The UK floods are still wreaking havoc. I have friends who live in the Thames Valley area and they are out of danger, but many other people are not so fortunate. Besides the damage to homes, another problem will be the damage to crops. In my native East Anglia, the wheat harvest – the area is a sort of mini-version of the North American plains – is likely to be poor. Horticulture, in areas like Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire on the Fens, has been hammered, although thanks to modern greenhouses and the like, not everything has been lost. We can expect prices of groceries, or at least some items, to go up, at least in the short run.
That got me wondering about our food supplies. As I mentioned in a previous post, the terrible summer of 1845 led to the Irish famine. In centuries past, bad weather was not just destructive in some ways but it also meant people starved in their millions. That is unlikely to happen now. And one reason for that is that we are no longer reliant on home-grown food. Food production is not only much greater because of modern techniques, drainage, use of fertilisers and machinery, but also because the 60m souls on this sodden island have access to a global market for food. Free trade can be a risk – this nation’s food supply routes need to be protected by naval forces, as we found out during the German U-boat menace – but in normal circumstances, having a diverse range of non-UK supplies for food makes great sense, particularly as climatic conditions change, as some argue.
The next time you watch a programme or read an article going on about the wonders of self-sufficiency and which bash supermarkets and global trade in foodstuffs, ponder what would happen if we really were reliant on the local farmers for everything we eat.
“Free trade can be a risk – this nation’s food supply routes need to be protected by naval forces, as we found out during the German U-boat menace”
This is the received wisdom but I have my doubts. What if the British Government had left the production and supply of food to the free market during WW2, rather than nationalising it, as they did? Surely the more challenging the conditions, the more need there is for the efficiency and ingenuity of the free market?
Julius
Don’t forget tho, Greenpeace want fresh food flown in from abroad to be stripped of its “organic” status.
Surely, in circumstances such as these, this will cause famine in Islington?
Let us hope so.
I have long said that the key to ending famine is to end subsistence farming.
I wonder how the likes of “River Cottage” – now likely to be “middle of vast lake Cottage” – would survive. Relying on your neighbours who know you and are likely to extend charity may be equally futile as they are as likely to be inundated too.
Obviously I agree, Julius, but my point was about the U-boat threat and the consequent need for a naval force to counter it. U-boat attacks had to be dealt with. In future, our shipments of food might be attacked in other ways, and as the primary function of government is to protect life and property, this is something to think about when it comes to food security.
As for how we manage food production, well I am clearly a free marketeer. No debate there.
Another threat to food supplies is the increasing use of wheat to produce bio-fuels – not just in the UK but globally.
Another threat to food supplies is the increasing use of wheat to produce bio-fuels
Nah, despite current legislation and new practices using biofuel is such an environmentally and economically disastrous practice that even the EU and NuLab will stop promoting it soon.
By soon, I mean within no more than a few years. Hell, creation of palm oil plantations, a first class biofuel starter material, is destroying vast quantities of rainforest, and how can this lot countenance that?
Cognitive dissonance will take them out, if nothing else does.
Prior to the industrial evolution, the UK population had reached a plateau of 7 million. This was (in theory) the ideal number that could be fed under pre-industrial farming methods. Obviously, even if the global supply of food were to be cut off, post industrial farming would be able to support far more than 7 million. How far short of the current 65million population these methods would fall (if at all) is difficult to calculate.
Eamon,
I don’t think that’s entirely the point of importing food. There’s a lot of stuff we can’t grow here.
The whole “eat, fresh, local seasonal produce” thing as an ethical position gives me the right hump. I usually fancy something more interesting than a mess of pottage.
The whole green movement and especially its approach to farming strikes me as heading towards neo-feudalism.
Such a co-incidence that a major proponent is the Prince of Wails.
The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did not nationalize the production of food duing World War II – although there were vast amounts of regulations (even more than today). One farmer got into such an argument over the regulations that he was threatened with having his land stolen (other land was stolen for military bases and other such – but not because of a desire for state farms) and he ended up getting killed in an exchange of gun fire.
But one farmer being killed (although bad) is hardly like Stalin and collectivization – farming was certainly not nationalized here.
As for distribution. Shops and other such remained mostly in private hands (although there were the “British Retaurants” opened by the government). But they had to deal with rationing – this was done by means of the “black” (i.e. regulation violating) market. Although some people refused on principle to knowingly buy “black market” goods.
Actually rationing got stricter after World War II – for example bread rationing was introduced in 1946 (which casts doubt on the reasons for rationing).
It is claimed that government control can increase production in the short term (because goverment is not worried about capital consumption – i.e. about wreaking such things as factories and transport systems by overuse and neglecting maintainence).
This may be so, but one should be careful about the claim (although by “eating overseas investments” government was able to maintain consumption during World War II – thus giving that fool A.W. Benn an “argument” about the wonders of statism that he has been using for decades).
For example, the Germans introduced “war socialism” during World War One (after 1916) and yet French shell production was higher.
And remember that heavy industry was larger in Germany than in France before the war – and much of the industrial area of France was occupied during the war.
As for the modern claim “if X happens we must have statism” this is often wrong headed.
For example, the first thing that govenment tends to do in the case of fire, flood (or whatever) is to introduce price controls – and then they seem shocked when there is a shortage of the stuff whose prices they have tried to rig (to prevent “exploitation”).
Breakdown of international trade:
If that happens you would be better off in New Zealand (slightly bigger than Britain, mostly good farm country, and a population less than a tenth of the size).
