""I also am interested in the notion of trade as a weapon. We can use the threat of tariffs as effectively as we can the threat of military reprisal to achieve much of the same objectives.""
trade can indeed be used as a weapon , though I doubt youd capture anything stategic with a tariff.
BTW tariffs are much more preferable than quotas, which only end up giving the exporting nation a defacto cartel.
No, but you can make it easier. One of the reasons Saddam was unable to offer much resistance was because of the trade sanctions. If he had had the ability to buy his military hardware on the open market, resistance would have been much more.
Unless you have physical possession and control of the natural resources and production infrastructure, trade can be a very ineffective "weapon" that often backfires to shoot yourself in the foot.
It's much better to refrain from such targetted micromanagement and levy tariffs as a simple means of raising revenue only: flat rate applied equally to ALL imported goods, regardless of where they come from.
Such a "revenue tariff" is actually self-capping.
At relatively low rates, revenues increase with an increase in the tariff rate.
However, there is a point of diminishing returns when an increase in the tariff rate will reduce revenue because trade has been excessively discouraged.
Ideally, the revenue tariff should be set at the level that maximizes revenue, enabling other forms of domestic taxation to be reduced.