Posted on 05/23/2014 1:01:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’m not an expert on the Chinese calendar, so it could be that April 1 comes in May in China, and everyone in Beijing is having a good chuckle at those gullible Canadians, who believe everything they read in the Chinese press. How else to explain reports, which have been circulating for some time, that China is discussing construction of a super-undersea railway-tunnel that would have high-speed trains barreling from China to the U.S., by way of Russia and Canada, faster than you can say “Mao’s your uncle”? As reported by Postmedia, where we believe everything we’re told, “the line would start in northeast China, run through Siberia, dive under the Bering Strait, daylight again in Alaska and continue into North America.
The rail journey from one end of the 13,000 kilometre route to the other would take less than two days at a speed of 350 km/h, according to Wang Mengshu, a railway expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering who was quoted by China Daily. The distance from Russia to Alaska across the Bering Strait is around 80 kilometres, but the tunnel would be more than twice that length, at around 200 kilometres, the China Daily report states. That is about four-times the length of the Channel Tunnel, which connects England to France. . Fanciful as it may sound, the reports come from official Chinese media, so someone evidently thinks it’s true. But before you start lining up for tickets, there are some aspects of this report you should bear in mind....
(Excerpt) Read more at fullcomment.nationalpost.com ...
Well, I’m guessing that the PLA took one look at the PLAN and demanded this.
What’s in Canada?
It goes through Canada to get to the USA.
I’m not one to scoff at the technological possibility. As success writer Napoleon Hill once said, “What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve.” But there would have to be a much greater need for it than now exists to generate the will and capital to do it, even given the technical prowess.
This is a great idea, but it needs to be solar powered.
A pits stop.
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
Well by seventy-six we’ll be A.O.K.
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free
Yet another “Sum Ting Wong” story.
(That's from the linked article.) The author is on drugs. Nobody on this Earth, China and Russia included, wants to conquer the USA. Why in the world would they want to do that? On the other hand, they might want to destroy the USA, physically or politically - and they have their reasons for that. However destruction is not a conquest. A conquest is impossible both technically and logistically, and it would serve no purpose - unless the new management wants to adopt 350 million dependents, and with them all the social problems that are already present in the US society.
The tunnel is technically possible; it can be made with today's technology, even considering high seismic activity in the area. However it won't be built simply because there is no purpose. Deliveries of Chinese goods to the USA are perfectly fine with cargo ships; it's not too expensive, and it requires no investments. There would be no other purpose, as the tunnel links two desolate, Arctic regions with no infrastructure.
The military concerns about the tunnel are laughable. It does not take more than two soldiers to inspect all incoming trains. Who, in author's opinion, would own the terminal in Alaska? If anything, shifting the balance from ships to trains will make the USA safer because the tunnel can be easily disabled if need be, and all trains have to reach a well defined point for unloading. Ships can go anywhere in the ocean, the ocean cannot be easily blocked, and the ships can unload stuff anywhere on or near the coast.
In fact, I can see this as a great way to travel long distances, at least until the Wright brothers finish that new-fangled invention of theirs.
In the 1860s there was a question as to whether the transcontinental railroad made economic sense, considering the vast wasteland in between Omaha and California. But we filled in the wasteland with farms and cities. However, the same is not true here. The railroad would go through the most uninhabited area on earth, with no hope it will fill in unless global warming hits in a big way. At the top of every business cycle, there are always stupider and stupider projects funded, because all the more reasonable ones that have a return on investment have already been done.
Canada is underpopulated (they probably like it that way). China is overpopulated. I can read the tea leaves here! Besides, all those Chinese guys with no hopes of scoring with a woman in China will be the first on those trains to Canada.
and if anyone can pull it off ... the Chinese can
massive amounts of resources.
Check out California history and the "Big Four" railroad tycoons. Building a transcontinental railroad to the West Coast made sense to them. They lined their pockets with riches fleeced off the government and passengers. So much riches that they built monuments (Stanford University, Crocker Bank, Huntington Hotel, etc.). The Big Four bought large tracts of land for cheap, and sold it to incoming passengers at sky-high prices.
The railroad had its detractors. The Big Four conned everyone into getting it built. Termination points and end destinations had nothing there, no infrastructure but they advertised it all as if it had everything to offer. They overcharged fees for passengers and freight. They overcharged the government for every mile that was built. They got extra reimbursement for every mile built through mountainous terrain versus the flatlands; hence they lied and stated few miles for flatlands. They over-promised laborers and scammed them for housing and amenities. The list goes on and on.
What doesn't make sense to the common intelligent man makes plenty of sense to those con artists looking to make bucks from government and regular folks.
Juneau doesn’t manage to have a road link to the outside world. Maybe they should start small before getting on with this larger project.
It seems to me that earthquakes would make a tunnel non-feasible.
And the 19 hour flight is no good because... ?
Half the time, likely the same (or less) cost, far more options for arrival location and time, the scenery (for Siberia, China, and the Pacific, especially) is just as good (if not better) from 35,000 ft... and the TSA will still be at the security gates for the train. I'll stick with flying, thanks.
You spend your $2 Trillion, China. It's a much bigger pool to skim from for all of the relevant players.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.