Round here we would soon be eating each other. Not just a matter of th growth of popualtion, or the decline of manufacturing industry, or the dependence of modern farming on chemicals and other such (although all these things are true). There is also the problem that civil society is much weaker in the modern United Kingdom than it was decades ago.
The various ethnic groups would turn on each other for a start.
Of course that would not be a problem in Hampstead and Highgate, given that Hampstead Heath is rather ‘fertile’ in human residues, as one might say …
A whole new meaning to “Do you fancy an Indian or Chinese”
The various ethnic groups would turn on each other for a start.
I was watching the TV News last night and saw a little of this happening already.
The army was distributing bottled water in Gloucester, doing a great job, but the packs were rationed to 2 per family.
There was a family who were obviously of the Muslim persuasion, filling the back of their car with as much as they could carry.
They were remonstrated with, but basically flicked the rest of us the V and drove off.
You could see that onlookers were seething, but a bit too preoccupied at the moment to smack them in the mouth.
Common values Gordon? Coming together as unified communities Gordon? Some hope.
How dare you refer to this place as a ‘sodden island’.
It is a ‘sodding island’.
pietr,
I caught that word play and assumed it was deliberate. It gave me a chuckle.
Johnathan,
I am (pretty obviously, I hope) totally opposed to all agricultural subsidies intended to influence the market. There is only one exception to this that comes to mind.
I look at countries like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea and think that they would be wise as a military defense move, to maintain a subsistence amount of basic agricultural capacity. It is entirely predictable that when these nations have skills far more lucrative than agriculture, free trade based market forces would drive all land out of agriculture. In the case of the countries I named, it is very conceivable that they could have their ability to import food substantially blocked for prolonged periods during a military conflict.
It seems only reasonable that there should be an alternative available until trade can be restored. I think this was your specific point and if so, I agree that it is a very important one.
I‘ve read recently that China and India are starting to import more and more wheat for their populations, and that we consequently need to produce more close to home. As population growth continues, is it not going to be more and more likely that countries will need to keep their own home-produced food products rather than export it to people like us? And I would think it likely that agro-terrorism – which is surprisingly easy – could become prevalent in the future and the quality of home produced food is easier to police.
And I find it interesting that the question of food production and provision should arise so soon after the thread “People should be banned” on July 13, 2007, in which the idea of controlling population was ridiculed. To me it is indisputable that a smaller population (in addition to various other benefits) makes for greater food security.
Paul,
But one farmer being killed (although bad) is hardly like Stalin and collectivization – farming was certainly not nationalized here.
Are you going for understatement of the month?
RAB,
Call me jaded and all but what’s the odds those Muslims were then going to put it on sale in their corner shop at a vastly hyped price. Damn Flood Profiteers.
There is no way that these countries (and the UK and many more…) can be self sufficient in food, given their current population.
They need to invest in a navy and an air force, not in agriculture…
Actually, I specified “subsistence”, and for a presumably limited time at that. Japan is currently about 50% self sufficient at full consumption levels. It is entirely reasonable that with careful preparation, they could attain a much higher percentage at subsistence levels. Certainly by eliminating beef and dairy during siege, they could probably get by for quite a while. Taiwan’s situation is similar and South Korea’s is probably better.
Also Jacob. I find it interesting that arguably the greatest naval power of all time (the UK) had the difficulty they did protecting their merchant shipping from Nazi Germany. Do you really, seriously, even briefly believe that these isolated nations could sustain merchant shipping (including those wonderfully fast and defensible oil tankers) against the growing power of a potentially hostile China? Especially in these days of long range intelligent cruise etc missiles? They would almost certainly have to endure long enough for free western nations to consent, plan, and come to their defense.
Good defense planning will stockpile durables and make appropriate plans for perishables. But these programs must at all times be recognized as, funded through, and measured against national defense. They must never be justified on ‘social’ or economic grounds.
I hope no nation ever counts on your ‘planning’.
Farming itself may not have been directly nationalized, but what is rationing if not the nationalization of food consumption? As Hayek explained, even if you do not nationalize the entire industry, the moment you put one of its links under direct government control, the rest of the chain looses the freedom of action necessary for the market to work; that is how a creeping nationalization starts.
As for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, China is currently not strong enough to blockade Japan (or even have any chance of defeating them); as for the other two, the jury is still out.
One could object that self-sufficiency can protect you in case your neighbors collude to starve you (or uboats are roaming) and that buying from outside is still an option once you are “self-sufficient” in case of natural disaster.
Although I do think the risk is ridiculously low, if you’re arguing with someone who against common sense is genuinely convinced that subsidized agriculture is a necessary hedge, you can say that if it were the case, supermarkets would want to profit from food shortage by having access to greater supply, thus they would buy insurance contracts to be sure their supply is maintained. The insurer would in turn decide to subsidize agriculture with the premium money to hedge its risk, the market would ensure that self-reliance agriculture is subsidized at the optimal protection level.
There is an interesting speculative novel waiting to be written about the eventual reawakening of the Yellowstone super-volcano.
As regards this topic, the almost certain destruction of the grain producing plains of both Canada and the US brought about by such an eruption would have a profound cascading effect on the food supplies, and therefore the political and economic conditions, in many areas of the world.
We like to think we live in a secure, civilized world, far removed from the chaos of a Somalia or Sudan, but that gruesome reality is much closer than we are comfortable facing.
It’s easy to demand organic or free range or natural or what not when the local markets are stuffed with food of all kinds, and most everyone around you is able to provide for themselves and their families.
The tune changes when there is nothing available, and you live with the sound of your children crying from hunger again and again. Then, all those social graces and civilized niceties start to disappear, melting away like snowbanks in April.
