Slashdot Mirror


Nicaragua Gives Chinese Firm Contract To Build Alternative To Panama Canal

McGruber writes with this news from late last week: "The Guardian is reporting that Nicaragua has awarded a Chinese company a 100-year concession to build an alternative to the Panama Canal, in a step that looks set to have profound geopolitical ramifications. The new route will be a higher-capacity alternative to the 99-year-old Panama Canal, which is currently being widened at the cost of $5.2bn. Last year, the Nicaraguan government noted that the new canal should be able to allow passage for mega-container ships with a dead weight of up to 250,000 tonnes. This is more than double the size of the vessels that will be able to pass through the Panama Canal after its expansion, it said."

323 comments

  1. Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who's going to go ballistic over the loss of a monopoly?

    1. Re:Competition by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China is already losing manufacturing jobs

      Africa and the middle east is going to be the new frontier for low cost manufacturing

    2. Re:Competition by telchine · · Score: 1

      What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?

    3. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to corporate rule.

      If they can't exploit you then SEE YA! The only people worthy of a good life are Executives.

      NEO FEUDALISM.

    4. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who's going to go ballistic over the loss of a monopoly?

      Let's wait and see how long it takes them to actually build the damn thing, and at what cost. Go look at a map.

    5. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Panama part of Colombia which became Panama because it was the best part of Colombia to run a canal through?

      A man a plan a canal Panama!

    6. Re:Competition by abarrow · · Score: 2

      The Chinese have to build it within 6 years or they lose the concession. The route they are using is the same as the original route that the US was going to use way back when, before the French decided they had lost too many workers to malaria in Panama and the US started funding Panamanian rebels.

    7. Re:Competition by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 4, Informative

      So who's going to go ballistic over the loss of a monopoly?

      Let's wait and see how long it takes them to actually build the damn thing, and at what cost. Go look at a map.

      If you take that look, be sure to look closely. The plan is to utilize Lake Nicaragua and the San Juan River, which connects it to the Caribbean. That leaves only 10 km of completely new canal (from Lake Nicaragua to the Pacific), although the San Juan River also needs upgrades to make it navigable for larger ships. This is not a new idea, nor an implausible one - see the Wikipedia article.

      --

      Stephan

    8. Re:Competition by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Costa Rica owns 1/2 of the San Juan river. Minor technical detail, since navigation on this river has been in dispute for at least 100 years between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Throwing a lucrative Chinese canal into the works will just make things more complicated, since Nicaragua does not have exclusive rights to the river they don't have the authority to make such a deal with China. Unless of course they build it entirely on the Nicaraguan half of the river.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are 6 routes, and the route thru the san jan river (route 6) was rejected as there would be too many complications with Costa Rica. All other 5 routes require lots of dredging and digging.

    10. Re:Competition by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?

      1. Mountains
      2. Water to operate the locks to get over those mountains.
      Panama and Nicaragua both have relatively low hills/mountains, and large lakes at sufficient altitude to supply water for the locks.
      Costa Rica and Colombia do not.

      A little over three decades ago, I was a young Marine, and spent several months in Panama. We provided security for the Gatun dam and locks. It was very interesting to watch the ships step up and down through the locks. We conducted patrols in the surrounding rainforest. It was the most beautiful forest I have ever seen. There were trees almost as big as sequoias, and spots where the canopy were so dense that it was almost dark on the forest floor. The birds, butterflies and flowers all had dazzling colors. But it seemed like everything had thorns or some goo that would blister skin, and there were lots of mosquitoes, leeches, and other bloodsucking bugs.

    11. Re:Competition by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And southeast Asia. And the Philippines.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Competition by Antipater · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Africa and the Middle East won't be taking many manufacturing jobs until they can stop being in a state of constant war. If your factory gets blown up, it really doesn't matter how cheap the labor is.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    13. Re:Competition by korgitser · · Score: 2

      Well, it might be time for you to invest in my subprime factories! On a larger scale, you can actually tolerate a steady stream of factories blowing up, as long as enough of them turn a constant rent... And the children there will work for a carrot a day!

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    14. Re:Competition by Eccles · · Score: 2

      According to the developer's website, it will not use the San Juan River.

      Lake Nicaragua is freshwater, though. I can't see using it without dramatic environmental impact on that lake.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    15. Re:Competition by cusco · · Score: 1

      Not a real concern, since Costa Rica doesn't have a military. Of course that's also the reason why they've never had a coup, revolution or guerrilla war in the last half a century, unlike almost every other country in Latin America.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    16. Re:Competition by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It has to use the river to connect to the Caribbean. Also Nicaragua has been dredging this river recently (and dumping the waste mud on the Costa Rican side).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Costa Rica understands fully how precious their environment is. CR would not be stupid enough to want such a thing.

      plus theirs volcanoes in the way..

    18. Re:Competition by gregor-e · · Score: 2

      The Atlantic-side digging will likely be through the Indio Maiz Biological Preserve. I imagine there will be some energetic discussion over that.

    19. Re:Competition by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?

      1. Mountains 2. Water to operate the locks to get over those mountains. Panama and Nicaragua both have relatively low hills/mountains, and large lakes at sufficient altitude to supply water for the locks. Costa Rica and Colombia do not.

      Low mountains are only a problem if you want to go over them. With high mountains, you can go under This would overcome the need for any reservoirs to feed the locks, as you'd be taking in sea water at both ends. Which isn't to say you aren't going to need lock gates at all -- you are, because otherwise you'd set up the world's fastest tidal race as 50% of the Atlantic tries to reach the Pacific, eroding the walls of the canal within a week.

      The other advantage of this alternative would be the ability to harvest epic amounts of renewable energy by setting up the world's most powerful tidal electricity generator, capturing the massive output of the emptying locks. (Heck, you could probably use the tidal drop as a source of motive force and fire ships through the tunnel at speeds unimaginable under motor power alone....)

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    20. Re:Competition by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You would sail a ship against the wind across a continent by putting a fire under her deck and going under the mountain... Sir, I do not have the time to listen to such nonsense.

    21. Re:Competition by Mr.+Daemon · · Score: 1

      The Cañas Jeréz treaty gives the entire river to Nicaragua, Costa Rica starts right where the water ends at the south bank of the river...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca%C3%B1as%E2%80%93Jerez_Treaty

    22. Re:Competition by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I see no ships! ;-p

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    23. Re:Competition by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Why is building a canal an example of corporate rule? Why on earth is this bad?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    24. Re:Competition by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Costa Rica understands fully how precious their environment is. CR would not be stupid enough to want such a thing.

      plus theirs volcanoes in the way..

      So we Nicaraguans are stupid enough to want it?

    25. Re:Competition by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The Atlantic-side digging will likely be through the Indio Maiz Biological Preserve. I imagine there will be some energetic discussion over that.

      As a Nicaraguan, I hope there will be. Anyways, it should not be difficult to run a canal while protecting the preserve. After all, the Panama Canal has been in operations for more than a century with flush and vibrant forests all around it.

    26. Re:Competition by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are 6 routes, and the route thru the san jan river (route 6) was rejected as there would be too many complications with Costa Rica. All other 5 routes require lots of dredging and digging.

      What complications there would be (or should be). As per the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, the entire river is within Nicaraguan's jurisdiction (the national border is defined by the south shore of the river on the Costa Rican side.) Any "ecological" concerns by Costa Rica could be rendered moot at the ICJ with Costa Rica's precedence of past dredging of San Juan River tributaries (plus some nice pesticides flowing from their territory) contaminating the river (and thus Nicaraguan territory.) Just saying...

    27. Re:Competition by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You probably shouldn't lump an entire continent together like this: "Africa" is not one place. By your standards, Europe has been in a state of constant war for more than a century now (WWI, spanish civil war, WWII, cold war, Cyprus, Bosnia, Chechnya).

      Many nations within Africa, like South Africa, Zambia, and Tanzania, have been at peace since the end of colonial rule. Not all of these places are bastions of democracy, but if you're a business owner looking for a stable place to run a factory, that's maybe not a big deal.

      No, the problem with Africa isn't violence, it's infrastructure. The China Miracle is based on superhighways, rail lines, and a stable power grid.

    28. Re:Competition by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      The US switched routes because of Walker and Vanderbilt.

      The Nicaraguan route was actually supposed to be easier, according to surveyors and engineers of the time, and it sure looks easier on a map.

      But Vanderbilt, in a rather famous act of revenge against Walker's sponsors Garrison and Morgan, arranged to have the more difficult canal built.

    29. Re:Competition by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Seeing how it's the Chinese who are themselves arranging the slow but steady relocation of low-skill manufacturing to Africa, I don't think that is going to be a problem. China has no qualms about being colonialist if need be; they will have boots on the ground and enforce peace if necessary to protect their economic interests.

