Wheat War I is going to be World War III

[Cryptock]

Perhaps more precisely, we should save money by reducing expenses related to expenses that are not too important,
if you compare life in the city and in the village, I think it's really different, both for the necessities of life and so on,
but apart from that living frugally is very important and maybe we can practice little by little

Inflation plaguing the entire world. Ripples through India, UK, BD, Turkey, US and Europe.
The food and oil crisis will be unbearable for the average human. People are in trouble and there is no end to this suffering.

[1714668154]

1714668154

[1714668154]

1714668154

[1714668154]

1714668154

[Sithara007]

Inflation plaguing the entire world. Ripples through India, UK, BD, Turkey, US and Europe.
The food and oil crisis will be unbearable for the average human. People are in trouble and there is no end to this suffering.

It is much worse than what they are telling us. Inflation rate is measured at 10%-12% at the most. But the prices of food commodities have gone up by anywhere from 50% to 150%. The price of fuel (diesel, LPG.etc) has gone up by more than 100%. For lower middle class and poor population, the impact of inflation is much worse because the commodities which they use have gone up by a level which is much higher than the inflation rate. And in certain countries such as Turkey and Pakistan, the situation is even worse due to the devaluation of the national currency.

[pooya87]

Italian Foreign Minister recently commented on a global "food war" that is near by due to the shortage caused by the conflict over in Ukraine. I just don't know why he twisted it toward Africa whereas his own country has set a record high inflation rate while food prices are soaring due to decreased supply and increasing production costs.

It's like instead of getting off their fannies and solving the problem he is trying to say "just because Africa could be worse we should be thankful that we are being f***ed less".

[Rikafip]

I just don't know why he twisted it toward Africa whereas his own country has set a record high inflation rate while food prices are soaring due to decreased supply and increasing production costs.

Maybe because chances of Italy going into civil war/coup is much lower compared to African countries and its logical to assume that poorer and more unstable countries are hit harder? And no, inflation rate in Italy is not at the all time high, it was much worse in 70s. No matter how shitty situation is in Europe, its immensely worse in Africa. And no, I am not saying that we should be thankful that we are getting fucked less in this situation and be happy with it, but imho no need for this doom & gloom attitude.

It's like instead of getting off their fannies and solving the problem he is trying to say "just because Africa could be worse we should be thankful that we are being f***ed less".

Italy and other European countries can't solve shit.

[NotATether]

I mean come on, this is just like COVID-19 but with exports instead of people.

And didn't we get through that last event fairly well?

3. Other producers like India follow this trend and stop their exports

The question is why? There's no good reason for 3rd countries to jump on this bandwagon of export seccession just because of a conflict between two others.

6. China is mass purchasing any food (wheat, etc.) that are found in the world and is also pre-purchasing future production (as much as anybody would sell them) at high prices.

Well, smart move from them. Now China becomes the world's biggest food exporter after the end of the invasion.

7. France is already telling Ukraine to give up defending so that maybe they can avert food crisis themselves!

Not surprising as France themselves capitulated to German armed terror during WWII so I get the feeling that they are quite defeatist.

The real question is how would each country handle this crisis. And at what scale is the conflicts going to break?

International conflict will only happen if countries "stealing" food from each other do it officially and at an extreme scale which is very unlikely to happen as there are thankfully no mad dogs in the hot seat who'd do something like that [think e.g. Hitler], Putin himself strikes me more as a Stalin and would only invade countries for Russia's own benefit [remember the Balkans over 80 years ago].

So if it's just armed uprising, the most you get are coups, insurrections, and possibly civil war if the armed forces fail to sufficiently quash the revolts.

[be.open]

6. China is mass purchasing any food (wheat, etc.) that are found in the world and is also pre-purchasing future production (as much as anybody would sell them) at high prices.

Well, smart move from them. Now China becomes the world's biggest food exporter after the end of the invasion.

China has been actively buying up long-term storage products on the world market for a couple of years now and has accumulated significant stocks. Although there are rumors that China is preparing for the worst-case scenario in order to avoid starvation during the nuclear winter and survive 1-2 years without a new crop. But it is not exactly.

[NotATether]

Although there are rumors that China is preparing for the worst-case scenario in order to avoid starvation during the nuclear winter and survive 1-2 years without a new crop. But it is not exactly.

Good lord, nuclear winter? What have you guys been reading?

How many times already have journalists and the press been fanning the flames of a nuclear war (of course, without any geopolitical backing for such a crisis) over the years?

Off the top of my head, I can count at least five (5) proclaimations to global nuclear war that people have been saying would happen since a decade or so ago, and we have yet to realize a single one of them. And this isn't even counting the food shortage.