I was watching a documentary recently about the Little Ice Age in Europe from about 1300 to 1800. It mentioned that there were over 100 famine years recorded in France alone, in which the crops failed, and people were starving. There were no national or international agencies capable of relief. People just died.
For Greens, starving humanity (by any means, including blockage of trade) is not a bug. It’s a feature.
Arthur B,
I appreciate your intention. But I question its ability to work in respect to an act of national aggression for several reasons. For one thing, insurance against running out of food? So the store owner gets paid money, what do the store’s customers eat?
I do think there is a market based solution, though. Rather than the solution you propose, a market in guaranteed delivery food futures would probably be the way to go. Food storage methods, quantities, and qualities and everything else would need to be fully disclosed to the buyers. There would have to be fairly extreme consequences for fraud to defeat criminals selling fraudulent delivery contracts and counting on getting away in the ensuing chaos.
All the same, people who didn’t buy adequate food reserves, or who were defrauded, would likely use violence to get food and that is clearly a national defense matter.
As for “I do think the risk is ridiculously low”, isn’t that precisely how these situations arise? It “can’t” happen. But then it does.
Frederick Davies,
One doesn’t need to project too far into the future and China may well be able to build seriously capable missiles with off-the-shelf components made for other customers. I suspect their historically pathetic state of missile ‘defense’ is already becoming a thing of the past.
You touched on an important issue: it’s not only food that is lacking, it’s also oil (fuel, energy) and other raw materials needed to keep a country running. You need fuel to produce food. There is no way for many countries (Japan is a good example) to become self sufficient in all these. (Another example: Israel, or Saudi Arabia).
You try to survive the best you can: by combining military power, with a system of alliances, and, if necessary – coming to terms with your potential adversaries. It’s not military power alone. The military power, though, helps a lot, even in getting better terms with your allies and adversaries.
Few nations could survive in total isolation from the rest of the world.
So very true. And laying in stores sufficient for a reasoned amount of time is a fundamental option increasing basic. Have you never heard of siege warfare? The tools and scales may change but the techniques of war tend to remain.
Another reason for food reserves is to have sufficient food stuffs for situations involving large scale contamination or destruction of agriculture lands. Ones like VR referred to or a nuclear event downwind of a major production area. I have total confidence free market nations can adapt quickly and appropriately. But not retroactively.
Important in maintaining peace, is being strong enough and prepared enough to not provide an tempting target. Simply knowing the target is strong and prepared will prevent most wars.
Nick M
I don’t think that’s entirely the point of importing food. There’s a lot of stuff we can’t grow here.
I am not sure what “point” you thought I was making there Nick. I certainly wasn’t implying that importing food was done in order to increase the population. The simple fact that food could be imported cheaply and with high EROEI just removed a long-standing brake off population growth.
The point I was trying to make was that we don’t actually know what the shortfall between our indigenous farming output and our basic food requirements is (if indeed there is a shortfall). I for one would be interested to know as a purely abstract question first of all, but also as a predictor for how long food would be readily available in the highly unlikely event of overseas imports being cut off.
There’s an easy way around it:
Keep a stash in your own home ahead of time. That way, you won’t even care that it costs seven bucks a liter at the Quickie-Mart. Profiteers can only “take advantage” of people willing to pay panic prices for goods, and people who have their cushion of supplies are far less likely to panic.
After Katrina, one of our state legislators introduced a bill which would basically ban price increases in bad times. I’m not an economist: I came to libertarianism from another direction and I rely on intuition rather than education to tell me that free markets are good and compulsion is bad. However, it seems to me obvious that increased demand on a relatively fixed supply will drive the price up. If the price is artificially barred from increasing to match demand, then people are far less likely to sell, and supplies will be unavailable at any price.
On the other hand, if the agency handing out the water said “two cases per household” and one family was cramming them in, then the third case would IMHO be theft from the distributor. An ass-whooping would be the order of the day, perhaps. However, if that’s the worst breakdown of civil society seen in the UK floods, then you guys are better off than I feared. We sent some guys south after Katrina, and they had nothing good to say about New Orleans.
Midwesterner, you say:
Insurance doesn’t have to be money based. As I said,
thus they would buy insurance contracts to be sure their supply is maintained. I may have been unclear but I was suggesting that the insurance deliver actual fool, which is similar to what you are suggesting.
The article seems to imply that free trade means that shortages are less likely since natural catastrophes are not likely to affect every part of the world at once. However, one feature of free trade is a higher work division which may mean a high geographical concentration of food production. At some point if this turned out to be a problem, I guess risk would be priced in, more forward food contracts would be created …
Midwesterner, you say:
Insurance doesn’t have to be money based. As I said,
thus they would buy insurance contracts to be sure their supply is maintained. I may have been unclear but I was suggesting that the insurance deliver actual fool, which is similar to what you are suggesting.
The article seems to imply that free trade means that shortages are less likely since natural catastrophes are not likely to affect every part of the world at once. However, one feature of free trade is a higher work division which may mean a high geographical concentration of food production. At some point if this turned out to be a problem, I guess risk would be priced in, more forward food contracts would be created …
That is true of every half-industrialized nation; there is no reason why Japan could not match or surpass anything China chose to do. Last time China and Japan got “engaged”, it took the Americans to save the Chinese from being beaten to a pulp. Also, remember that whatever problems Japan has with food supplies, China has them tenfold; wasn’t it China who lost 50 million people due to famine during the Cold War?