    30. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all need a bigger dollar store. A bigger dollar store, A bigger dollar store, Screw the lake and the mountains and the shore, and mountains and the shore, and mountains and the shore, Bigger ships will travel through the canal, will travel through the canal, anal...

    31. Re:Competition by countach · · Score: 1

      Considering how much it cost to build a tunnel under the English channel, making a tunnel big enough for a 250,000 ton ship sounds prohibitively expensive.

    32. Re:Competition by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but as a bit of "look what we can do" ego-stroking, it would be something else....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    33. Re:Competition by jc42 · · Score: 1

      So we Nicaraguans are stupid enough to want it?

      Nah; we don't blame you. It's the folks running your government that want it. They see a good chance of raking off a few hundred million $$ in the process (what's that in yuan or córdobas?), into their secret bank accounts in other countries. But they don't expect you to see any of the benefits, which will mostly go to the officers and stockholders of the shipping corporations. You will see the destruction and pollution of the construction, though.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    34. Re: Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese are governed by trained engineers. USA governed by lawyers. Who will win the infrastructure, economic, and technology battle? Engineers.

  2. Short on details by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The story is short on details, the Spanish language op ed referred to in TFA indicates the canal would run through Lake Nicaragua. This route has been considered since before the US-dug canal through Panama. I could potentially be a sea-level canal, which would be a major plus, but which would radically alter the Lake. Either way, it'd be a big deal for shipping and save thousands of miles and tons of fuel for ships bigger than whatever they're calling the latest "Panamax." It seems to me the ports of New Orleans and Mobile in the US would benefit, perhaps also Atlantic ports in Europe.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Short on details by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

      I could potentially be a sea-level canal

      So, lose some weight? I guess?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Short on details by ibwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... could potentially be a sea-level canal...

      No it couldn't. the surface of Lake Nicaragua is 32.7 meters above sea level. Its maximum depth is 26 meters. If you connect it to the sea without locks, it will empty out entirely.

      The only way to make this work is to use locks, same as with the Panama canal.

      The advantage here is that you will not need to accommodate any traffic during construction.

    3. Re:Short on details by Grizzley9 · · Score: 4, Informative

      which would radically alter the Lake

      Indeed since it is a freshwater lake, the ecosystem would undergo quite a change but currently it's being "attacked" by tons of sewage pumped into it each day. Lake Nicaragua

    4. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ometepe is a beautiful and 'relatively' unspoiled island that sits right next to the proposed shipping lane. I paddled out in a little canoe one day about 5 years ago with some fishing line and bread and caught successively bigger and bigger fish (using the previous fish as bait) until I had a couple 15 inchers that I took to a little local restaurant that cooked them for me, they were great.
      It's really a beautiful place full of nice people and I'm pretty worried about the environmental impact.

      That being said, man, I love huge engineering projects! Sounds like it is going to go through so I'm just going to go ahead and get excited about seeing how crazy it all looks in a decade or two.

    5. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      The story is short on details, the Spanish language op ed referred to in TFA indicates the canal would run through Lake Nicaragua. This route has been considered since before the US-dug canal through Panama. I could potentially be a sea-level canal, which would be a major plus, but which would radically alter the Lake. Either way, it'd be a big deal for shipping and save thousands of miles and tons of fuel for ships bigger than whatever they're calling the latest "Panamax." It seems to me the ports of New Orleans and Mobile in the US would benefit, perhaps also Atlantic ports in Europe.

      Shipping from Asia, to the Southeast US doesn't make a lot of economical sense when you can transfer cargo containers on the West Coast of the US or even Mexico and transfer them by rail. Assuming the transfer operation takes the same time regardless of the port, the rail travel is comparable to sea and more fuel efficient. In addition, since regardless of the port in question (West or East coast), the port is not the final destination and often the goods are transferred by rail or truck a substantial distance. Getting the container off the ship onto rail at the earliest point, allows for the transfer to truck at the most efficient point, too. (ie. why go through the canal to Mobile, to ship the goods back to Topeka?).

      One would think that a new canal has more to do with geo-politics than with economics.

    6. Re:Short on details by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Rubbish. Melting all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica would raise the global sea level a few inches at best. The sea level will change much more because of continental drift - but we won't be around to notice, since it will take thousands and even millions of years.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Short on details by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      except that just a quick look at google maps, Panama is slight more than 20 miles across, even with the lake Nicaragua would have to dig more than 60 miles of canal to get across.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:Short on details by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Rubbish. Melting all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica would raise the global sea level a few inches at best.

      Woah, that's definitely not true. Melting all the arctic ice would not change the global sea level, because it's all floating. But melting Greenland ice would change the sea levels by 20 feet, because the ice is all supported by land. Same with Antarctica (which holds 70% of the world's fresh water): it's supported by land, so if it all melted, ocean levels would rise 60 meters.

      The only reason no one worries about this scenario (they used to, see Waterworld), is because it's extremely unlikely Antarctica will melt completely. Same with Greenland, but if either one begins to melt due to global warming, you can be sure the remaining contrarian scientists will hop on board with a program to stop CO2 emissions. Lomborg will change his opinion quickly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Short on details by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      The US rail infrastructure could not remotely handle the amount of cargo that has to move. We are dependent on big trucks for cross country shipping because of it. Getting a country like nicaragua to approve the canal is orders of magnitude easier than convincing every local govt in the US to let you run new rails through it (on the east coast lots of rail lines are being torn up for bike paths)

    10. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you're confusing "Greenland and Antartica" with the arctic sea ice. If those melt, the sea level will rise about 66 meters.

    11. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. Greenland alone has enough ice to raise global sea levels more than 7 meters, sould it all melt. Antarctica is larger still.
      http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

    12. Re:Short on details by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      currently it's being "attacked" by tons of sewage pumped into it each day.

      How can such a Friend Of The Workers, Friend Of Human Rights And Hater Of Capitalism like Daniel Ortega allow such a thing to happen?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    13. Re:Short on details by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      the rail travel is comparable to sea and more fuel efficient.

      Wrong. Container transport by ship is about 2.5 times as efficient as rail, according to these people in the shipping industry:
      http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/liner-ships/container-ship-design

    14. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... could potentially be a sea-level canal...

      No it couldn't. the surface of Lake Nicaragua is 32.7 meters above sea level. Its maximum depth is 26 meters. If you connect it to the sea without locks, it will empty out entirely.

      The only way to make this work is to use locks, same as with the Panama canal.

      The advantage here is that you will not need to accommodate any traffic during construction.

      "Sea level" isn't the same on both seas at that point. Panama runs about a 15-foot differential between Pacific and Atlantic sides.

    15. Re:Short on details by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      ... if either one begins to melt due to global warming, you can be sure the remaining contrarian scientists will hop on board with a program to stop CO2 emissions.

      I fear you vastly underestimate the perversity of people.

    16. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      the rail travel is comparable to sea and more fuel efficient.

      Wrong. Container transport by ship is about 2.5 times as efficient as rail, according to these people in the shipping industry:
      http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/liner-ships/container-ship-design

      You have to take into the extra distance involved, the crew costs (including food, etc.), the fuel consumed waiting at the canal for your turn and a host of other things. For instance, nobody will argue that it is more efficient to ship from LA to NY via ship instead of rail. So yes, theoretically, a cargo ship is more efficient than a train assuming you are only using hypothetical efficiencies and not real world scenarios.

    17. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US rail infrastructure could not remotely handle the amount of cargo that has to move. We are dependent on big trucks for cross country shipping because of it. Getting a country like nicaragua to approve the canal is orders of magnitude easier than convincing every local govt in the US to let you run new rails through it (on the east coast lots of rail lines are being torn up for bike paths)

      Then we are in a world of hurt, because there are not enough highways and more importantly drivers for big trucks. To expand rail capacity does not require local govt approval. The railroads already own the right of away. Convincing them to spend billions of dollars without a taxpayer subsidy like trucking and shipping gets (who builds those highways and ports?), now that is a different story. Where local govt comes in is when cities expand to where the railroad is and they want the railroad to move. But that is a little bit like people who build housing near an airport and complain about the noise.

      Studies have shown that the most efficient land based cargo transport is rail for long distance with truck for the last 250 miles. That would mean the train stops only every 500 miles or so. If you notice what the railroads have been doing post-regulation, that is exactly what they have been working towards for the past 40 years. Modern railroading is not what our parents and grand parents grew up with.

    18. Re:Short on details by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I fear you vastly underestimate the perversity of people.

      But not of scientists. Although you are right, there are some scientists who cheer when their 'opponents', that is people who disagree with them, die.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      the rail travel is comparable to sea and more fuel efficient.

