The world was in a state of suppressed dread over the prospect of Nuclear war. Nuclear Code-rattling in parts of the world had raised the spectre of a global nuclear fight. Several nations considered the possibility of being pulled into the vortex, often against their will.
Much time was devoted to finding peaceful solutions. Everyone wanted peace. Yet wanted to fight.
A solution was found.
The Earth was producing so much food that a problem of scarcity had turned into a problem of plenty. Compared to 5 billion tonne of food in early 1960s, earthlings now produced 18 billion tonnes of food annually. This translated into over 2 tonnes of food per human on earth every year.
Including all competitors for food, it was tough for each eater to down 2 tonnes of food every year. One-third of food fit for human consumption was wasted anyway. This wastage could be put to good use.
As an instrument of war.
The spatial distribution across the Earth’s landscape meant food surpluses in some geographies. Mirrored by food shortages in others. Same held true for the distribution patterns of food wastage. Fat supply, too, was in abundance in some developed geographies, with scarcity in others.
War strategy would be simple. It would involve taking stock of food wastage – the low hanging fruits, pun unintended – and ICBM-ing food on enemy territory. For instance, a targeted, sustained fat shower would induce the erstwhile undernourished regions to help themselves to these freebies. Rather than grumble about bombardment, the attacked could find occasion to thank their enemies. Their governments would be grateful as well. What they struggled to solve for decades would be solved by an enemy. In a jiffy.
Selling the idea domestically would be a piece of cake too. Belligerent nations with food surpluses could wrap the war idea in truly humanitarian robes. Fat/protein/fruit/vegetable/carb bombardment on enemies that did not have basic human nourishment needs was a virtue. Who could disagree? They could point to the patchy record of aid interventions. Bombardment of enemy territories that needed basic necessities of life would be the most bona fide way to solve longstanding problems. This would also solve pesky food inequality questions. Past wars had developed a bad name as narratives weren’t packaged as altruistic intentions.
Scenario impact analysis would paint a picture of enemy populations feasting on so much food that folks would begin dying of overeating. The same outcomes from nuclear war would be realised. Achieved through humanitarian means. After the first waves, late movers would begin seeing the benefit and indulge in barter warfare. Mutual surplus food items would form part of attack arsenals.
As the world settled into this new scheme of things, longer-run implications would involve cutback in defence spending, and increased allocation to building surplus food arsenals. Watching the benefits of food warfare, potential warlords/dictators would take a leaf of this book, and step up massive food spending. What worked on enemies could work just as well on their own.
As a means of subjugating Peoples and winning wars, food would emerge as the most widely palatable weapon of mass destruction.
Was the world ready to ruminate on this?