Unless the crew takes up arms, I don’t see why boarding blockade runners involves violence. Armed resistance is just plain stupid from the perspective of the crew as there is no hope of winning.
With a billion people to pick from, do you really think China would be unable to crew a ship with people willing to resist boarders despite the likelihood that they would die in the resulting violence?
They only need one such ship to test the blockade, and demonstrate that its enforcement is an act of war.
And then what? Incite outrage on social media? Protest at the UN? It’s important to remind ourselves from time to time that beyond the social reality, there is also a physical reality where if the oil stops flowing, it stops flowing.
Your claim was that a blockade could be imposed without violence being involved. I think that claim is clearly false, as it seems you now admit.
You’re now claiming that it doesn’t matter if violence is involved. But if that’s the case, why did you think it was relevant to claim that violence wouldn’t occur?
Obviously, it does matter. After the US kills the crew of a Chinese merchant vessel, China will have no problem justifying sinking any US warship that gets close to a Chinese ship, whereas if merchant ships had just not tried to run the blockade, out of fear, sinking US warships would seem like China was starting the war.
And of course China can sink the US warships. Surface warships in today’s world are only good for show, and for intimidating poorly-armed parties. Perhaps the US would then resort to sinking Chinese merchant ships without warning using submarines or cruise missiles? Do you see how maybe this isn’t really an ideal approach...?
I think that claim is clearly false, as it seems you now admit.
Ok, I think I’ve seen enough internet arguments to know where this is going. Getting your opponent to “admit” stuff, old yet familiar tactics. Thank you for making me realize my error, and taking the decision off of me.
Goodbye LW, it’s been fun but we’ll both be better off without one another.
Unless the crew takes up arms, I don’t see why boarding blockade runners involves violence. Armed resistance is just plain stupid from the perspective of the crew as there is no hope of winning.
With a billion people to pick from, do you really think China would be unable to crew a ship with people willing to resist boarders despite the likelihood that they would die in the resulting violence?
They only need one such ship to test the blockade, and demonstrate that its enforcement is an act of war.
And then what? Incite outrage on social media? Protest at the UN? It’s important to remind ourselves from time to time that beyond the social reality, there is also a physical reality where if the oil stops flowing, it stops flowing.
Your claim was that a blockade could be imposed without violence being involved. I think that claim is clearly false, as it seems you now admit.
You’re now claiming that it doesn’t matter if violence is involved. But if that’s the case, why did you think it was relevant to claim that violence wouldn’t occur?
Obviously, it does matter. After the US kills the crew of a Chinese merchant vessel, China will have no problem justifying sinking any US warship that gets close to a Chinese ship, whereas if merchant ships had just not tried to run the blockade, out of fear, sinking US warships would seem like China was starting the war.
And of course China can sink the US warships. Surface warships in today’s world are only good for show, and for intimidating poorly-armed parties. Perhaps the US would then resort to sinking Chinese merchant ships without warning using submarines or cruise missiles? Do you see how maybe this isn’t really an ideal approach...?
Ok, I think I’ve seen enough internet arguments to know where this is going. Getting your opponent to “admit” stuff, old yet familiar tactics. Thank you for making me realize my error, and taking the decision off of me.
Goodbye LW, it’s been fun but we’ll both be better off without one another.