      Wrong. Container transport by ship is about 2.5 times as efficient as rail, according to these people in the shipping industry:
      http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/liner-ships/container-ship-design

      I think the cargo ship math is off. It states the ship transports 11,000 20 foot containers. Well an 80 foot well car for containers will hold three of those and they are double stacked, so that means six per 80 foot car. That would require 1,833 cars for an approximate total length around 26 miles. Most stack trains are between 1.25 and 2 miles long in the US, meaning a cargo ship would require 13 to 20 trains to move all of the cargo (versus 5,500 trucks). That is assuming, of course, that those containers are all ready to ship once unloaded, but as a glance at any port will tell you, they tend to sit for months in storage until their destination is ready for delivery, so the actual burden on rail or truck is significantly less.

      There is no doubt, however, that a cargo ship can move containers efficiently on water, but unless one lives on the coast in a port city, at some point, that container will need to be shipped by land. So the question still is there as to whether it is cheaper to off-load, say in LA and ship to Topeka or even NY or is it cheaper to go through the canal and up to Mobile or NY and offload and then get to your final destination. Since the off-loading should be comparable regardless of the port, transit time comes into play along with other economic decisions. And in those, the extra shipping costs do not necessarily win out staying longer on the boat than on the train or truck.

    20. Re:Short on details by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No. Do the math. I've done the math.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re:Short on details by chill · · Score: 1

      The check cleared.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    22. Re:Short on details by necro81 · · Score: 2

      I could potentially be a sea-level canal

      Back in the 1960s and 70s, Edward Teller (the so-called "father of the hydrogen bomb") advocated using nuclear exposives to undertake massive civil works projects, called Operation Plowshare. One of the blue-sky thoughts was blasting a sea-level canal clear across the Central America.

    23. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyhow, such situation might render the canal obsolete. Without all the ice in the way, you've got a nice free shipping route right across the Arctic Ocean.

    24. Re:Short on details by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      theoretically, a cargo ship is more efficient than a train assuming you are only using hypothetical efficiencies and not real world scenarios

      Then why does so much Chinese freight get shipped directly to NY harbor? http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120805/TRANSPORTATION/308059971

    25. Re:Short on details by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Somehow a plan from the real life Dr. Strangelove makes me nervous.

    26. Re:Short on details by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Even if that 15 foot difference is 15 feet above notional sea level, that's less than 5 meters, and would still be below the lowest point on the bed of Lake Nicaragua.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    27. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      theoretically, a cargo ship is more efficient than a train assuming you are only using hypothetical efficiencies and not real world scenarios

      Then why does so much Chinese freight get shipped directly to NY harbor? http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120805/TRANSPORTATION/308059971

      Just because something happens someway doesn't mean it is the most efficient way. Driving 55mph is far more efficient than 70mph (or the 80mph or 90mph that many people drive), and yet the speed limit on the interstate is usually 70mph. Maybe there are outside influences such as labor agreements or port fees or tariffs? Maybe the ship is then used to pick up containers at NY and transport to Europe? Maybe LA and San Diego or too crowded? Or maybe keeping the containers on the ship is cheaper than paying the storage fee in port? Or maybe since shipments are pooled, there might be a regulatory requirement that something be offloaded in NY so everybody else is basically along for the ride.

      Who knows why anybody would want the goods to be in transit longer on the ship so they could be shipped back by rail or truck inland, but they must have their reason. Just like we all have our reason for driving faster than the most fuel efficient point for our cars.

    28. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Do the math. I've done the math.

      You have done it incorrectly.

    29. Re:Short on details by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I could potentially be a sea-level canal

      Back in the 1960s and 70s, Edward Teller (the so-called "father of the hydrogen bomb") advocated using nuclear exposives to undertake massive civil works projects, called Operation Plowshare. One of the blue-sky thoughts was blasting a sea-level canal clear across the Central America.

      I remember reading about Operation Plowshare (probably in a C. B. Colby book), and thinking about just how awesome it would be to do massive projects with H-Bombs. Of course, I was like 10 at the time, and explosions were about the coolest thing in the world.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    30. Re:Short on details by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Antartic and Greenland Ice Caps melting will solve that problem...

      well if they all melted, then it would almost fix the problem.

      interesting thing about the sea level interactive maps is that we wouldn't end up with waterworld in any case. which is good because costner sucks.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    31. Re:Short on details by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of maybe's. Do you have any numbers or cites to back your contention that say, China->LA, rail for LA->NY is more efficient than China->NY entirely by ship?

    32. Re:Short on details by Wookact · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are not being torn up just for bike paths, they have been abandoned by the rail companies, who then allow local municipalities to use the rights of way for bike paths.

      Google rails to trails. It is a good project for rail lines that were not worth the upkeep to the railroads. This is not some sort of conspiracy to reduce rail capacity like your post implies.

    33. Re:Short on details by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      That wasn't my intent. I simply meant there is no interest in this country to upgrading or maintaining a rail infrastructure, the bike paths are better than leaving rusting steel on the ground but I would prefer a better rail system for passengers and freight use. Every major highway should have a rail parallel to it.

    34. Re:Short on details by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, but Greenland IS melting, and lots of people haven't changed their ideas. Of course, it's a long way from a complete melt, and perhaps it won't. Similarly, Antartica is melting, as in losing tons of water every year. But there are a lot of tons to go through, and parts of it probably won't melt within the next few centuries. (IIRC, there are parts of Antartica where the ice is getting thicker, but those are a minority, and the average is less ice with each succeeding year.)

      But note that these effects aren't ones that people can see directly, so they tend to discount them. Also, people have a hard time thinking about processes, so they tend not to.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:Short on details by ArgonautThief · · Score: 1

      Regardless of ANY of the logistics involved and increased transit time it is always more efficient and economical to transport cargo by sea. It boils down to a simple calculation of moving X tonnes of cargo over X kilometres. If you look at the fact that a "handysize" vessel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handymax ) can carry ~40,000MT of cargo 300-400 miles per day while only consuming 20MT of fuel to do so then the math becomes apparent. It becomes even more apparent with larger vessels. Also the above discussions refer to moving containers which have the least efficient tonne/kilometres ratio, the math is even more apparent when looking at moving bulk cargoes like alumina, ore, sugar, wheat etc. A truck carries ~30MT on average and a rail car ~30-50MT on average, how many of those would you need and, more importantly, how much fuel would they consume and how much GHG / SoX etc would they emit to move the same quantity of cargo from NY to LA / vice versa?

      --
      The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
    36. Re:Short on details by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...

      Woah, that's definitely not true. Melting all the arctic ice would not change the global sea level, because it's all floating. But melting Greenland ice would change the sea levels by 20 feet, because the ice is all supported by land. Same with Antarctica (which holds 70% of the world's fresh water): it's supported by land, so if it all melted, ocean levels would rise 60 meters. The only reason no one worries about this scenario (they used to, see Waterworld), is because it's extremely unlikely Antarctica will melt completely. Same with Greenland, but if either one begins to melt due to global warming, you can be sure the remaining contrarian scientists will hop on board with a program to stop CO2 emissions. Lomborg will change his opinion quickly.

      You may be a bit behind on the emerging knowledge about those Antarctic glaciers. It seems that the existing floating ice sheets are acting as a dam, keeping the glaciers stable and on land. These sheets are already going away, and when the do the glaciers are going to start marching into the sea (the flow is already accelerating). It is true that even in a CO2 warmed world Antarctica will still be too cold to melt the ice on land, but it looks rivers of ice will start pouring into the sea.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    37. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been to Nicaragua? Nothing is being pumped into the lake... the sewage is just slowly flowing in.

      Open sewers FTW.

    38. Re:Short on details by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I've done the math.

      You've done it wrong. Here it is, to an order of magnitude, assuming the entire island of Greenland is a big block of ice:

      Volume = area * height

      Area of Greenland = 2 million km^2.
      Elevation of Greenland = 2.5 km.
      Volume of Greenland = 5 million km^3

      Area of Earth's oceans = 340 million km^2
      Height = volume / area = 5 million km^2 / 340 million km^3 = .014 km = 14 meters.

      This is an overestimate because some of the volume of Greenland above sea level is rock rather than ice. If you figure it's 1/2 ice, 1/2 rock (which it is), you get 7 meters, the value reported by most reputable scientists. In any case, it is definitely meters, not inches.

    39. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of maybe's. Do you have any numbers or cites to back your contention that say, China->LA, rail for LA->NY is more efficient than China->NY entirely by ship?

      Only that LA unloads a lot more container ships than anywhere else in the US and the railroads transport those containers throughout the US. It would seem that businesses have already done the requisite analysis and found that unless the final destination of the container is on the east coast, the west coast and then rail or truck is the prefered method.

    40. Re:Short on details by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt, however, that a cargo ship can move containers efficiently on water, but unless one lives on the coast in a port city, at some point, that container will need to be shipped by land.

      The vast majority of people in the U.S. live within 100 miles of a major navigable body of water (Pacific, Atlantic, or Great Lakes). The land side of the transport equation is negligible in terms of distance, but is significant in terms of cost: you don't want to add to it.

