[CapricornNoble]

I think you are ignoring the lag time inherent in radically shifting international food supply chains, even if you have the money to pay almost any price for goods.

If Conservative counties stopped sending food to Democratic counties, the Democratic counties would collapse into chaos LONG before they are able to secure alternative food supplies. It's a Hell of a lot easier to go 90 days without "Big Tech & Big Pharma" than it is to go 90 days without grains and chicken from flyover country.

[ruthmarx]

Blue states have farms as well, it's just not the primary industry. I'm certain blue states would have enough food to last until they could negotiate to trade with other blue states or international partners.

[CapricornNoble]

You seem to have missed the salient points:

1. The Blue States having their farming largely in Red Counties.

2. The Blue Counties, aka the cities, do NOT have enough food to last until they can negotiate. New York City has a ~5-day food supply: ( https://www.nyc.gov/assets/foodpolicy/downloads/pdf/2016_foo... ). In 2017, 20% of New Orleans was considered food insecure: ( https://icic.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ROCK_Resilient_F... )

Let's just assume you can secure beef and other foodstuffs, from, say Argentina, on DAY ONE of a Red-County food blockade. A ship from Buenos Ares to Los Angeles takes 20+ days. So even if you acted immediately foodstuffs would arrive in LA two weeks after the supermarkets would be empty.

[ruthmarx]

> The Blue States having their farming largely in Red Counties.

No, I was aware of this, I just didn't think it mattered as much, and I still think it's not that big a deal if there are a few months to adjust.

> The Blue Counties, aka the cities, do NOT have enough food to last until they can negotiate. New York City has a ~5-day food supply: ( https://www.nyc.gov/assets/foodpolicy/downloads/pdf/2016_foo... ). In 2017, 20% of New Orleans was considered food insecure: ( https://icic.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ROCK_Resilient_F... )

On this I stand corrected. I was thinking of all the food in the state though, and I mean all food period. Everything in warehouses, everything in every supermarket, etc.

In an emergency situation, all the food in NY state would surely last more than 5 days? Besides, I don't think it would take that long to negotiate food trade for a short term emergency period, maybe from Canada.

If the red states really could hold blue states hostage over food, then, well, that sucks. I guess ideally trade could be stopped gradually in a more civil way instead of blockades where people would suffer, I'm sure a ton of shit red state people buy on Amazon and Walmart has to come from blue states, so there would certainly be something to leverage.

My point was inaccurate, but I think the larger point I was trying to make still stands - eventually, blue states would not need red states if they could move farming to blue states, there is enough land to do so especially looking at the latest map with how few blue states there are. Red states really have little to offer that blue states can't replace in a few months. The inverse is not true.

[CapricornNoble]

> In an emergency situation, all the food in NY state would surely last more than 5 days?

I'm having trouble finding detailed sources on food warehousing, but what I've seen so far suggests that because of Just-in-Time logistics, there is actually very little food warehousing away from the "last mile" distribution locations. Keeping large quantities of food stored is expensive (climate control, other methods to avoid contamination) and laborious (government-mandated inspections, etc.), so I'm not surprised if there aren't many places sitting on a 30 or 60-day supply of chicken breasts or something unless some government agency forces them to do it. Businesses see every type of unused inventory as a cost center.

> I guess ideally trade could be stopped gradually in a more civil way instead of blockades where people would suffer,

Well the whole point is to communicate the "nuclear option" of non-gradual blockade that risks immense suffering.

> I'm sure a ton of shit red state people buy on Amazon and Walmart has to come from blue states, so there would certainly be something to leverage.

It has to come through Blue ports, but something like 70% of Amazon products are made in China: ( https://www.statista.com/chart/33376/share-of-items-sold-on-... ) ( https://notochina.org/how-to-tell-if-a-product-is-made-in-ch... ). Sourcing stuff from China is about to become massively more expensive for everyone if Trump goes through with his tariff plan. The other problem for Red States is shifting overall logistics chains away from West Coast container ports (such as Long Beach) to Red Texas and Florida ports. Even if the capacity requirement drops because Red Counties have lower populations than Blue Counties, it's still a logistical headache, and expensive.

> eventually, blue states would not need red states if they could move farming to blue states, there is enough land to do so especially looking at the latest map with how few blue states there are

If it was reasonably profitable for that land to be used for agriculture, you better believe these massive agri-businesses would already be raping, uh, I mean "cultivating" those areas.

> Red states really have little to offer that blue states can't replace in a few months. The inverse is not true.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs would suggest otherwise: people can absolutely live without Apple Vision Pro and Hollywood movies.

Also consider that law & order in cities is already tenuous (partially thanks to Defund the Police and the Summer 2020 riot fallout). Do the cities have the law enforcement manpower or WILLPOWER to suppress even a week's worth of absolute chaos from supply disruptions before they devolve into Haiti-level anarchy? They can barely maintain order even now. ( https://www.foxnews.com/us/fallout-from-weekend-chaos-philly... )