Slashdot Mirror
China To Connect Its High-Speed Rail To Europe
MikeChino sends in this excerpt from Inhabitat: "China already has the most advanced and extensive high-speed rail lines in the world, and soon that network will be connected all the way to Europe and the UK. With initial negotiations and surveys already complete, China is now making plans to connect its HSR line through 17 other countries in Asia and Eastern Europe in order to connect to the existing infrastructure in the EU. Additional rail lines will also be built into South East Asia as well as Russia, in what will likely become the largest infrastructure project in history." They hope to get it done within 10 years, with China providing the financing in exchange for raw materials, in some cases.
So China is building infrastructure that will let them transport goods throughout Asia and Europe very quickly and cheaply. Meanwhile, here in the US, people are fighting against the idea of building highspeed rail even between a handful of cities that are right next to each other.
If we don't turn it around, our economy is going down the tubes.
More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace. It's not the lovey-dovey ideal peace, but it's something.
The only thing we need to worry about in this equation is religious nutbags that won't listen to reason.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Don't forget that most of the countries they have to go through are a bit more lax with environmental regulations and building codes than Western Europe (or the US, for that matter). I'm not saying this to suggest that China's going to go cheap on this; it's far too strategically important for them to cut corners. However, when you're not having to spend a decade on environmental impact studies and archaeological surveys before you lay a single track-equivalent, you can get quite a bit done rather quickly.
It's the same reason FDR could use the WPA to build bridges immediately, while Obama can't.
putting hateful words in the mouths of others is something only an asshole would do.
Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.
You already can, though not high-speed. At the moment people take that train for the sake of the journey, not just to get from A to B.
No, he's right. I'm sorry your shitty American textbooks don't express the reality of your situation, but that's no excuse for you to be ignorant of history.
Before Pearl Harbor, Japan had invaded China, Mongolia and parts of the USSR. Japan, having no natural resources of their own yet requiring them for its military action, needed to acquire them from other nations. The Japanese ended up seizing French Indochina (Vietnam today), causing several major Western nations to freeze Japan's assets, and put an embargo on oil shipments to Japan.
The Japanese didn't respond well to this, seeing it as basically a declaration of war, and attacked Thailand and other southeast Asian nations, as well as Pearl Harbor. So he's right, the US was attacked because of the stopped providing the Japanese with oil.
More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace.
I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941? You may have heard of that country's leader. He's invoked here a lot on Slashdot.
This is just another variant of the "prosperity = peace" argument. While the two often go together, one does not ensure the other. Most of the prosperous nations in the history of man have been so while invading their neighbors, or even across the other side of the world. We had this same prediction 20 years ago... the increased trade with China would make it a free country and bring political liberalism. How'd that work out?
I'm all for expanded trade and opening more markets. But that just brings wealth, not freedom, and certainly not utopia.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.
Rubbish. China is one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and yet it's just now climbing out of a third world status that it's been in for centuries. They're human, fallible as anyone else. They have no more wisdom, insight, or patience than any of their competitors. Looking at their industrial pollution situation, and the race to catch up to the West, they may well have less. They slaughtered and starved hundreds of thousands of their own people... perhaps millions, considering their great famines... in their "Great Leap Forward". The Chinese are not any more wise or farsighted than anyone else. What they are, right now, is driven.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Although, the US came to mind first when I saw "meddling, war and neocolonialism"... Looking just at Latin America for only the last 30 years, you get:
1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.
Of all the countries suited for High Speed rail, the USA should be one of them. You guys have the land and capabilities. You guys should be showing us (europeans) how to do it, not the other way round. And no, it doesnt have to be all 200mph trains to make a huge difference.
Lets take my country, poor old battered UK, with aging victorian infrastructure that is heavily critisised, in my opinion, rather unfairly.
We have "local" lines running at 50/70mph. Sub-Main lines running at 100mph, Main lines running at 125mph, and now the High Speed 1 line running at 183mph.
Even with this motley selection of lines, we find Train can often be faster than car. Remember our highest speed roads (the motoways) are max 70mph, and suffer from traffic jams. Even the 100mph lines are faster, and even when you take into account stations, they can still be faster than a motoway at 70mph especially during heavy traffic when at times the average speed can drop to less than 30mph.
Last year, me and my wife when to Brighton from London, on the Brighton express it took just 45 mins to get there on a 100mph line with 2 intermeadiate stops, a journey that would easily take about 1 hour 30 mins by car. the cost was £4.50 each one way, total £18, MUCH cheaper than car (fuel/parking costs, etc). And we were toally relaxed and enjoyed the trip, enjoying alcohol/etc.
The best part is when we travel parrallel to a motoway, and we roll past all the drivers in their jams. Even when there is light traffic, the 100mph trains easily roll past cars going at 70mph (30mph relative speed)
Its even more pronouced going on the Eurostar to paris at 180mph, its crazy when the train runs parrallel to a motoway. The cars, going at 70mph look like they are at a standstill (the train is travelling 110mph faster than the car, over twice the speed).
Dont get me wrong, I do own a car, a BMW, which is nice to drive, etc. But sometimes you just cannot beat the train for sheer comfort.
The USA could be BETTER than us for railways, as you guys have land, etc.
Have a nice day!
The sad part is that very few cities in this country have any infrastructure to support you once you arrive via train. Everything around here is built with the car in mind. Add in a sad mentality that public transport is for 'poor people' and there is little chance of any options being successful financially.