      Also, you're making a big deal about travel time, but in practice, people who ship stuff on cargo ships don't care how long it takes to get there. They deliberately design those suckers to go slow, because fuel efficiency is more important than speed. Transoceanic shippers work on the pipeline plan: if you want one shipment to arrive every week this month, you make sure you sent off a ship once a week three months ago.

    41. Re:Short on details by real-modo · · Score: 1

      Shipping from Asia, to the Southeast US doesn't make a lot of economical sense when you can transfer cargo containers on the West Coast of the US or even Mexico and transfer them by rail.

      Who cares about the USA? This is about:-

      - Ready access to Mexico's share of the Gulf of Mexico oil-bearing formations (woefully underexploited).
      - Ready access to the minerals and oil in and offshore from West Africa, and cheap transport for grain from the farms that China is setting up there.
      - Cheaper trade with Europe, West Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and the rest of South America (and possibly South Africa; I haven't checked the distances).

      Remember, the largest crude carriers (VLCCs and ULCCs) can't go through the Panama Canal. The Canal limits the size of other bulk-goods and container ships, too.

      As a byproduct, competition in trans-isthmus shipping routes will benefit Chile and Peru. Lucky Chileans and Peruvians. It will likely benefit American households, too, although self-interested American companies and control freaks in the US government will scream blue murder.

      One would think that a new canal has more to do with geo-politics than with economics.

      At this level, they're the same thing. But: this move looks to be beneficial to more-or-less the whole world, possibly excepting ordinary West Africans (but that's not the fault of the Chinese).

    42. Re:Short on details by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We're still looking at a few mm rise per year, nothing worth worrying about. There has been some speculation on higher increases in the future, but I'll wait to see what we have in the next IPCC report, which comes out soon.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:Short on details by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you're getting your data about Antarctica melting, see for example this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    44. Re:Short on details by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Ok, I suppose I might have read your sentence the wrong way. I am just a big propnent for these bike paths. They have turned all of the rail lines in my home city to bike paths. The old rail lines had bridges over all of the major streets, so now all of the bike paths criss cross the city and have almost no actual intersection with the high traffic streets. Also a bonus that most rail lines around here had a max grade of 2.5% so its nice level riding.

      I do agree that we should utilize trains more as they are more economical to ship goods. It would be nice for better passenger lines as well. I looked into going to the south east from the mid west via rail. I would have had to go through Washington DC to make it work. Travel time was like three days. Drive time was like a day and a half. Fly time was a few hours. I drove.

    45. Re:Short on details by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Travel by train is expensive too. I did Atlanta to DC once and regretted it. Flying would have not been any more expensive, and now with airlines like Frontier you can fly for less than $100. We have a lot of the railroad turned bike paths here in NJ, I am more of a mountain biker but anything that can keep cyclists off the road is welcome to me as a driver for sure.

    46. Re:Short on details by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Various groups of people noting the increase of land-ice becoming sea-ice, and sea-ice breaking off and floating away. And people worrying about penguin population. Several different sources, none that technical, but all reasonably reputable academics.

      That one chart could use a bit of explanation, and doesn't show *that* much anyway. It does seem to show a short term increase in "anomoly", but it doesn't explain what that is, or how they measured it. (Possibly it's linked to from a page that does explain those things, but if so there doesn't seem to be a return link.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    47. Re:Short on details by countach · · Score: 1

      If you've got a container of stuff from China that needs distributing all over the US, then sure it makes sense to get it from LA. But if its purely for the east coast, then its not so clear.

    48. Re:Short on details by countach · · Score: 1

      " nobody will argue that it is more efficient to ship from LA to NY via ship instead of rail. "

      I'm not in a position to do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is more efficient in some circumstances. A ship can move 10,000 containers. I'm guessing that is the equivilent 100+ trains.

    49. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      If you've got a container of stuff from China that needs distributing all over the US, then sure it makes sense to get it from LA. But if its purely for the east coast, then its not so clear.

      If it is purely east coast, it could also go through the Suez Canal. It would be a shorter, more direct route that way depending on political tensions in the area.

    50. Re:Short on details by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      " nobody will argue that it is more efficient to ship from LA to NY via ship instead of rail. "

      I'm not in a position to do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is more efficient in some circumstances. A ship can move 10,000 containers. I'm guessing that is the equivilent 100+ trains.

      A fully loaded cargo ship is 11,000 20ft containers. That is the equivalent of 18 to 24 trains. By the time the cargo ship gets through the Panama Canal, those trains will be unloaded onto trucks and going to their final destination.

      It's important to remember that efficiency isn't measured just in miles per gallon. You have to take into account the extra distance to sale south from LA go through the canal then sale all the way back up to NY versus a more direct (although not straight) shot cross country. If the cross country route is 1/3 the distance travelled, it can burn three times the fuel per mile and still have the same fuel cost.

    51. Re:Short on details by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm still not worried. :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    52. Re:Short on details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that just a quick look at google maps, Panama is slight more than 20 miles across, even with the lake Nicaragua would have to dig more than 60 miles of canal to get across.

      How do you get 60 miles? That narrow band is 15-20 miles wide.

  3. I can see where this will go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese should read this book.

    It's an eye opener. HINTS: Technology and man power aren't the problems. And dealing with mosquitoes hasn't changed very much in the last century.

    Also, for you program managers, it's an AWESOME read and helps when you're crying yourself to sleep from the mean nasty things your developers say about you.

  4. Finally by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been waiting to hear about this for years. It should be quite a project. Wikipedia has a map for those interested.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Finally by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      I wonder if they will resurrect the idea of “Pan-Atomic Canal”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_canal

      Basically, you just need a few atomic devices to carve out a new canal. I assume China has a few laying around and that the who thing would only take a few months to construct.

    2. Re:Finally by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Replying to my own post – I copied OP link, not Operation Plowshare’s link. Here it is.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare

    3. Re:Finally by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a nuclear test in 1970 in Alaska that showed such use of nukes to dig holes was not only not as effective as expected but also incredibly fucking stupid?

    4. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been waiting to hear about this for years. It should be quite a project. Wikipedia has a map for those interested.

      Thanks but the satellite view on Google gives you a much better idea of exactly how big of a project this will be. I predict it takes at least twice as long to build as they plan, and the budget over-runs will be at least four times the initial estimate. Once it finally opens, there will be problems which prevent the largest of the vessels from using it until they perform a costly and time-consuming retrofit. In the end, it'll be cheaper to take the long way around or ship over land via truck or rail than to pay the duty fees to use the canal.

    5. Re:Finally by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      There was a planned test to dig a harbor (which is kind of like a big hole) in Alaska but it never happened. Ergo all objections are theoretical.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot_(1958)

      (I might have to take that back. I think the USSR did something similar. Made a really pretty lake, if I recall, but they could never keep it stocked with fish. But I can’t find a link so it might be my imagination.)

    6. Re:Finally by telchine · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the USSR did something similar. Made a really pretty lake, if I recall, but they could never keep it stocked with fish. But I can’t find a link so it might be my imagination.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chagan

    7. Re:Finally by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has a list of the tests - the year you are looking for is 1970 - location, Alaska (both as mentioned above). It didn't move much dirt.
      It appears I should not have posed it as a rhetorical question since that appears to be too subtle for readers here, which is fair enough reading it casually late at night or something.

    8. Re:Finally by niado · · Score: 2

      (I might have to take that back. I think the USSR did something similar. Made a really pretty lake, if I recall, but they could never keep it stocked with fish. But I can’t find a link so it might be my imagination.)

      You are thinking of Lake Chagan, part of the "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy" project that Russia did.

      It does seem to be quite pretty.

    9. Re:Finally by Nutria · · Score: 1

      No. It would have happened in the early 1960s, but was canceled over strong local opposition and no real economic need for a port at Cape Thompson.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:Finally by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      NO.

      That was a stupid idea of Dr. Edward Teller and others. This paper is a fascinating look at how stupid of a plan it was and although they didn't do full scale nuclear testing, they did import fallout into Alaska from Nevada.

      Edward Teller toured the territory of Alaska in the summer of 1958 to promote his dream of "engaging in the great art of geographic engineering, to reshape the earth to your pleasure." He told the curious Alaskans that they were "the most reasonable people," that the atomic scientists had "looked at the whole world" for just the right location to test their technology. He flattered them, saying that "Anything new that is big needs big people in order to get going..., and big people are found in big states ." He boasted that the Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor to the Energy Research and Development Administration, and now the Department of Energy) could "dig a harbor in the shape of a polar bear, if required." He further boasted that "If your mountain is not in the right place, just drop us a card." (Coates, 1989).

      It's no small wonder that Kubrik patterned Dr. Strangelove after Teller. One quote sums it up by Isador Rabi about Teller as well:

      "He is a danger to all that is important. I do think it would have been a better world without Teller. I think he is an enemy of humanity."

      We did have the Sedan shot which was part of Plowshare but it made a nice big hole in Nevada.

