>And given that the alternative involves killing people it's probably the best path we have

This argument pretends sanctions don't kill people. Limiting trade with a country makes it difficult for people in that country to get access to affordable drugs, killing many people with treatable diseases. We have seen this in Iran, where people with diabetes struggle to get insulin, haemophiliacs die unable to find necessary medication, and treatable cancers kill victims of all ages.

Further, lowering the wealth of a nation will make it harder for the poor to get the basic necessities like food and shelter.

Targeted sanctions may work differently, but they're far less proven than you claim.

> Targeted sanctions have historically been shown to work.

Do you mind providing an example or two, with a sentence about how they “worked?” I ask because I can’t think of any sanction that had any result besides further impoverishing the people while the leader stayed in power.

But I am a layman and I would be happy to be proven wrong.

The alternative is minding your own goddamn business if you’re not willing to commit to the necessary coercive steps.

Sanctions targeted at an individual are useless when they live in an unfriendly country. And sanctioning the whole country results in NK. Great, you’ve sent millions of people back to medieval life and dear leader still gets to hang out with Dennis Rodman when he wants. Very effective.

"Targeted sanctions have historically been shown to work."

I am not aware of any successful one?

"And given that the alternative involves killing people it's probably the best path we have. "

And why is that the only alternative?

How about targeted sanctions against actually responsible people with ties to the government?