Eamonn,
Yes it is an very interesting question. I ponder it every time I visit my mother and see huge quantities of “set-aside”. I really don’t know but I suspect the UK, using the most efficienct methods, could be self-sufficienct if it really came down to it. Though, yes, we wouldn’t have any bananas!
Sunfish,
Stockpiling like that is something I’ve never thought the Mormons were daft to do. Certainly if you live in a tropical storm/earthquake/flood/plague of frogs/whatever zone you’re really daft if you don’t. And what can I say? I really like filling a trolley with tins. They’re so cheap yet substantial seeming so you feel you’re getting real value for money. Seriously.
I hope you appreciate my original flood-profiteers comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. But you have a good point. Of course profiteering doesn’t really work without it’s flip-side: panic-buying.
In the event of the Yellowstone Super volcano going off (full power) all bets are off – even being in Australia or New Zealand would not be enough.
However, it would take a lot less than this to mess up world trade.
Even the United States is not self sufficient any more (partly the doubling of population since World War II, mostly because of immigration, and partly because of the decline of key industries), and the United Kingdom is a joke.
I really meant what I typed above – in the case of a major international economic mess one can simply write off the United Kingdom (the situation would be hopeless).
To give one small example – when “Bomber Harris” could not get the stuff he wanted for R.A.F. Bomber Command from official sources (rationing and planning was also used in industry – as well as farming) he went straight to family owned manufacturers and ordered the stuff – daring the government to arrest him and them (for violating all sorts of regulations), they never did.
These days such an option would not be viable – as the family owned (and non family owned) manufacturers mostly no longer exist in this country. Even local farmer owned meat plants and other such are gone – the regulations and subsidies have meant that even farming is dependent on sorts of imported stuff and local food distribution systems have been destroyed (everthing is centralized in the hands of a handfull of corporations – for example “organic” produce in Wales grown in farms yards from the supermarket is driven to the other side of the country for packaging and other such and then driven back again).
Midwesterner is correct about the growth of the Chinese military (the “Fouth Modernization” – started after the farce of the attack on Vietnam in 1978).
Chinese military power is a reflection of its economic strength which (unlike Russia – which is based on natural resources) is based on manufacturing industry.
The size of the Chinese economy is underestimated because people judge by the rigged exchange rate of the local currency (the protectionists have a point when they say that the Chinese government maintains a low exchange rate to help make exports cheaper – although that does not mean that import taxes are the correct reply).
In purchasing power terms (i.e. in reality) the Chinese economy is bigger than that of Japan already – and growth is much faster (so the gap grows every day).
The days when Japan was prepared to take on a nation that was much stronger than itself (the 1941 suicide note pretending to be a military plan) are over.
These days the Japanese will (when and if the time comes) go along with the Chinese want.
As for Taiwand and South Korea.
South Korea already has an anti American government and has done for years (this shocks many Americans – but they do not know how much effort the left put into brainwashing the young in the schools and universities), this may change at the next election (I wish the Grand National Party good luck), but the left are there for the Chinese to work with.
Taiwan – its military could no longer stand up to the P.R.C. (even if it did not choose to use nukes), and many powerful business and political types do not even want to stand up to the P.R.C.
In short – without the United States you can write off Asia.
“But what about India” – I see no reason to think that an armed clash between China and India would end any differently now than it did in 1962. Although I am unsure about the future (sure a leftist group of political parties are in charge of India now – but that may not always be so, and the Indians are interesting in that they neither have too few babies [like people in the West] or too many as, for example, the people in Pakistan do – by “too few” I mean below replacement levels, and by “too many” I mean WILDLY above replacement levels).
The only hopeful thing one can say is “why would the Chinese want these places?”
I do not think that China will invade India (why should it?)
And I do not think China will invade Japan (ditto).
As for South Korea and Taiwan – before 1895 these areas were under Chinese domination, so I expect that the P.R.C. will try and take them over (for historical reasons as much as anything) sooner or later.
Without a strong United States there is nothing that can be done about this. Certainly for areas of high population density like South Korea and Taiwan to try and exchange nuke attacks with China would be crazy.
Overall I suspect that Midwestener would be, if world trade breaks down, best off to stay where he is in Wisconsin.
Unless Governor Doyle (or some other nut) tries firearm confiscation, “fair distribution” of food (and other such).
“Obviously I agree, Julius, but my point was about the U-boat threat and the consequent need for a naval force to counter it. U-boat attacks had to be dealt with. In future, our shipments of food might be attacked in other ways, and as the primary function of government is to protect life and property, this is something to think about when it comes to food security. ”
Why do you assume that a naval force was the best answer? True, the government decided that was to be the answer, but if the decision had been left to the free market, the true costs and benefits of the various alternatives (convoy, offence, defence, alternative sources of supply etc) would have emerged.
“Also, remember that whatever problems Japan has with food supplies, China has them tenfold; wasn’t it China who lost 50 million people due to famine during the Cold War?”
They didn’t die “due to famine”. They died due to communism. Famine was merely the immediate cause of their deaths.
Re Paul Marks’ points on China: I have this feeling that China’s body politic is far less stable then we realize. For example, look at North Korea. China continues to prop it up, just enought to keep if from collapsing. Why should they bother? The S. Koreans seem to get along well with them, and dislike the Japanese far more.
What they realize is that if N Korea collapses China will be stuck with several million starving Koreans wandering over the now open borders into China. Either they force them back by gunpoint or divert resources to helping them. But can their resources handle the strain? Could the crisis snowball into further disorder in the country, which seems be on the constant edge of mass rioting? I wonder.
Paul, why would China invade Tibet?