      The Soviets with their Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE) did do geoscaping with nukes. They did create a lake but it's still radioactive like most sites.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    11. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a new UK-government IT project...

    12. Re:Finally by operagost · · Score: 1

      They could keep it stocked, but only with three-eyed fish.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:Finally by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      IIRC the problem (aside from radiation) is the the blast shatters underlying bedrock, so that any canal will have trouble holding water as it will tend to seep out. Additionally the sides of the canal will be very crumbly and prone to erosion.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    14. Re:Finally by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Nukes are too problematic. What they'll probably do is fire up their space program to build a mass-driver on the moon, then use targeted mass-deliveries ala "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". This will allow the Chinese to achieve an indelible western economic presence as well as achieve military superiority over, well, just about everyone. All through peaceful and capitalist-approved methodology.

    15. Re:Finally by real-modo · · Score: 1

      IIRC they did more than this, including some overburden loosening for coal mines, and some early fracking. (What's the Russian for "Atoms for Peace"?) But ANFO and dynamite are cheaper and come in a better range of sizes, they concluded. And fracking had to be done hydraulically, which required better steel.

      Besides, the N thing upset the lunatics. After the Cuban missile crisis, the Russians eventually decided it was better to keep things cool on that topic.

    16. Re:Finally by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What's the Russian for "Atoms for Peace"

      The common propaganda term was "mirnyy atom", literally "peaceful atom".

  5. it's too wide by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Look at a map of Nicaragua. It's at least twice if not 3x as wide as Panama at its thinnest point. What an unbelievably stupid idea, not to mention how stupid it is to completely cut your country in half.

    1. Re:it's too wide by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a shame China didn't consult with you first then. You could have saved them a lot of trouble by telling them it was stupid. So in order to allow super tankers, which are too big for the Panama Canal, where would have built an additional, wider canal?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:it's too wide by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not to mention how stupid it is to completely cut your country in half.

      Yeah, that MIssisippi river forces people to ride thousands of miles further to take their horses from Mississippi to Texas. Oh wait, they've been building bridges and fording rivers since before the colonial era?

      Sure, it is a longer route than Panama, but I suspect the shipping volumes are large enough that it might be profitable. China is likely viewing this strategically - they've been taking the long view far more than the US in recent years, with the exceptions of their environmental policy and the US willingness to invest in blowing things up.

    3. Re:it's too wide by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look at a map of Nicaragua. It's at least twice if not 3x as wide as Panama at its thinnest point. What an unbelievably stupid idea, not to mention how stupid it is to completely cut your country in half.

      In the US, our country is "completely cut in half" by a naturally occurring canal, if you will. We've used a technologies known as the "bridge" and "ferry" to deal with that. Nicaragua could probably do the same.

      Also note that part of that distance through Nicaragua is already water: Lake Nicaragua. Every plan ever for a canal through that region -- going back to the 19th century -- has included the lake in the route.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:it's too wide by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, it's a hell of a lot easier to carve a relatively flat channel over a long distance than it is to build lock after lock and to maintain all those pumps...

      And as for cutting one's country in half, that's what bridges and tunnels are for.

      I don't think that the Chinese will succeed for the same reasons why the French and other European nations didn't succeed initially in Panama. The Panama canal took a national interest to construct, not a corporate interest, and was driven in large part by our nation having two coasts with a whole lot of distance in between, and by our "Manifest Destiny" doctrine. Simple economic interests operated by a corporation may not be able to pull it off, especially if that corporation is there only for that purpose, as problems along the way will make it very hard to raise capital when investors don't think that their investment will pay off.

      If they do manage to pull it off, great! There will be uses for the Panama Canal even if it receives less traffic than the new one, decades from now when it's finished.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:it's too wide by slashmydots · · Score: 0

      Obviously trolling but gee, hmm, maybe PANAMA?! You know, make it even wider. I don't suppose you considered that.

    6. Re:it's too wide by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't know Chinese super tankers came down the Mississippi River daily, thus making it ungodly expensive to create bridges high enough to let them pass under and effectively turning the average distance between bridges to 10x what it would be if only smaller boats passed down it. That never came up in Huck Finn apparently.

    7. Re:it's too wide by slashmydots · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the height of the average super tanker and the Nicaraguan budget for infrastructure improvements like bridges?

    8. Re:it's too wide by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What pumps? I believe the locks are gravity fed..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:it's too wide by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that Panama didn't consider that either when they started their current project to widen the existing Panama canal.

    10. Re:it's too wide by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nicaragua apparently doesn't even have a paved road that stretches from one coast to the other. I'm not sure how much of an issue it would be to build a $40b canal that has a few tall bridges, or those new fangled draw bridges every so often to handle what must be a huge amount of traffic in the area.

    11. Re:it's too wide by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Look at a map of Nicaragua.

      You first, since it's clear you didn't actually look at a detailed map.

      If you look at an actual map of Nicaragua, what you will see is that there is a gigantic body of water called Lake Nicaragua that covers about half the width of the country. Look a little harder and you'll see a series of major rivers connecting Lake Nicaragua (which sits mostly on the western part of the country) with the Caribbean Sea to the east. As a result, any of the canals that have ever been proposed in Nicaragua make use of the existing rivers and the lake for the majority of the trip, meaning that the only place they need to build an artificial canal would be for the 10km-ish stretch between the western edge of Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific Ocean. They also have to add locks and likely do some dredging with one of the current rivers, but that's far less costly than having to do it all from scratch.

      Also, the US has really suffered all of these years due to its being cut in half by the Mississippi, so I can see why you're concerned about what this might do to Nicaragua. It's a good thing those rivers and the lake I just mentioned don't already span the width of the country. I'm sure that turning them into a canal system would really harm the country.

    12. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, and neither have you seen the Nicaraguan budget for infrastructure improvements like bridges.

    13. Re:it's too wide by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Who's trolling whom here? Or are you suggesting that China didn't consider the obvious? Or that Panama didn't consider it when they undertook that very project?Maybe, just maybe, the people involved in these projects know something you don't. I don't suppose you considered that.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    14. Re:it's too wide by dpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Multiple comments...

      As fustakrakich says, no pumps needed. Need more water in the lock, get it from the higher water level side. Need less, give it to the lower water level side. As a kid, we went to a fishing camp along the Trent Waterway system in Ontario, Ca. I've had the now-rare experience of walking in circles, pushing the handles that operated the valves and doors of the locks. At that time it was fully manual, these days it's all electric. As for technology, I've also been on and to the Peterborough lift-locks, where the boats ride in pans on hydraulic rams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_Lift_Lock But the thing I hope to see someday is the Falkirk Wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel

      Yes, I'm a bit of a lock-junkie.

      As for "succeed", China is embarking on a massive "manifest destiny" kick of their own, right now. I'll be curious to see what "Internet Time" does to that, as well as their changing demographics and internal tendency to corruption. It will be interesting to see how well they can keep their long-term focus with those other factors at work. (I'll agree that without them, China has been pretty good at long-term.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    15. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again with a relief map

    16. Re:it's too wide by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      China manages its people like property, like a herd, thats why they take the long view. The US, in theory, is just a group of people who choose to live together.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    17. Re:it's too wide by WuphonsReach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Newer lock systems that are designed to reuse water are going to need pumps to move water in/out of the storage basins. Without the water re-use, the Panama canal would not have enough annual rainfall to move those post-Panamax ships. With the water re-use concept, moving a post-Panamax ship through the locks takes about the same amount of water as the current locks do with Panamax ships.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    18. Re:it's too wide by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Most of the area this canal would be built through is jungle with no roads anyway, there would only be a need for a few bridges on the east coast and a few bridges on the west coast.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    19. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicaragua apparently doesn't even have a paved road that stretches from one coast to the other. I'm not sure how much of an issue it would be to build a $40b canal that has a few tall bridges, or those new fangled draw bridges every so often to handle what must be a huge amount of traffic in the area.

      China has been investing in such projects for years. They do that to be independent of US policy (export regulation, geopolitics and whatnot)
      They have been building new roads, gas pipelines, sea ports all over the world, even in politically unstable countries like pakistan, iraq ... These are future investments, just like china's own ghost cities.

      If you know that every ship passing trough the Panama Canal pays between 50 000 - 250 000$ in each direction that 40 billion means nothing.

    20. Re:it's too wide by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Hell China probably stole the plans for the canal from US contractors ;-)

    21. Re:it's too wide by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      your post is absolutely correct but misses one point. China _is_ currently in the midst of its Manifest Destiny (empire expansion) period

    22. Re:it's too wide by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Might be cheaper to do cut and cover tunnels while you are actually constructing the canal.