2008 - Iran, Georga (2)
2014 - Crimea (1)
2017 - Nuclear Deal falls apart with Iran (1)
Feb 2022 - Ukraine proper (1)

The reality is that no sane person or organization would consent to another world war [not even Russia] and if we were anywhere seriously close to it, you'd be hearing A LOT of appeals from world leaders to "do something to avoid the war" (as in 80 years ago. Even the pope was issuing an appeal like that).

[be.open]

Although there are rumors that China is preparing for the worst-case scenario in order to avoid starvation during the nuclear winter and survive 1-2 years without a new crop. But it is not exactly.

Good lord, nuclear winter? What have you guys been reading?

How many times already have journalists and the press been fanning the flames of a nuclear war (of course, without any geopolitical backing for such a crisis) over the years?

Off the top of my head, I can count at least five (5) proclaimations to global nuclear war that people have been saying would happen since a decade or so ago, and we have yet to realize a single one of them. And this isn't even counting the food shortage.

2008 - Iran, Georga (2)
2014 - Crimea (1)
2017 - Nuclear Deal falls apart with Iran (1)
Feb 2022 - Ukraine proper (1)

The reality is that no sane person or organization would consent to another world war [not even Russia] and if we were anywhere seriously close to it, you'd be hearing A LOT of appeals from world leaders to "do something to avoid the war" (as in 80 years ago. Even the pope was issuing an appeal like that).

Since the Caribbean Crisis, the world has been dominated by the stereotype that there will be no winners in a nuclear war, and therefore nuclear weapons are only a deterrent, like a loaded gun that hangs on the wall but will never fire. Today, however, it is useful to reconsider many old stereotypes for their relevance, because the nuclear club has expanded noticeably and now includes countries like North Korea, for which the truths of half a century ago are not a sufficiently weighty authority. Russia has also changed military doctrine since then, and now Russia can use nuclear weapons not only in response to a direct nuclear strike on its territory, but also in response to any sufficiently serious existential threat against itself. Therefore, I would not completely discount this scenario as having zero probability.

[pooya87]

The question is why? There's no good reason for 3rd countries to jump on this bandwagon of export seccession just because of a conflict between two others.

Two simple reasons: politics and money.
- India for example tries to play the middle where it gets close to the West but has good relations with the East but the more this distance between the two blocs increases the more different countries are forced to choose a side. Right now it suites India best to play the Eastern block's game which means pressuring the West.
- And of course cutting exports means reduced supply and increased prices which is always good for producers since they make a lot more profit.

I mean come on, this is just like COVID-19 but with exports instead of people.
International conflict will only happen if countries "stealing" food from each other

Funny you should mention COVID alongside this since countries were stealing each other's supplies of toilet paper and hand sanitizers and face masks during the early pandemic times!

and therefore nuclear weapons are only a deterrent, like a loaded gun that hangs on the wall but will never fire.

It actually depends on the country. There are cases that such WMDs are completely useless.
For example Pakistan has nuclear weapons but nobody takes them seriously. US just toppled their government and over the past 2 decades has been invading their territories even bombed some places when they were occupying Afghanistan. Or Israel is a terrorist regime that has a lot of nuclear warheads and nobody gives a shit since the land they occupy is already surrounded by armed forces, so essentially they would have to detonate the warheads inside their silos due to the close proximity which is impossible!

[be.open]

and therefore nuclear weapons are only a deterrent, like a loaded gun that hangs on the wall but will never fire.

It actually depends on the country. There are cases that such WMDs are completely useless.
For example Pakistan has nuclear weapons but nobody takes them seriously. US just toppled their government and over the past 2 decades has been invading their territories even bombed some places when they were occupying Afghanistan. Or Israel is a terrorist regime that has a lot of nuclear warheads and nobody gives a shit since the land they occupy is already surrounded by armed forces, so essentially they would have to detonate the warheads inside their silos due to the close proximity which is impossible!

You are right, it depends on the country. I think Russia, by its actions in Ukraine, deserves to be taken seriously enough. The demonstration of combat use of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile at the beginning of the operation was quite impressive, the missile penetrated 60 meters of earth and several meters of reinforced concrete, and then exploded in an old Soviet bunker that was specially designed to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear missile. Nevertheless, the bunker was hit, albeit by a conventional non-nuclear warhead, and the missile defense systems worked after the target was hit. Russia has made very significant progress in offensive tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in recent years and the balance of power has now shifted in its favor. Hypersonic missiles Dagger, Zirkon and Sarmat with Avangard warheads allow Russia to unhinderedly launch a preventive nuclear strike anywhere on the planet, and its S-400 and S-500 missile defense systems give hope that this strike will go unpunished. In addition, Russia also has Poseidon unmanned underwater nuclear drones on combat duty, which are called the "Continent Killer". The US has squandered its technological lead by 20 years of chasing terrorists and now the world has a new sheriff.