Are you really saying that if a hostile foreign power, like Nazi Germany, decides to kill large numbers of our merchant sailors, trash our ships, etc, that the solution lies in shrugging our shoulders and letting the market do whatever? Assuming that we could have adjusted our home agriculture fast enough to give up on all foreign supplies (a very big assumption). Britain did work hard to boost domestic food production during the war, but I doubt that even the most vigorous application of laissez faire would have done enough to feed a country devoting much of its energies to the war.
I stand corrected, but that does not change my main point.
F.D.,
Japan has communism? Actually I think Paul addressed your dissing of China as not a threat to Japan. I suspect China could effectively blockade Japan today in the absence of US intervention.
Furthermore,
You said:
In the context of their relative vulnerabilities to trade isolation, your statement is totally untenable.
Midwestern,
Please read the comments a bit more carefully: my “I stand corrected…” statement was in answer to Julius Blumfeld’s correction of my earlier comment about the 50 million Chinese deaths due to famine (he said they were caused by communism, which caused the famine). I have never said or implied that “Japan has communism”.
And how are the Chinese going to to blockade Japan? Submarines you will say. Well, as of 2005, Japan had operational 53 destroyers and 16 SSK, while China had only 53 SSN/SSK with which to blockade. Considering that the Allies lost only 175 warships to sink 783 German submarines in The Battle of the Atlantic, the odds are not good (even counting on the technological differences between 1940s and 2005, and supposing the Chinese subs are as good as the Japanese ships used to hunt them down, the odds are not good for the Chinese).
As for the exchange rate effect on Chinese GDP, do not forget that cuts both ways: the Chinese have to pay international rates to buy all those Russian Kilos they like so much. On top of that, the exchange rate is not an arbitrary measurement; if the Chinese were to “liberalise” the rate to cash in and make effective that supposed greater GDP, their economy would tank as their export industry would not be competitive anymore. Export-led expansions are subject to export-led contractions.
As for the geography: Nepal, Hong Kong and Macau are not independent anymore, are they? Please get a newer map! Afghanistan, Laos, North Korea, Bhutan, Burma and Mongolia are not worth mentioning in the economic stakes, and their transport infrastructure sucks. Vietnam hates the Chinese, so not much help from that part. That leaves the Central Asian republics, Russia, Pakistan and India; except for Russia, not great food exporters, are they? And will the Russians “keep feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat them last?”
53 surface vessels and 16 subs defending against 53 subs and ? surface vessels? You are staking your whole case on the idea that merchant shipping would continue uninterrupted while your little scenario plays out. Presumably with an air component as well.
Which takes us right back to my initial case. Japan needs reserves and domestic production long enough to see it through such an event. If an act could effectively destroy Japan prior to its ‘failing’ (at comparatively small cost to the China), then not taking the threat seriously is absurd. And frankly, I don’t interpret those numbers optimistically as you do. With satellites, long range radar, and long range missiles, surface vessels are far more vulnerable now than they used to be. The situation you lay out could leave Japan sitting in an aquatic battlefield no-man’s-land for quite some time.
A curious point to raise in defense of a benign China. Particularly Nepal where the Maoist terrorists have finally after much violence extorted power in the parliament. And to choose just one of those countries you discount so lightly, Burma would provide shipping access on the Indian ocean that would be safe from Japan while Japan remained cut off. It is being planned, and when they make those long term forecasts, almost certainly the biggest part of the delays are political, not engineering ones. This spectacular engineering feat was done in ~4 years with out the incentive of conflict. Burma would be a cake walk by comparison.
And regarding
your original statement was:
Which by a fair reading says Japan has 1/10 of whatever killed 50 million Chinese. Which you later concede was communism. Your whole case equating China’s food situation with Japan’s is preposterous.
One strong to middling navy can isolate Japan. Nothing on the planet could isolate China.
Midwestern,
No, I am not; merchant shipping would have to be organised in convoys like in WWII; and that is part of my point: the idea of starving an island country through attacks to shipping has been tried before, and it did not work. There are many fast-implementable measures that are known to work that Japan could easily apply. Also, during the Cold War, the main function of USA-allied navies (like the Japanese) was seen to be to establish control of the sea lanes to allow for supplies to reach them. The Japanese navy has been training for something like this for years; it will not be like the beginning of WWI (or the initial American response in WWII) when the Allies did not know what to do to counter German submarine attacks. Concerning the air element, have you actually looked at the map? Any Chinese warplane trying to intercept shipping on the Pacific side of Japan’s sea approaches would have to fly a very long way round (unless you propose the Japanese air force will just let them overfly Japan itself without a fight) and pass near or over Japanese territory (Okinawa is such a nice strategic position); the Germans tried that one in WWII (and they had a better geographical position) and it did not work.
You lost me there: when have I talked of a benign China?
During WWI, the central powers also had possible land routes to the World food markets while Britain only had the sea lanes; it was the Germans who suffered most from scarcity, not the British. The advantages of sea transport over land transport are well known. Also, Japan is in a similar strategic position with respect of China as Britain was with respect of Germany.
Japan, population 128 million; China, population 1319 million: ten-fold difference. The first sentence states a one-way relationship between Japan’s food supply needs and China’s; at no point did I argue for the reverse relationship being true, or it referring to anything but food supplies. As a result you arguing that my second sentence implies I said Japan suffers from 1/10 of what China does (or did) is not a fair reading.
As stated above, History suggests otherwise.
