Best Of

Worth considering that blockade has always been a legitimate tactic in warfare. In medieval and earier times we called it siege warfare but it was used extensively by all sides in the wars of the 20th century as well. It has been argued that it was the blockade of Germany that won WW1 for the Entente forces.

Having spent most of my life at sea* I agree that civilian sailors deserve better protection but in a world where civilian casualties including women and children seem to be accepted as necessary collateral damage, I am not sure what mileage there is in trying to get extra protection for seamen.

Blockades are (or were?) illegal. It's why the 1963 Cuban blockade was called a "quarantine". Apologies if somebody has already pointed this out.

And yet every country in a war has used them extensively to greater or lesser effect. And even not in war. The US is currently blockading Cuba and no one seems to be greatly exercised about it except the Cubans.

Oh, true, but warfare has many rules, often overlooked, sometimes held to assiduously. One of the reasons why Putin called it a "SMO" not a "war" was to try to get his ships thru the Dardanelles/Bosporus (I forget which) legally. Dum-dum bullets and flamethrowers are illegal now, but you can still use white phosphorus. A rifle with explosive ammunition had to be cancelled because it violated the Saint Petersburg declaration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE#Litigation

Worth considering that blockade has always been a legitimate tactic in warfare. In medieval and earier times we called it siege warfare but it was used extensively by all sides in the wars of the 20th century as well. It has been argued that it was the blockade of Germany that won WW1 for the Entente forces.

Having spent most of my life at sea* I agree that civilian sailors deserve better protection but in a world where civilian casualties including women and children seem to be accepted as necessary collateral damage, I am not sure what mileage there is in trying to get extra protection for seamen.

Civilian casualties should not be simply accepted, either. It's part and parcel of the same problem.

The global effects of indiscriminate attacks on shipping just make the problem more urgent/ difficult to ignore. And I hope provide some motivation for states to address it.

I agree. But as long as the US continues to attack civilian vessels at sea with seeming impunity I don't see much push to enforce the rules any time soon.

The US excatly hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to outrage about indiscrimante attacks on vessels.

I've always said it was to the UK and Argentina's immense credit that they set up a Red Cross Box during the Falklands War.

Both sides transferred wounded sailors/troops and supplies to ensure no lives were lost needlessly.

Trump, Bibi, and the Iranians would consider that utter woke nonsense/a sign of weakness.

I guess one of the issues is that in 1984 no-one in Britain hated the Argentinians. (And I don't think the Argentinians hated the Brits). So there was no real animosity.

Not the same for the ME where you sense there is generational hatred. How it ends is unclear.

Huh?

Thirty five years on and the Argentinians wanted to lynch the BBC Top Gear trio.

Thats after we had slaughtered there youth in the Falklands. No-one in the UK knew where Argentina was in 1982, let alone the Falklands.

People of PB, please attend carefully...

Draft 15 of the trans article has been up backstage since 4am 10Mar2026. Of the people currently cleared to see it (rcs1000, DavidL, fitalass, Cyclefree, TSE, Nigelb, kyf_100, turbotubbs) none have suggested further changes and I am in my weekday digs so are limited in what I can do anyway. So Draft 15 is going to be the prepublish version released to the prereaders.

If anybody wants to preread the article before it is released to the mods please let me know by liking this comment before 9pm 12Mar2026 and I'll add you to the backstage.

I'm not looking for an argument and kyf_100 and Cyclefree have added extensive well-argued arguments in both directions as discussants, so change/comment requests in either direction will probably be ignored. Given the very tight word count, additions will additionally be ignored. But if you spot errors, misnumbered sources, typos, bad punctuation, etc, please tell me and I'll change it/collapse screaming/politely note your point in the article.

I have had interest from Nigelb, kyf_100 (who can already see it) and I think @Andy_JS and Kinabalu want to be pre-readers (can you confirm this please?)

Please add me ?

Taz has been added to the backstage subgroup. Draft 15 is the one at the bottom. Go to "vf.politicalbetting.com" and click on the envelope on the top right.

@Andy_JS can you confirm if you want to be a pre-reader? If you do I will add you as well.

@Andy_JS, I note that you liked my post that said "If anybody wants to preread the article...please let me know by liking this comment", so I'll take that as confirmation.

Consequently @Andy_JS has been added to the backstage subgroup. Draft 15 is the one at the bottom. Go to "vf.politicalbetting.com" and click on the envelope on the top right.

Yes I would, thanks.

Worth considering that blockade has always been a legitimate tactic in warfare. In medieval and earier times we called it siege warfare but it was used extensively by all sides in the wars of the 20th century as well. It has been argued that it was the blockade of Germany that won WW1 for the Entente forces.

Having spent most of my life at sea* I agree that civilian sailors deserve better protection but in a world where civilian casualties including women and children seem to be accepted as necessary collateral damage, I am not sure what mileage there is in trying to get extra protection for seamen.

Blockades are (or were?) illegal. It's why the 1963 Cuban blockade was called a "quarantine". Apologies if somebody has already pointed this out.

And yet every country in a war has used them extensively to greater or lesser effect. And even not in war. The US is currently blockading Cuba and no one seems to be greatly exercised about it except the Cubans.

Worth considering that blockade has always been a legitimate tactic in warfare. In medieval and earier times we called it siege warfare but it was used extensively by all sides in the wars of the 20th century as well. It has been argued that it was the blockade of Germany that won WW1 for the Entente forces.

Having spent most of my life at sea* I agree that civilian sailors deserve better protection but in a world where civilian casualties including women and children seem to be accepted as necessary collateral damage, I am not sure what mileage there is in trying to get extra protection for seamen.

Civilian casualties should not be simply accepted, either. It's part and parcel of the same problem.

The global effects of indiscriminate attacks on shipping just make the problem more urgent/ difficult to ignore. And I hope provide some motivation for states to address it.

This is why international law is actually a good thing to try for. All fun and games until the freedom of navigation has been suspended, genocide tolerated, the Iranians are blowing up oil tankers, and thousands of orphans are preparing vengeance.

The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

Not sure Israel has fucked up. Seems to me they have got exactly what they wanted.

They want the Iranian regime gone. Not happened.

They want to be able to build the Trump resort and casino in Gaza without any threat of drone attacks. Not happened.

They want the US to continue to unconditionally support anything and everything they do. Not sure that happened.

Morning all!

I suspect that, given the mess that they will inherit, the next US President, assuming it's NOT a MAGA Republican, will have a considerably less adulatory view of Israel.
Israel, or perhaps it's 'just' Bibi appears to have conned the US into an unwinnable war. Unwinnable anyway unless the US uses ground troops in Iran.