[doosra]

There are pros/cons for govt. subsidies. Some third world countries subsidize seeds/fertilizers/electricity for poor farmers. Many times this is barely enough for subsistence for them and their large families. I'm not sure what a feasible alternative is.

Not all nations go to war of course. But an imbalanced trade equation, especially for basic necessities, does at the very least lead to a loss of leverage at the negotiation table.

I'm not saying subsidies are good; all I'm saying is I can understand why the US govt. would want to maintain a source of homegrown food supply.

[grandalf]

Perhaps, but don't you think that any war serious enough to warrant a massive shift of global food production would arrive with enough forewarning to allow emergency crops to be planted?

Also, keep in mind that the war would have to involve a hostile Mexico AND Canada and our adversarie(s) would have to block access to the eastern and western seaboards.

Perhaps in a previous era (such as the cold war) where fear overcame rationality on a regular basis, such a scenario sounded plausible. But it is fairly ridiculous today.

It is my guess that whatever third world governments are doing to "subsidize" it is necessitated by other policies that cause harm. Sadly, many third world nations have highly corrupt governments which largely siphon resources away from the average person rather than providing infrastructure, solving coordination problems, etc.