1. Counting Cats: Ethanol from corn and whatever else you can extract it from has become the fall back in the US. Europe is moving the same way. The reduction in food stock has already had an effect on the price of just about everything we eat and drink. The move to corn for ethanol production was also said to have an effect on the price of corn for tortillas in Mexico. The price of corn for tortillas is a major irritant in the politics of Mexico.
2. The Chinese would have difficulty blockading Japan with the resources it has at is disposal. The concept does not take into account international action to dissuade the Chinese.
I suspect the Japanese, if pressed, would be able to support its population with indigenous food stocks.
davod,
I’ve been meaning to say this for a while. A very large amount of what is consumed in Japan is fish and seafood. They have a huge fishing fleet. I suspect the Chinese could interdict this much more easily than food conveys or similar.
I am surprised by F.D.s stats on Chinese naval strength – I have no stats to hand and you be correct, but I rather suspect that they have hundreds of attack craft.
Still why should the Chinese bother to do anything? The Japanese today are not the Japanese of 1941 – if serious trouble looked likely (and there was no backing from the United States) they would do what they were told.
pietr:
Good point about Tibet – sometimes bad guys do bad things just for the Hell of it.
This reminds me about all those pathetic “Free Tibet” signs – shown off by people who have no intention of getting the Chinese out of Tibet and would have a screaming fit if “Bush-Hitler” sent in the military to try.
The Sudan is their latest bit of nonsense. “The people are being raped and murdered you must do something”.
“O.K. the 101st go in tomorrow”
“Curse you and your war for oil and corporate profits”.
Much better to “send in supplies of food and meds” which the rapists and murderers will steal.
Except there is one instance where it did work. The country that was starved was Japan. The USN virtually destroyed Japan’s merchant marine — including the inter-island transport network.
It was a bloody close run thing in Britain too !
If we hadn’t had Enigma, we could have been defeated even before America entered the war.
I was born in a house that had a really huge garden.
At the bottom of the garden was a vegetable patch that had every type of veg you can think of. From potatos through cabbages, beans peas and onions all the way to asparagus even. So we were totally self sufficient in vegetables. To a child like me it seemed enormous! In fact it was. My parents bought the house in 1950, but the owners during the war had been encouraged to “Dig for Victory” So unbeknown to me, the vegetable patch had been their Tennis court.
We just about hung on back then. As Mid said earlier you can do this for a while, but it is short termism.
Fred, market forces will not pick you up a navy, airforce and armed forces off the shelf, when you get into a crisis or are threatened by outside aggressors. These really are the legitimate business of the State. Forsight is needed.
That’s why we were in such a mess in 1939. The politicians thought we would never need all those nasty planes and boats and Commando’s after the War to End all Wars.
But then we all know how dumb politicians are don’t we? (Not you Paul!)
I think I understand you now, F.D. You are one of those people who are always fighting the last war. Or in this case, the war two or three back.
In this case, do you recall how long it took the allies to find a solution to the blockade? Unlike Great Britain, Japan doesn’t have nearly that long without preparing for it in advance.
Regarding the China 10x statement, I understood your population point. You made a linked statement attributing the cause of China’s 50 million deaths to their 10x population. Then conceded it was really communism. In which case, Japan should have lost 5million to communism. Or are you only abandoning your ‘evidence’ but not your claim based on it? And Japan has well over double the population density of China. Which is a curious coincidence as they get approximately half as much of their food from domestic sources.
Something else you don’t take into account at all, is present day technology leading to JIT (just in time) commodity distribution networks. Precisely because shipping is more reliable and resources are used more efficiently, there are no naturally occurring stockpiles. They must be deliberately planned.
There is only one lesson that I think can be taken with certainty from previous wars. And that is that they will always begin with unprepared people defending from the last war’s weapons and methods. And it is not until the losses begin to pile up that wiser minds prevail. Occasionally, that learning opportunity is not available.
Nick M,
I didn’t know that you were the Nick I was reading. I saw your post about “profiteering” and thought “That can’t be him. He’s smarter than that. Is he yanking my chain?”
The free market is nifty. However, there’s no real fix for “The goods aren’t available at any price because they’re at the bottom of the bloody Atlantic.” And it takes years to build a navy and air force capable of keeping an ocean open.
Midwestern,
That ad hominem attack adds nothing to the discussion; I expected better argumentation.
But that was my point: blockade has been tried before, people know how to fight it, and the Japanese navy has trained for it since the beginning of the Cold War; unlike Britain in WWI, they can hit the ground running.
Sorry, but I do not follow your logic there. My first sentence stated a fact: China’s population is roughly 10 times that of Japan. My second sentence provided an example of why that matters: China has had problems feeding its people before. Later Julius Blumfeld stated that it wasn’t just a famine that had killed all those people, but a Communism-induced famine; something that I had no argument with since it is true. But the fact that the famine might be caused by communist, as opposed to generic, incompetence, does not change the fact that it happened. It shows, in my opinion, that if the Chinese can screw it up themselves without any outside help, just imagine what could happen if someone were to lend a helping hand.
I do not know if this is just an American-English vs British-English thing, or a peculiarity of the way I write, but in my book, if you choose to put two sentences together using a semi-colon instead of coordinating or subordinating them, they remain separate sentences. I may draw them together for the sake of argument, but there is no direct logical link between them (no “ergo” between them). So your assumption that, by conceding the famines were ultimately caused by Communism, I was implying Japan had communism only warrants my saying: non sequitur.
Which is precisely why Japan would find it easier to reorganize its supplies to cope with a war on trade than China, which would have to rely on land routes.