    23. Re:it's too wide by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course China is being strategic. I live in Costa Rica, where Xi Jinping just visited before going to the US, and right next to Nicaragua. China has been very generous to these small latin countries, donating stadiums, highways and bridges. Like the US used to do back in the bad old days. The US nowadays though only threatens. Threatens will sanctions, threatens with cutting aid programs, etc. Guess who is popular and who isn't in latin America now? China has pretty much bought Africa and S. America. I wonder where the US seeks to expand its economy in the future - oh yeah, they don't make anything anymore anyway.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re:it's too wide by operagost · · Score: 2

      The US government spent $1.3 billion in Latin America in 2010. That's not counting the billions spent by a myriad of humanitarian organizations. Regardless, I don't think you should be judging countries based on their handouts. If only you were so critical of your own productivity and politics.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    25. Re:it's too wide by Holi · · Score: 1

      >If you know that every ship passing trough the Panama Canal pays between 50 000 - 250 000

      I am sure Richard Haliburton would disagree with you he paid $0.36 (it's a joke, I know it was a while back and he swam). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Halliburton
      I also would disagree with you as I paid a little under a grand the last time I went through. Granted my boat is just a hair over 30 feet.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    26. Re:it's too wide by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Most countries don't have paved roads (certainly not larger than a 2 lane country road) that run their length or width. Manaus, a major Brazilian port is only accessible by air and sea for most of the year (rainy season). The concept of a national highway system outside of the US and Europe is virtually unknown.
       
      I missed my plane out of Colombia last year due to a mudslide on the largest road between the two largest cities (8 million and 3 million) in the country, it was one lane in each direction. This is pretty common...

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    27. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      who had the NSA steal it from some German Engineeers

    28. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the US should just cut those aid programs all together since they are so unappreciated and unnecessary.

    29. Re:it's too wide by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They would not be missed. Because it also means we wouldn't have to "Americanize" our laws - especially IP laws (impossible to enforce). And drug laws (which are expensive/impossible to enforce). Aid from the US today is given with strings attached, because the American ego thinks that everyone needs fabulous relations with the US and is willing to bend over backwards. Aid from China is given as aid, in the hope that China will gain fair treatment at the border for the goods it sells. You know. Like countries used to be when they weren't so interested in violating the sovereignty of their neighbors.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    30. Re:it's too wide by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      A drop in the bucket, considering Latin America is well over half a billion people in a vast, emerging market. Coke and other US companies make far more than a billion a year in this market alone. The aid you give does end up coming back to you in terms of new markets. As for latin politics, I don't think an American has any grounds from which to criticize. Democrat or Republican? American politics don't matter because the result is always the same. Spend spend spend. War war war. Bully bully bully.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    31. Re:it's too wide by gtall · · Score: 1

      Actually, the U.S. is more or less on par with manufacturing with respect to China. Please try to keep up.

    32. Re:it's too wide by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      China is doing pretty much the same thing (donating various stadiums, government buildings, roads, etc.) throughout Africa as well. They are doing it to ensure access to resources, as well as buy support in the UN, etc. They are throwing the money around.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    33. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already gave you karma for your comment, that Falkirk Wheel looks awesome. Incredible that it only requires 30 horsepower to move the boats since the ballast is of equal weight. Very cool.

    34. Re:it's too wide by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The US government spent $1.3 billion in Latin America in 2010.

      Unless you were frozen along with Dr. Evil for the last 40 years, there is no excuse for you thinking that a billion dollars is in any way a significant amount of money.

      China spends about 10 times as much money in Latin America and their economy is about half as big as ours. That is a factor of 20 difference in favor of the Chinese.

    35. Re:it's too wide by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the Chinese will succeed for the same reasons why the French and other European nations didn't succeed initially in Panama. The Panama canal took a national interest to construct, not a corporate interest, and was driven in large part by our nation having two coasts with a whole lot of distance in between, and by our "Manifest Destiny" doctrine. Simple economic interests operated by a corporation may not be able to pull it off, especially if that corporation is there only for that purpose, as problems along the way will make it very hard to raise capital when investors don't think that their investment will pay off.

      TFA doesn't really give you the full picture, so I can understand why you'd think this is a "corporate interest"
      The Chinese government created a company that they own and fund, for the purposes of building, owning, and operating this canal for 100 years.

      China isn't not building the canal to operate it for-profit.
      The bulk of the benefit to China will be reflected in lower shipping costs.

      /Most of the largest companies in China are partially or wholly government owned.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    36. Re:it's too wide by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      It will work as well for them as it did for their predecessors.

      The west is more or less done dumping money into corrupt 3rd world hell holes. China will also get its fingers burned, they will learn. Africa is like the old Steve Jackson game 'Illuminati', future deals are not enforceable. They've all learned the; Revolution! All deals are off. Shuffle.

      China didn't have any capital to invest when the rest of the worlds capital learned that the only thing worth owning in Africa is a government. Even then, it's marginal.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:it's too wide by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You have a bright future in government project planning.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:it's too wide by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Chinese colonialism is in full steam and just like European colonialism the locals are loving it, at first. See the Chinese aren't giving money away for free, just like colonialism in the past they expect to get something for their "gifts". The concessions they are demanding are far more than the money invested.

      But like all corrupt regimes they are willing to placate the higher ups of the colonial countries, the bribes and kickbacks ensure that the local government keeps their populace in control. That's how the Europeans used to do it too, then they passed laws banning it and you saw the local politicians turn against the colonial invaders. At some point you will see something similar with China, there are mines in Africa with 80% Chinese employment that the local public is beginning to turn against even though the local politicians have been bribed (ironically partly due to twitter and facebook).

    39. Re:it's too wide by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Hoover and FDR had it right w/ the Good Neighbor Policy. Even aside from the ethical and humanitarian aspects, treating Latin America like garbage is a terrible idea strategically. It's not that I'm so Cumbaya about international relations, for example I'm fine with the Monroe Doctrine, but crapping all over people tends to lose hearts and minds. After what we pulled there, can you imagine Nicaragua having anything to do with the US? If we'd gotten ridden of Batista (or just twisted his arm enough to make things a little better for most people) we might never had had a Cuban problem.

    40. Re:it's too wide by Solandri · · Score: 2

      China has been very generous to these small latin countries, donating stadiums, highways and bridges. Like the US used to do back in the bad old days. The US nowadays though only threatens. Threatens will sanctions, threatens with cutting aid programs, etc. Guess who is popular and who isn't in latin America now?

      So China is the good guy for previously giving nothing, then giving something. But the U.S. is the bad guy for previously giving something, but considering giving less?

      Your problem is you're assuming you're entitled to the aid the U.S. is already giving, and thus you value current U.S. contribution at zero and see a reduction in contribution as a negative (a threat). You need to compare from an equal basis - assume you're entitled to zero aid and measure any contribution as a positive.

    41. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they have lots of US dollars that they might as well convert to things that are a bit more real in value.

    42. Re:it's too wide by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      As fustakrakich says, no pumps needed. Need more water in the lock, get it from the higher water level side. Need less, give it to the lower water level side.

      This means that you're constantly draining the reservoir. I remember one summer on the Caledonian canal having to wait an hour for another group of boats because Loch Oich was unusually low and they weren't willing to run the lock more than 3 or 4 times that day.

      Now imagine you're operating the world's biggest and busiest shipping channel....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    43. Re:it's too wide by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Lake Nicaragua is west of the watershed and empties into the Pacific at Tipitapa. The largest waterway west of the lake is Rio San Juan, which flows into Lake Nigaragua, having originated in the mountains of Costa Rica....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    44. Re:it's too wide by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      national interest you say? it has that. just not USA's. who's trade is the canal for? the chinese.

      Also, I don't think they're going to run into as bad sudden death syndrome problems as people hit with the panama canal efforts....

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    45. Re:it's too wide by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So...in the bad days, the US bought their way in Latin America, and it didn't work.
      Today, China buys their way into Latin America and it will magically work?

    46. Re:it's too wide by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

      I hate to break the news to you, but aid from ANYONE is given with strings attached.
      If you think China is building canals just because they want to help South America, they want market access and they care, you haven't learned much from history.
      Countries have ALWAYS been interested in violating the sovereignty of their neighbors.

    47. Re:it's too wide by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I've read articles about how some places in Africa wish the Chinese would either stop giving them anything or at least make it of better quality because the "new" roads they built them have already broken down and there's no local money to fix them. Let us know if people are still happy if those stadiums, bridges and highways collapse or break, killing unwary people. And anybody who expects that China does this stuff for "free" out of good will is just delusional. China exacts a price for it's "help". Maybe it's just telling the government (I'm looking at you South Africa) to deny a visa to the "evil splitist" Dali Lama. Maybe it's just that the Chinese military just happened to be in the area and they might, oh I don't know, stop people from getting access to certain sites. That's already happening in the disputed waters of Southeast Asia. Or ask India about what their "buddy" next door a few weeks ago in casually occupying a disputed piece of territory that was previously under Indian control, all the time calling for peace and restraint. It's a miracle that nobody got killed in that one. Lots of countries are China's bitches for sure, but that teat has poisoned milk. One day they'll find out.

