Non-industrial agriculture reached it's zenith in the late 1800's. Most arable land was in production and yet, there was mass starvation in Asia, resulting in repeated waves of emigration from Asia to the USA, Canada, and Latin America. In the late 1800's, industrial, scientific agriculture began competing directly with scientific (but non-industrial) and traditional farming. At that time, scientists projected that the carrying capacity of the planet would be reached within a few decades. (Carrying capacity is the population that can survive on a given food source).

It looks like those predictions were fairly close. Mass starvations became more frequent and more severe in Asia and Africa until the 1950's or so. Hundreds of millions of humans were in a state of near starvation for their whole lives from the late 1800's until the 1950's. During that interval of time the world population grew from about 1.5 Bn to about 3 Bn. Industrial, scientific agriculture worked a major miracle. It fed everybody in wealthy countries and began producing huge surpluses. Additionally, industrial ag made substantial gains against traditional ag. Even though the populations continued to grow, there were actual worldwide surpluses in food production. Nowadays people starve because of poverty and poor food distribution systems, not from lack of food.

The Earth's population is about 6 Bn human beings. We have far exceeded the pre-industrial carrying capacity of the planet.

Let's make a list of raw materials necessary to maintain industrial agriculture.

Ores of iron, copper, aluminum, titanium, magnesium and trace metals.

Coal.

Petroleum.

If any of these raw materials came under the control of some evil person, that person could wreck the world's economy at a minimum or cause the mass starvation of perhaps 3 billion human beings and incedentally, wreck the economy.

All of those raw materals are found on every continent. Most are fairly widely distributed. Africa for example, has an abundance of all of them, yet is the only continent with endemic starvation. (Why? That's a subject for another thread).

Only oen of those raw materials is found predominantly in one area of the globe--petroleum. about 3/4 of the proven reserves of petroleum are within 1,500 miles of the Persian Gulf. If you happen to be in the center of that region, say the Tigris and Euphrates estuary, 3/4ths of the world's oil supply is within easy range of medium-range missles.

So lets postulate a person who has demonstrated ruthlessness in attaining and holding absolute power; has developed and weaponized poison gas; has an active nuclear research program (unkindly set-back by those gosh-darned Israelis); has repeated called for using petroleum as a weapon to control the world; has repeatedly invaded or tried to invade and/or intimidate his neighbors; and after suffering a complete collapse of his military continues to defy international demands that he fully and compeltely divulge everything about his weapons systems and their disposition. Further, lets assume that he has terrorist training camps within his border and pays suicide bombers to attack other nation's civilian population and has continuously and unrepentently thraetened war against the USA.

The UN embargo was colapsing (ask the French, Russians, and Germans about that. They wanted it lifted for the starving children of Iraq. The billions of dollars in bribes of course, had nothing to do with it.)

So they guy is rearming and increasingly gaining control of his country and threatens 3/4 of the world's oil reserves. If he gains control through whatever means he chooses, would he #1 suddenly get religion, give his money to orphanagesa nd go on a hadj or #2 carry-out the threats he'd been making for 40 years?

What would be the consequence of shutting-down petroleum production.

Well, fertilizers and pesticides require petroleum; fuel for tractors and transportation requires petroleum; and of course, so does heating, cooking and manufacturing. Suddenly 3/4ths is no longer on the market. How long would it take the world to make-up the difference? Would it be before economic collapse? Before mass starvation began? If (say) China, Pakistan, and India (all with nukes) had starving populations, where and how would they seek relief?

therefore, I think it is massively humanitarian to depose that murderous mofo and kill his two barking-mad boys and kill or jail his top leadership and kill as many of his followers as care to volunteer themselves. By doing so, we avoid global economic collapse, mass starvation, and possibly nuclear war.

Yes, I'd support doing all again and without a better plan, I'd support doing it exactly has it was done. It is that important.

Bot