Hacker News Reader

Comment by beepbooptheory | Hacker News Reader

In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less?

Being direct about these kinds of questions would maybe help us understand where you are coming from here.

View on HN

A blockade is an act of war, carried out by military force. Saying the US is blockading Cuba is saying that the US and Cuba are at war. That alone is a pretty big reason to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.

The other important dimension is that countries participating in the embargo are choosing to participate in the embargo. This is distinct from a blockade which is done unilaterally. The Royal Navy didn't let ships into Germany ports during WW1 if they paid a tariff. No, they seized ships bound for Germany, because that was an actual blockade.

An embargo is when countries decline to trade with you on their own accord.

A blockade is when a country uses military force to physically stop other countries from trading with you, even if those other countries want to trade with you.

They're pretty substantially different.

The US won’t even admit to being at war with Iran, and more explicit acts of war have clearly been committed there.

An act of war also isn’t the same as being in one. It takes two to tango, to some extent. Many acts of war do not result in one.

Act of war, no war: https://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/18/britain.marines/...

Is the meaningful thing you are trying to get across here something like: "everyone is saying USA is doing something really bad, but in fact they are not"?

Or maybe more: "ok USA might have it a little out for Cuba, but remember, everyone else hates them too, otherwise they would be trading with them"?

The meaningful thing is to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.

When people say that the US is blockading Cuba I'm not sure if they are genuinely misinformed and think that the US Navy and Coast Guard are physically apprehending any ships trying to dock in Cuba, or if they are just ignorant about the difference between a blockade and an embargo.

You are quibbling over minor semantics. Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?

> You are quibbling over minor semantics.

You all are. Why not just concede it's an embargo not a blockade and move on?

> Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?

Sometimes questions like that obscure more than they elucidate. If you're debating if a killing is murder or involuntary manslaughter, it doesn't prove your point to ask if the man is dead.

Ok but if it is a murder/involuntary manslaughter-esque distinction, why not just say that? I feel like I made it really easy to do that and wasn't couching it in an accusation or any kind of hyperbole.

Just, please, tell it to me straight, I'm a little slow. Is that what we are saying? That everyone is claiming murder, but actually it's more involuntary?

> Ok but if it is a murder/involuntary manslaughter-esque distinction, why not just say that?

It's a distinction between two different things that have some similarities (in this case, a cessation of trade) but important differences.

The fact that oil imports are being curtailed by an embargo rather than a blockade is not minor semantics. The former is when countries voluntarily cease to trade with someone. The latter is when a country deploys its military to seize vessels trying to reach the blockade target. It's also an act of war.

If people really think it's a minor semantics difference, then they should just be honest and correctly refer to the situation as an embargo, not a blockade.

...so that is a 'no' to the question, right?

No what? The US's embargo and threats to tariff countries that don't match this embargo is blocking most but not all oil bound for Cuba. Russia, for example, continues to trade with Cuba because it's willing to tolerate increase in tariffs (not that Russia is trading much with the US anyway).

If this were a blockade then the US would be boarding Russian oil tankers even if they're legally flagged as a Russian vessel.

If you really think the distinction between blockade and embargo is irrelevant then we can just acknowledge that it's an embargo, not a blockade, and move on.

Ok! So the answer is in fact 'yes', with once again the rider that it is not something we should call a blockade. That seems fine with me, I think we agree about the important thing here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com