    48. Re:it's too wide by dpilot · · Score: 1

      And doing some more reading, I see that they actually do have pumps in the Panama Canal to reduce the loss you speak of. When/where I saw this stuff in Canada, the locks were there for recreational boating, sized appropriately, and there was no shortage of water.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    49. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boat vs ship issue? By ship, GGP probably means container ship/tanker or warship - part of the initial impetus for the Panama canal was to enable the US Navy to shift between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters in response to threats from Europe/Asia as necessary.

    50. Re:it's too wide by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      It'd be nice to see some new kind of counterbalance-based system built into this new canal, though. Boat lifts are presumably out of the question on this scale, but if they could run pairs of docks simultaneously they could run a culvert between the pairs so that half the volume of water in any locking is not released downstream. OK, it wouldn't be a full 50% water saving (as they're never going to get a perfect match of 1-boat-up-for-each-boat-down), but it could save a hell of a lot of water with no need for upstream pumping.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    51. Re:it's too wide by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Oops... it would appear I can't read a map (and the river was obscured by the border marked on it too). Rather embarrassing.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    52. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who forced the Jews to designed it and then gassed them

    53. Re:it's too wide by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      No worries. I actually misunderstood what you said and thought you were offering some more details about what's to the west of the lake, rather than correcting what you perceived as a factual inaccuracy in my statements. Had you said nothing, I'd have gone on blissfully unaware. :P

    54. Re:it's too wide by Alomex · · Score: 1

      LMFTFY

      So...in the bad days, the US fought their way in Latin America, and it didn't work.

      Latin America never had a Marshall plan. They got Batista, Somoza, Duvalier, Castillo, Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Hernandez, Rios Mont, Suazo Cordoba, Noriega (who eventually had to be removed by force when it turned against his own masters), weird how they aren't more thankful for all they got from the USA.

    55. Re:it's too wide by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so I'm looking at this map. Yeah, Nicaragua is wide, but there's this big old lake on the Pacific side of it. The lake must drain to the Pacific Ocean, right? Wait a second, it doesn't? You mean I could sail a boat from the Carribean up the San Juan river and get to within 10 miles of the Pacific? ... hmmm....

      Do some reading before you spout your mouth off.

    56. Re:it's too wide by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The water saving thing in modern locks works without pumps, it's all gravity feed. It's actually a pretty clever system, check it out sometime.

    57. Re:it's too wide by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Good on you for having the guts to admit it. You got that *so* wrong. :)

    58. Re:it's too wide by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I suppose the Wikipedia article needs to be corrected, then, and someone should probably tell Google to update their maps; they might also want to inform Nicaragua and Costa Rica that the Cañas-Jerez Treaty is based on a misunderstanding of geography.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    59. Re:it's too wide by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      He corrected himself an hour and a half before you commented.

    60. Re:it's too wide by real-modo · · Score: 1

      Little-known, it seems: Castro was not communist until the US opposed him.

      The US created the "Cuban problem" all by itself, by interfering. The same as you casually assume it had the right to do. ("Gotten rid of Batista". How about the US gets rid of its own internal political opponents first? Oh, wait...)

    61. Re:it's too wide by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The reason why it didn't work for the West is that it was the proverbial carrot without the stick - because we have decided that we have no moral rights to use the stick, but a moral obligation to provide carrots to atone for the past use of the stick.

      Chinese have both carrots and sticks in abundance, and no moral qualms about using either as needed. They're building their neo-colonial empire in Africa as we speak, and I suspect it will be more enduring than past European exploits.

    62. Re:it's too wide by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But, you see, it's not his problem. It will be your problem (and American problem in general) when, one day, say, Mexico has Chinese military bases in it. How that was achieved is immaterial to the nature of the problem.

    63. Re:it's too wide by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      It was Google Maps that buggered me up in the first place, by obscuring the entire river with there stupidly-thick boundary lines....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    64. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The need for pumps is a problem for a wider panama channel which feeds from the small lake Gatun, but the Nicaraguan channel would use water from lake Nicaragua and I'm guessing its huge storage basin could handle even this "biggest channel in the world" without needing water reuse.

    65. Re:it's too wide by twisted_pare · · Score: 1

      Fool. Water going downhill means you must dump the volume of a super tanker's worth of fresh water into the ocean each lift. You've got to have that much flow in the body of water you're using to keep that up. Reuse uses pumps to circulate that fresh water back uphill. Remember that the Panama Canal requires a large damn to supply this water because it uses gravity fed locks. This fresh water source however is the limiting factor on how many ships can transit the canal over a period of time.

      --
      HTFU
    66. Re:it's too wide by twisted_pare · · Score: 1

      Head East young man!

      --
      HTFU
    67. Re:it's too wide by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, 18th century lock engineers were smarter than you. Read and learn:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_(water_transport)#Water_saving_basins
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LockWithPond_draw.gif

      Yes, you lose a some water through the lock every time you use it, and that's an important concern. But through the clever use of water saving basins (aka "side ponds"), you can make the volume lost *much* less than the volume of the lock or the ship inside it. In the limit of an infinite number of side ponds (which is impractical), water use goes to zero!

    68. Re:it's too wide by countach · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought the route is on the southern border, so it doesn't actually cut it in half at all. The Panama canal cuts the country in half, and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.

    69. Re:it's too wide by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In the end Africa wins. They'll lose their ass.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    70. Re:it's too wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's stupid only for the Nicaraguans. The Chinese couldn't care less if Nicaraguans suffer from the canal, and in their world view, $40B is peanuts when it means they get to poke US in both eyes.

      To put things in perspective, $40B buys you 4 or 5 Gerald R. Ford class supercarriers. Operating cost (about $2B/carrier/year) is extra. The Chinese will need to spend much more than that to get the kind of dominating navy that they are openly coveting these days. After all, carriers are sitting ducks without being escorted by bunch of other warships, and the Chinese need to develop or steal new carrier-based aircraft as the Russians seem to be no longer willing to share theirs. Compared to all that, $40B really is peanuts. The fact that a canal actually generates revenue, unlike supercarriers, is just a bonus for them.

  6. Why waist the money? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1
    Look at a map at Panama and Nicaragua. If its going to take 5.2 billion to widen the Panama canal, how much will it cost to build a new one across a country more than twice the width of Panama? More than $40 billion I think.

    Also the article says the aim is to "weaken US dominance over the key shipping route between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans." The Panama canal is owned by Panama. Has been since 1999.

    --
    Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    1. Re:Why waist the money? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have not even RTFA yet, but I believe I've put more thought into this issue than you have. I've been to Panama and watched the canal operate, and I have some thoughts on this issue which have persisted since. First, the Panama canal is driven by fresh water which is then thrown away. The redesign reuses a portion of the water (a third, I think) so that they can make more runs per day, not so that they can save any water. There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is just used as hydraulic fluid and then thrown into the ocean while ships pass by. Everything is wrong with this.

      If its going to take 5.2 billion to widen the Panama canal, how much will it cost to build a new one across a country more than twice the width of Panama? More than $40 billion I think.

      It's cheaper to dig a canal than to widen one, because you're going to be digging through a bunch of dry land with no special engineering issues. Then you knock the ends out. It's cheaper still if they import a bunch of Chinese slave labor.

      Also the article says the aim is to "weaken US dominance over the key shipping route between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans." The Panama canal is owned by Panama. Has been since 1999.

      And Panama is 0wned by the USA. Has been since 1989.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Why waist the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have been talking about this canal for over 150 years at this point.

      Nicaragua has been shopping this behemoth around for a long time. Will the Chinese build it? Maybe. Of course the Russians 5 years ago said they would do it...

      They can say they will do it. Then once they start drawing up plans find out they need way more money they will back out...

      Panama was only finished because of 3 previous failed efforts had already bore most of the cost.

    3. Re:Why waist the money? by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 1

      There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is just used as hydraulic fluid and then thrown into the ocean while ships pass by. Everything is wrong with this.

      Have you ever considered the cost involved transporting fresh water to those who need it?

      It's cheaper to dig a canal than to widen one, because you're going to be digging through a bunch of dry land with no special engineering issues. Then you knock the ends out. It's cheaper still if they import a bunch of Chinese slave labor.

      Even cheaper when you use local Nicaraguan slave labor.

    4. Re:Why waist the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't a lack of freshwater on the planet, it is that people are where freshwater isn't. Not one person would have any more water to drink if we stopped using fresh water to fill the locks in the Panama Canal.

    5. Re:Why waist the money? by excursive · · Score: 1

      First, the Panama canal is driven by fresh water which is then thrown away. The redesign reuses a portion of the water (a third, I think) so that they can make more runs per day, not so that they can save any water. There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is just used as hydraulic fluid and then thrown into the ocean while ships pass by.

