Do Economic Sanctions Work

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think it can work if a country has enough to lose. It did definitely influence Iran and brought them to the negotiating table with Obama. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is another discussion. But it definitely strangled Iran's capital to the point where it was willing to negotiate.

But yeah, every time a nation violates international norms or laws, you as the most powerful nation in the world have to decide what you're willing to do about it. Is the violation really worth the lives of our military?

There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.

So far I would agree nothing with Russia or China has gotten me anywhere close to the point where I definitely see the red line. Syria's use of nerve gas against its own people, that was a different story. I don't think I would have been able to let that go, if I were president.

Of course, then your reward for doing the right thing would be miring yourself in a Syrian nightmare of a power vacuum.

Sometimes there's no good answer.

Reviving this post for the NK situation. I am curious if any here could define a line where a military solution becomes viable. I am talking about the old shock and awe type solution, not a flyover or decapitation strategy.

It's my opinion that the NK army is a straw man like the first gulf war. I believe that if you barrage the frontline artillery positions that can reach Seoul, and at the same time take out the known missile launchers, that the North soldiers would surrender en masse.

BUT, At what point is that option even viable?
Now, I don't think so.

but what if a missile lands at or near Guam? or Alaska?

What is your point of no return? As Schneed said above: There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.