[Cryptock]

You are right, it depends on the country. I think Russia, by its actions in Ukraine, deserves to be taken seriously enough. The demonstration of combat use of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile at the beginning of the operation was quite impressive, the missile penetrated 60 meters of earth and several meters of reinforced concrete, and then exploded in an old Soviet bunker that was specially designed to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear missile. Nevertheless, the bunker was hit, albeit by a conventional non-nuclear warhead, and the missile defense systems worked after the target was hit. Russia has made very significant progress in offensive tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in recent years and the balance of power has now shifted in its favor. Hypersonic missiles Dagger, Zirkon and Sarmat with Avangard warheads allow Russia to unhinderedly launch a preventive nuclear strike anywhere on the planet, and its S-400 and S-500 missile defense systems give hope that this strike will go unpunished. In addition, Russia also has Poseidon unmanned underwater nuclear drones on combat duty, which are called the "Continent Killer". The US has squandered its technological lead by 20 years of chasing terrorists and now the world has a new sheriff.

Has anything happened yet? The whole world turned against Russia and it didn't affect Russia. However - now EU is in trouble because of oil and gas.
The sections are not going to have a single effect on the Russia - but dont you think whoever has done boycott with Russia is now in troublesome condition

[be.open]

You are right, it depends on the country. I think Russia, by its actions in Ukraine, deserves to be taken seriously enough. The demonstration of combat use of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile at the beginning of the operation was quite impressive, the missile penetrated 60 meters of earth and several meters of reinforced concrete, and then exploded in an old Soviet bunker that was specially designed to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear missile. Nevertheless, the bunker was hit, albeit by a conventional non-nuclear warhead, and the missile defense systems worked after the target was hit. Russia has made very significant progress in offensive tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in recent years and the balance of power has now shifted in its favor. Hypersonic missiles Dagger, Zirkon and Sarmat with Avangard warheads allow Russia to unhinderedly launch a preventive nuclear strike anywhere on the planet, and its S-400 and S-500 missile defense systems give hope that this strike will go unpunished. In addition, Russia also has Poseidon unmanned underwater nuclear drones on combat duty, which are called the "Continent Killer". The US has squandered its technological lead by 20 years of chasing terrorists and now the world has a new sheriff.

Has anything happened yet? The whole world turned against Russia and it didn't affect Russia. However - now EU is in trouble because of oil and gas.
The sections are not going to have a single effect on the Russia - but dont you think whoever has done boycott with Russia is now in troublesome condition

I think the countries that imposed sanctions against Russia were counting on a completely different effect. Putin set a good example of political judo.

[Sithara007]

It actually depends on the country. There are cases that such WMDs are completely useless.
For example Pakistan has nuclear weapons but nobody takes them seriously. US just toppled their government and over the past 2 decades has been invading their territories even bombed some places when they were occupying Afghanistan. Or Israel is a terrorist regime that has a lot of nuclear warheads and nobody gives a shit since the land they occupy is already surrounded by armed forces, so essentially they would have to detonate the warheads inside their silos due to the close proximity which is impossible!

Having nuclear weapons alone is not enough. The country needs to have ICBMs, which can launch these nukes against the opponents. And I don't believe that Pakistan is having ICBMs that are strong enough to evade common air-defense systems such as the Patriot or the S-400. On the other hand, everyone is concerned about the DPRK, because they have proven that they have ICBMs that can reach the mainland United States. If they launch 10-15 missiles, there is a good chance that at least 2-3 would evade the air defense.

[pooya87]

to evade common air-defense systems such as the Patriot

I always laugh hard whenever I hear the name of this defense system. It is literary the most expensive and most useless thing that has ever been made. It couldn't even protect Saudi Aramco[1] or even US bases against primitive rockets and drones made by the poorest country in Middle East called Yemen
[1] I believe it cost them about $100 million to try and fail to shoot down half a dozen projectile. Some joked that the damage caused by the impact was lower...

because they have proven that they have ICBMs that can reach the mainland United States.

The keyword is "proven". NK has nothing to lose so they make these things public otherwise we too have hypersonic ICBMs but whenever a new missile is revealed we say it's range is 1500 KM

[Sithara007]

^^^ Agreed on the MIM-104 Patriot. It has proved to be completely useless. And this is exactly one of the reasons why führer Recep Tayyip Erdoğan went for the S-400 air defense system instead of the Patriot, despite all the threats and blackmail from the Americans. Even hardcore US allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are considering the purchase of S-400, to protect their skies.

And now coming to the ICBMs, I don't know about the capabilities of Iranian missiles. As far as I know, the one with longest range is Sajjil-2, which can target locations as far away as 2,200 km. However, this one is more like a medium-range ballistic missile than an ICBM. I have heard about Shahab-6, but not much information is available.

