use of force because it would wreck their money making sanction busting scheme.

If you're talking about a blockcade that would be a different story. But you better be ready to shoot down French, German, and Russian planes. As for me I have no problem with that.

Answer 4

i think of the concern is with coping with different countries our hands are rather tied. i think of imposing sanctions is seen as between the toughest efforts to convincing yet another usa of our or the international perspectives in assessment to a defense force conflict. Political leaders all over the realm conflict with looking a sturdy selection to going into conflict. they initiate with negotiations, elevating import taxes, sanctions, and finally there ought to be a determination whether it rather is extreme adequate disagrement to pass to conflict. All countries that are no longer at peace with you will could fall someplace on that spectrum. As for countries that don't care approximately their human beings. international leaders would use sanctions in hopes that the voters of that usa might upward push up for themselves and demand honest medical care. regrettably the human beings in those countries are already so oppressed that it does not continually artwork out the way it rather is meant.

Answer 5

Economic Sanctions end up trickling down and only end up hurting the normal everyday folk.

Castro wasn't living the life of poverty. His people were.

Answer 6

Economic boycott requres many people on the same page,that won't happen in America, sorry

Answer 7

Cause then how would all the big business weapons manufacturers get paid... no war means nobody buys weapons which means daddy doesn't get that hoe he wanted for Christmas... people at war... people buy weapons... big business profit margin increases... daddy gets three hoes for christmas... Happy New Year...!

Answer 8

Because a small group makes tons of money from war. It enables enormous transfers of wealth.

Answer 9

Aw but then you'd lose all the fun of going in guns blazing, lol.

You're right. They should.

Answer 10

Russia and China will still trade with them. It doesn't work unless everyone does it.