Organization of Food Exporting Countries

Assuming (not likely) that both Turkey and Iran will completely toe the US line, ships from the Far East and Baltic can still make the journey.
Turkey blocking Black Sea straits means WWIII. Soviets were absolutely crazily paranoid about keeping access to Black Sea unhindered and Montreux Convention guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. Blocking Soviet shipping there is clear Casus Belli.
 
Raising prices of one commodity in response to increased prices for another is extremely different from a blockade. And if the US and other food exporters are targetting OPEC why is anyone blockading the USSR?

A little cleverness and the Soviets can undoubtedly find all manner of ways to benefit from the tentative OFEC conflict with OPEC.
 
Once you're engaged in a blockade, you're at war.

The next step is very likely going to be Soviet grain going to the Gulf. At this point it really doesn't matter how much their harvest isn't, it's a question of politics. Assuming (not likely) that both Turkey and Iran will completely toe the US line, ships from the Far East and Baltic can still make the journey. Do you really want to be the US Navy captain telling them they can't pass? Because next time, they'll come back with navy escorts. Sure, you can sink them, but you won't because there are some decisions you don't make with umpteen-thousand warheads hanging over your heads.

This is the political equivalent of putting your dick on the chopping block and telling Moscow 'you don't dare'. Never a good idea.
I'm pretty sure we did the blockade with Cuba and it worked because ships were turned back. though Daring Mother Russia is never a good idea
 
That is an interesting idea. The political consequences could be - just about anything from horrible to peachy, depending on who gets control. I'm not sure anything with that much power has a realistic potential to be a force for good, but it would be nice to try.

We'd probably get some horrid unintended consequences in the Third World, though.

My point was trying to raise prices and as a result get greater incomes for farmers in both the first and third worlds. This both benefits first world countries (less farm subsidies) and third world countries (greater income from agricultural exports). Again, as you say, it could backfire in spectacular fashion.
 
I'm pretty sure we did the blockade with Cuba and it worked because ships were turned back. though Daring Mother Russia is never a good idea

Even then, the Navy called it a 'quarantine', and they stopped pretty much as soon as the situation allowed. You really don't blockade somebody's coast unless you're willing to fight it out.
 
Even then, the Navy called it a 'quarantine', and they stopped pretty much as soon as the situation allowed. You really don't blockade somebody's coast unless you're willing to fight it out.
Good point on that.
Hey how long you reckon till the mid east collapses due to starvation
 
The case with Cuba was that it was a quarantine willing to pass through any non-Soviet ships and any Soviet ships which passed inspection. Famine was never a risk.

No ships of any nation will be permitted to go to or from Cuba under any circumstances is a dramatically different state of affairs.
 
The case with Cuba was that it was a quarantine willing to pass through any non-Soviet ships and any Soviet ships which passed inspection. Famine was never a risk.

No ships of any nation will be permitted to go to or from Cuba under any circumstances is a dramatically different state of affairs.
:) okay then if however this OFEC does come into existence couldn't they just agree to a food embargo, maybe start Ethanol research :D since this is ATL
 

Redbeard

Banned
OPEC's oil weapon didn't work that well - apart from initialising a lot of energy saving meassures and investments - that may prove decisive in much greater matters - later. Similarily a food embargo/blockade won't work - at least not where it is intented.

Often embargoes are issued because you don't have the political will for more outspoken or direct meassures. That leaves it as a empty political signal, as enforcing the embargo requires a true blockade, which again in all likelyhood means open war - which you don't have the guts for!

If you have the power to blockade, perhaps so much in abundance that no one dare challenge you, the blockade will be an extremely blunt instrument - hitting anybody and everywhere. In short innocent men, women and children will be hit hard, while the ruling elites for sure will see to, that they get what ever little is left for themselves.

In contrast a military operation is much easier to focus on what/whoever is the problem. Not that you can guarantee that innocents or less guilty are hit, but far fewer than in a blockade - and you have an ummatched opportunity to go for the throat of the real crooks - quite literally.

The problem of course is, that you as a politician or voter will have to openly take responsibility for killing people - and the TV images will generally be more - outspoken.

In the end I see this as a still lasting effect of WWI - when people in general got scared over traditional power politics, especially war as a political instrument. They indeed were right that WWI was a disaster, the problem just was that the "peaceful" instruments, like economic sanctions, mediation embargoes etc in the end were either totally ineffective (leaving room for the crooks the be really bloody) or much more bloody than traditional diplomacy with "hot lead" at the end of the string.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Why would anybody consider taking military action to enforce this type of (probably ineffective) embargo, including military action possibly against nations you are not targeting - when the option exists to take military action directly against the nations you are targeting.
 
Why would anybody consider taking military action to enforce this type of (probably ineffective) embargo, including military action possibly against nations you are not targeting - when the option exists to take military action directly against the nations you are targeting.

Miscalculation, I guess. The US public wasn't exactly keen on more military action in the mid-70s, so you could see someone thinking this would be a way of getting the same effect more cheaply. Sort of a 'surely the Arabs will back down once they can't get their breakfast served on time, and the Russkies are too scared of our mighty nuclear balls to do anything but suck it up' line of thought, heavily dependent on terminal testosterone poisoning. Then, when the patrols fail to turn back most ships, the navy needs to deploy more ships, the Arab nations get even angrier than before, the Soviets do dare, and ultimately you have invested too much to back down and don't quite know why.
 
heres an idea sell the food to Turkey and have them sell the food to the Middle East at a price... I don't know why but force them to depend on most their major food sources from outside.
 
Top