[pakhitheboss]

It actually depends on the country. There are cases that such WMDs are completely useless.
For example Pakistan has nuclear weapons but nobody takes them seriously. US just toppled their government and over the past 2 decades has been invading their territories even bombed some places when they were occupying Afghanistan. Or Israel is a terrorist regime that has a lot of nuclear warheads and nobody gives a shit since the land they occupy is already surrounded by armed forces, so essentially they would have to detonate the warheads inside their silos due to the close proximity which is impossible!

Having nuclear weapons alone is not enough. The country needs to have ICBMs, which can launch these nukes against the opponents. And I don't believe that Pakistan is having ICBMs that are strong enough to evade common air-defense systems such as the Patriot or the S-400. On the other hand, everyone is concerned about the DPRK, because they have proven that they have ICBMs that can reach the mainland United States. If they launch 10-15 missiles, there is a good chance that at least 2-3 would evade the air defense.

Having nuclear weapons only helps in deterrence. Those countries that do not have can be easliy attacked just as Russia did with Ukrain. Missile defence system are just a waste of money. If 10 missiles are launched the chance of a best missile defence stopping it is only 90 percent. Therefore you need to have missile like the ICBM. DPKR is a rogue nation but they know if a missile hits any city of the USA then their country will cease to exist. The missile power show by DPKR is only an act of deterrence.

[pooya87]

And now coming to the ICBMs, I don't know about the capabilities of Iranian missiles. As far as I know, the one with longest range is Sajjil-2, which can target locations as far away as 2,200 km. However, this one is more like a medium-range ballistic missile than an ICBM. I have heard about Shahab-6, but not much information is available.

Of course there is no public information since as I said the official stance is a range below 2500 km and usually reported as 1450 lol. One hint is that the technology used to send satellites into orbit is pretty similar. Another hint is the size of some of these missiles and the fact that they exit atmosphere and finally the fact that military officials have hinted at the availability of them.
But we're going off-topic now

If 10 missiles are launched the chance of a best missile defence stopping it is only 90 percent.

FYI the success rate of a defense system depends on a lot of factors including missile speed, size, altitude, projectile path, ... and whether the system is overwhelmed or any kind of cyber warfare is used by the missile itself. The best case scenario is a success rate of below 10%.

[Ozero]

Russia has faced fierce military resistance to invade Ukraine and is unable to conquer it militarily. Therefore, Putin's criminal regime changed its original plans and began mass destruction of the civilian population in Ukraine, including women, children and the elderly, as well as bombing, shelling and destroying the civilian infrastructure in Ukraine by all possible means in order to suppress the ability to resist and cause fear among the people of Ukraine . With these actions, Russia caused completely different consequences both in Ukraine and in the international community. If before the large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, everything Russian was treated fairly loyally in Ukraine, and even an influential pro-Russian party was actively working in its parliament, now even Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine have begun to treat Russians extremely negatively due to massive robberies, rapes and murders by Russians. soldiers of the Russian-speaking population, which they allegedly came to liberate and protect from incomprehensible "Nazis" who exist only in the heads of the Kremlin's politicians. After such atrocities on the part of the Russian occupiers, more than 80 percent of the people of Ukraine do not want to make any concessions to the aggressor and only want Russia's military defeat. Therefore, the Ukrainian government has stopped any negotiations with Russia for the time being.

One of the spheres of intimidation of Ukrainians is also the destruction or blockade of grain and other agricultural products, which caused tension in the world with food, since only in the seaports of Ukraine blocked by Russia there are more than 22 million tons of grain that cannot enter international markets. In order to solve the current food problem, which Russia has artificially created, you just need to curb the Russian aggressor.

I see that some here directly admire the political leadership of Russia, headed by its current emperor Putin, who single-handedly makes any decisions of a political and economic nature, as well as the military power of this state. I would like to see how they would admire if Russia attacked their country and tried to turn them into slaves in the 21st century, as Russian soldiers are trying to do with the people of Ukraine. The Putin government, like every occupier, will find only their own death in Ukraine.

[passwordnow]

I've just read on the news that there's someone who said that the food crisis is going to be the next pandemic alike situation. Well, it seems to be true and the news about food shortage is starting to go out and it seems that the majority is still not worrying and taking it seriously about this situation. Food shortage, oil crisis, covid's still there and much many more economic issues. There's also a Russian representative that I've just read the quote of that news that he said, there's no crisis that Russia is facing currently with regards to these issue.

[Kakmakr]

OP, I think the first "Food" war.... will start after the "Water" wars. We all know that food and animals cannot live without water, so once most water sources has been polluted and the weather changed .....rain will decrease and a water crisis will start.

One thing that I have learned over time is this.... People have a way to adapt to changing conditions. A lot of people have lived in the most desolate areas in the world, but I think the countries with the most dense populations are going to suffer the most. (China)

The solution : Look after Nature... and it will look after you!