As for your argument concerning the inevitability of a general unpreparedness for war:
1. That argument cuts both ways: the casus belli will probably come as a surprise to both sides, and as a result both the Japanese and the Chinese will be unprepared for it. Why do you assume that organizing and preparing a navy to defend convoys is more arduous or difficult than organizing or preparing a navy to attack them? Doenitz did not spend his war sending U-boats at random in the hope they would catch something; it took lots of organization and planning to get the wolf-packs going.
2. That argument is not true in general: for example, when WWII started, Britain had the most advanced and organized air-defense system in the World. An air-defense system that took years to create and build up, but that was ready and worked in time. If there are no Japanese navy officers right now planning and coordinating for the eventuality of a Chinese war on trade, I would be very surprised.
Simon Oliver Lockwood,
It is true that the US Navy conducted a successful submarine campaign against Japanese shipping in WWII, but:
1. It was successful in disrupting (and in one occassion almost stopping) inductrial supplies (specially oil), not food supplies.
2. At that stage of the War, the relative powers of the US and Imperial Japanese navies were such that it only reinforces my point: if the Chinese navy has to be as strong with respect to the modern Japanese navy as the Americans were with respect to the Imperial Japanese Navy, they have a long way to go!
Paul Marks,
Oh, yes! They have shitloads of those, but I am only counting those ships that could operate an oceanic war on trade: look at the map, any Chinese craft would have to travel a long distance from its bases before it can get to any convoys approaching Japan from the East and North-East. And in doing so they could be intercepted by the Japanese air force and navy from their bases closer at hand. Also, after the battle of the Bubiyan Channel in the First Iraq war, attack craft are not considered so much a threat as before.
All,
Sorry for the long post.
Johnathan is discussing the role of global trade in times of national crisis. He points out what a great insurance it is when earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and famines strike. But yet, how vulnerable it is outside of “normal circumstances” Or, said plainly, in times of war.
My statement was not an ad hominem. It is an observation I made based on you arguments and assumptions. Your arguments are based entirely on past experience and seem to have missed the entire point of Johnathan’s article, which is the new and mostly unprecedented role of global trade in crisis management. While historically nations have benefited from global trade foodstuffs, relying on it for survival is a new thing.
You have ignored entirely the change in Japan’s status to now being extremely reliant on global trade for survival, not just prosperity. You have entirely dissed China’s capacity to divert resources to military apparatus with great effect. You have made sweeping assumptions about the ability of merchant and fishing fleets to operate at normal capacity in a contested combat zone. You have apparently rejected the possibility that China could control or at least contest air control over Japan in support of other military, as navy.
Basically, you have ignored the circumstances and the utter and complete reliance Japan has on the US for China’s good will. You place unwarranted confidence in the mechanism of military defenses even while citing cases in which military preparation was inadequate.
There is no substitute for at least short to medium term self sufficiency. In the case of Japan, that means stockpiles of non-perishables and other means, like domestic rice production, to assure essential perishables. The US is a ponderous beast and responds to nothing quickly. Japan needs to be able to hang on for at least as much as a year. Anything else would be dangling a tempting target in front of a nation that is historically a great enemy a presently their major competitor.
I see little to be gained by continuing this discussion.
Won’t get you an airforce, navy and army off the shelf?
Isn’t that exactly what America got in 1942-43?
Pietr:
Yeah, and it took us 1-2 years to get there. Britain had a bitch of a time during those years. If Japan doesn’t have open sea lanes, then she may not last 1-2 years while China sinks merchant shipping and the US Congress dicks around trying to figure out how to turn US intervention into earmarked spending.
Who’s shelf?
Their own of course. They had the natural resourses to increase their armed forces, and wern’t exactly short of firepower before Pearl Harbour. Or was that the American shrimp fishing fleet the Japanese decided to take out as a prelude to invading the USA?
Britain was within a hairsbreadth of losing the Battle Of Britain because we were running out of planes and pilots. Things that cannot be created or replaced overnight. Had the Germans given it one more push, we would have been fucked! Like I said it takes foresight, and the lack of that foresight cost us the Empire and very nearly the country.
Defence and the rule of Law are the only legitimate business of the State, in my opinion. The market will take care of the rest if allowed.But that defence includes the stockpiling of essentials to see you through a seige situation. That’s how canny Maggie won the Miners Strike after all!
How would market forces have worked in 1940 if America had decided we were a bad risk?
Na sod off Britain! we never liked you anyway! Go buy your goods somewhere else.
Now Fred, where do you think we could have got the supplies we needed to survive, both militarily and in foodstuffs back then? Spain? France??? South America????
That’s why Government form alliances. Man doth not live by economics alone. You need like minded friends who are prepared to suffer and take a risk on your behalf.
Do you think that the governemt(oh, yes!) could do better by itself?
Beaverbrook was a newspaper man brought in by WSC to be Minister Of Aircraft Production in 1939.
By the time France collapsed British aircraft production outstripped German, and during the Battle of Britain, the shortage was of pilots, never aircraft.
That despite peppercorn orders ever since the end of the Great War.
Or to put it another way, in 1957 Duncan Sandys declared the age of the manned fighter over, and cancelled all outstanding projects; Hawker-Siddely however, with Rolls-Royce, built the private venture P1121 a couple of years later, which became the Harrier.
This is still in service now.
The government-sponsored Lightning entered service in 1960, and left in 1988; it was in development since 1947.
It was essentially a Ferrari with a pea-shooter.
The Harrier, on the other hand, shot down 30 Argentinian aircraft without loss in 1982.(Some of these were Mirages, another private venture by Dassault, based on the Fairey FD2 which captured the world speed record in 1956).
Hawker-Siddely however, with Rolls-Royce, built the private venture P1121 a couple of years later, which became the Harrier.
Yes it was a private venture. The Spitfires and Hurricanes were private ventures too but who do you think the builders had in mind as customers?
If you couldn’t sell them to your own Government who could you sell them to???
They hardly started on developing the Harrier with the idea of popping cards into Newsagents windows saying-
Need an armed to the teeth town runaround?
Short of space? No bother! our Harrier will lift you out and deliver you back to your small back garden with ease and only minimal inconvenience to your neighbours! A snip at 15 million quid!
Ring 986796 or ask for Nigel behind the counter.
Sheesh!
Midwestern,
My comments were a response to your sweeping assumptions on Chinese military capacity, not on the main article, as a result, the fact that they “missed the entire point of Johnathan’s article” is not surprising; I was not arguing with him!
Ad hominem is when you attack the person and not the argument; if you had explained why you believed my use of past examples was flawed, then it would not have been ad hominem. But you said
without explaining or arguing why you considered my historical examples not relevant; you made it about me, rather than about of the argument. That is ad hominem.
All your arguments would have also been valid of Britain in WWII (less in WWI), yet they made it.
If you do not like History and the examples it gives, fine; but unless you can produce a complete strategic, economic and military review of the situation we are talking about, it is the best we have.
Suit yourself.
RAB, pietr and Sunfish,
I suggest you read “The Most Dangerous Enemy” by Stephen Bungay; it shows (with more statistics and arguments than I can repeat here) that The Battle of Britain was not such a close-run thing, and that the British were not caught unprepared in the air over Southern England.
RAB,
The Americans did not sell Britain stuff out of the kindness of their hearts; Britain paid dearly in cash and kind for all they got from the Americans. Remember that the British WWII war-debt to the USA was only finally paid off last year!
As I said, the Americans (not only the government, but private parties as well) did not sell stuff to the UK without charging, as a result unless the American government had imposed a ban on exports to Britain (something they had no reason for doing; hey, why stop selling when you can charge almost any price you want!), Britain would have got its supplies in the open market. Even if the ban had been imposed, Britain could have got them from the rest of the Empire. They were also at war with Germany; the UK never actually stood alone even in 1940-41
I’ve tried history
I’ve tried anecdote
I’ve tried logic
I’ve tried humour
All to no avail.
Try telling my dear old 83 year old mum that it wasn’t a close run thing. When she watched the sky light up every night as they were bombing Cardiff and she went to work in the blackout when you couldn’t see a hand in front of your face except for the light from burning buildings.
Tell her, who worked in a deep bunker under Westgate street on the plans for the Lysander for the SOE aged 19.
Please come round and tell her that all would have been well if only we had had the sense to buy all we needed from Litchenstein or somewhere including fully trained combat pilots.
Like Mid I deem this conversation ended.
F.D., you said:
“paid dearly in cash and kind for all they got”! – You are so full of shit. At least make a slight slight effort to check some of your facts.
No, it was the haddock fleet. The shrimp fleet was busy in the Florida strait.
Seriously, though, part of our problem were losing battleships at Pearl Harbor. The other part of the problem was that the lost battleships were the last war’s technology and were built to fight the last war (1). In WWII, they were great for supporting amphibious landings but of limited utility for sinking the Japanese vessels.
Not to say they didn’t have their place, but what won that war for us was in large part the carrier fleet that hadn’t been built in 1941. And the fact that Japanese naval codes had been broken.
FD:
India was a long way off. So was Africa. It doesn’t matter that the colony in Honduras will FedEx you all the bananas you want when there’s a jackass who’s sinking FedEx ships as they try to cross the Atlantic. It doesn’t matter what you own if you can’t lay hands on it when you actually need it. They can make guns in Australia, but getting them into Tommy’s hands in Europe wasn’t trivial. Moving hardware around takes more than having Neil Stephenson characters cleverly riding to the Tower of London with bills of exchange.
(1) Whoever’s taking that as an ad hominem needs to take a deep breath. It’s a legitimate statement. It’s also a common problem: Our government expected OIF to go as easily as Desert Storm. The war protesters expected DS to be a soup sandwich like Vietnam. McNamara expected Vietnam to be like WWII. And so on. And today, our military is just starting to adapt from being run by the guys who saw ALL military action as being centered on a tank battle in the Fulda Gap in 1979.
Talking of ‘fighting the last war’, does anybody really think that Japan relies solely on its own merchant fleet?
If the Chinese declared unrestricted submarine warfare against all shipping to and from Japan, it would take about two weeks to get every Navy in the world up there and sink their red asses by the bucket load.
China wouldn’t last ten days.
But they might think they could, and try if enough foolish people are frightened by their paper tiger armed forces.
Red China is essentially an unpalatable glove-puppet with the hand of Western business up its arse, tolerated due to some odd idea of ‘international respect’.
Pietr,
Measured in purchasing parity power, Japan is well under half of China. I think everyone but the US would respond the same way they do to Russia’s and other nation’s ‘adventurism’. Which is to say, with much chest thumping and many resolutions and strong condemnations. But they won’t mess with China.
It would not take much to scare away insurance companies of merchant/civil transporters, (most insurance that I know of specifically excludes acts of war). Without insurance, few owners would take chances. It really wouldn’t take all that much.
Furthermore, my perception is that Japan has placed a large part of its industrial investment/capacity in foreign countries. China has kept most of theirs domestic. One more reason why “every Navy in the world” would be disinclined to become involved.
Japan is reliant on the US.