      Water in Panama does no good to people dying of thirst in Africa. Even more fresh water is wasted by letting the Amazon flow into the Atlantic Ocean. What should we do about that?

    6. Re:Why waist the money? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      And then the fee to go through it goes down because a lot of medium to small boats now have 2 options

    7. Re:Why waist the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The water saving basins for the 3rd Set of Locks will reuse more than 60% of the fresh water it takes in from Gatun Lake. I don't believe the point is to save time emptying and filling since it is driven by gravity. If you think Panama is 'wasting' the water you clearly haven't been here in the rainy season. The Canal, and Panama City, sits in a tropical rainforest. Any water issues here arise from potability, not quantity, and that is driven by infrastructure.

      If the topography of Nicaragua allows for a sea-level canal, they may be in luck, but the time table is totally off. 10 years is laughable. The 5.2 bn. for the expansion in Panama is a low ball figure also, check out the tender results.

      FWIW I'm sitting in an office at the expansion project right now. I'm not an engineer or designer, so I can't get into those aspects.

    8. Re:Why waist the money? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The previous efforts were about ~20% of the total project (in terms of earth moved), but ~45% of the total money spent. Both cases represent an usual definition of "most".

    9. Re:Why waist the money? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      And Panama is 0wned by the USA. Has been since 1989.

      Uhhhhh, arresting Noriega in his own country merely made the 0wning obvious. The US has 0wned Panama since we built the canal.

    10. Re:Why waist the money? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      All the water used for the locks was heading towards the ocean to start with. They dammed the Chagras River (which empties into the ocean) to form Gatun Lake, and they release the water from there as needed. They aren't 'wasting' water, the are just delaying it's trip to the ocean. Or is your view that every undammed waterway on the planet is a 'waste' of water?

  7. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Like iOS, they get to set the price to move the goods around.

    I'm pretty sure that you can just 'sideload' through the Strait of Magellan if you feel like it.

  8. Someone has to say it... by Circlotron · · Score: 1

    Panamax. To relieve shipping headaches in the area.

  9. Good luck with that by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it only takes them a hundred years and a trillion dollars it'll be a miracle. And here's a tip: bring in the French first. After they fail everyone will want to help you out because apparently nothing's more satisfying than beating the French at something.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thing I thought of was the Battle of France. What's German for "Well that wasn't very satisfying"?

    2. Re:Good luck with that by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      That and creating nations to allow you to build your canal. First you find a bunch of mal-contents, arm them and then when they revolt you recognize their little area as an independent nation. They then sign a treaty giving you perpetual control and you can start digging.

      In 1901, the United States negotiated with Britain for the support of an American-controlled canal that would be constructed either in Nicaragua or through a strip of land—Panama—owned by Colombia. In a flourish of closed-door maneuvers, the Senate approved a route through Panama, contingent upon Colombian approval. When Colombia balked at the terms of the agreement, the United States supported a Panamanian revolution with money and a naval blockade, the latter of which prevented Colombian troops from landing in Panama. In 1903, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with Panama gave the United States perpetual control of the canal for a price of $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Good luck with that by PmanAce · · Score: 0

      What a failure your statue of liberty was...french made.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    4. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a failure your statue of liberty was...french made.

      If it was supposed to remind us of the importance of liberty, then yeah.

  10. Ancient Chinese wisdom by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Guess we'll get to see how far that ancient Chinese wisdom gets them...

    Still, if they want to waste that money and manpower, let them. A dollar wasted on this boondoggle is a dollar not spent on their military.

    1. Re:Ancient Chinese wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they see some long term profits too, they're not just building for the heck of it you know.

    2. Re:Ancient Chinese wisdom by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      A dollar wasted on this boondoggle is a dollar not spent on their military.

      I don't know if the signal that they are building this is a good thing or a bad thing. That is an awful lot of money to spend on a project that you cannot currently, and will not be able to for the forseeable future, protect.

      Does it mean that they don't feel they need to...or that by the time it is done they will be able to?

    3. Re:Ancient Chinese wisdom by PPH · · Score: 2

      They need this canal to move their planned mega aircraft carriers into the Atlantic.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Ancient Chinese wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dollar wasted on this boondoggle is a dollar not spent on their military.

      I don't know if the signal that they are building this is a good thing or a bad thing. That is an awful lot of money to spend on a project that you cannot currently, and will not be able to for the forseeable future, protect.

      Does it mean that they don't feel they need to...or that by the time it is done they will be able to?

      That super tanker they sail through doesn't need to be full of Made in China crap you know, it can be full of Made In China soldiers, tanks, anti-air and missle systems. If you don't care about the comfort of your troops, you could certainly put 1000x as many in one of those ships as you could in a plane. And a plane can carry 500. Even if you only put 50,000 in there, that's enough to topple any unprepared city. You could probably take (but not hold) NYC (Manhattan) with that - there's only 80,000 cops there and a lot commute in from outside the boroughs. Probably not a more well-armed city like Houston though.

      Support the second! Also the 1st! The 5th! and the others!

  11. Out of curiosity... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Apparently, there is a sea-level discrepancy of ~20cm between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal. That's largely irrelevant; because it isn't a sea-level canal.

    If one were to build a sea-level canal across the area(or nearby), what would the effect be? Some initial flow quickly reaching equilibrium? A more-or-less-permanent(for human purposes, let's say a few centuries at least) flow? Would the erosive effects be substantial enough that part of the canal could dig itself, if an initial cut was made to allow the flow to start?

    1. Re:Out of curiosity... by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

      20cm over hundreds of miles is not significant. You'd have more run down from surrounding hills adding to the water level than the inflow of one of the oceans. In essence, you'd have a river that would flow both ways. You probably still want locks though, if only to make sure that you don't have to dig your canal incredibly deep. It may be feasible to build the channel (mostly) at sea level, but there may still be some areas where placing a lock would save you so much money in digging that you can't ever get that back in fares.

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    2. Re:Out of curiosity... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      You'd have a current fighting tides. Probably end up with square waves like in British Columbia Canada west coast.

    3. Re:Out of curiosity... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If the water was that keen to level out, wouldn't it have already piled round the open flank between Patagonia and Antarctica, i.e. round whichever cape it is?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Out of curiosity... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Apparently, there is a sea-level discrepancy of ~20cm between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal. That's largely irrelevant; because it isn't a sea-level canal.

      A Nicaraguan canal wouldn't be one either, which makes the rest of your discussion fairly irrelevant. However, the locks it would need would be much less extensive (and thus cheaper) than the ones the Panama Canal has.

    5. Re:Out of curiosity... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Apparently, there is a sea-level discrepancy of ~20cm between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal.

      Are you accounting for the curvature of the Earth? It's about 13cm per km.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Out of curiosity... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      If the water was that keen to level out, wouldn't it have already piled round the open flank between Patagonia and Antarctica, i.e. round whichever cape it is?

      It does precisely that, twice daily. The massive tidal forces make it one of the most dangerous stretches of water on Earth. Allowing that amount of force to be exerted through a channel the depth of one tanker and as wide as two would create a maelstrom on both ends so powerful that no ship would be able to enter of leave the canal without being torn apart.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    7. Re:Out of curiosity... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      20cm over hundreds of miles is not significant. You'd have more run down from surrounding hills adding to the water level than the inflow of one of the oceans.

      It's not a one dimensional measure though. The surface area of an ocean is unfeasably massive. 20cm of height * surface area of ocean = a fair tonnage of water, all seeking to go through the nearest possible channel to level things out. Have a look at naturally occuring tidal races, such as where the Baltic Sea flows into and out from the North Sea. The surface area of the entire Baltic is similar to the Carribean Sea, but the Carribean Sea has the Atlantic beside it. On the other side, we have the Pacific, which takes up a third of the world's surface area.

      That 20cm is a tsunami.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    8. Re:Out of curiosity... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      One thing it would lead to is a massive invasive species problem. The Panama Canal has already unleashed a few invasive species with severe economic and environmental consequences. A "sea level" canal would be much worse.

      OTOH, because of the difference is heights, you wouldn't need to finish digging the canal. Just dig a small one, and let the tides dig the rest. When it's large enough, stick in at least one lock, so the currents become manageable. (That's probably a silly idea, but just looking at it I can't see why. Just looking at it, it looks like the hard part would be stopping things long enough that you could put in that final lock.)

      P.S.: About the difference in heights. Tide makes more difference than that, so I don't think the currents would always flow in the same direction.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Out of curiosity... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You realize the pressure is the same 10ft down pipe full of salt water as 10ft down the ocean? How nasty the tides would be would largely be a reflection of how deep and wide the channel opening was. Not any worse then the mouth of any river or other estuary.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Out of curiosity... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      You realize the pressure is the same 10ft down pipe full of salt water as 10ft down the ocean? How nasty the tides would be would largely be a reflection of how deep and wide the channel opening was. Not any worse then the mouth of any river or other estuary.

      Yes, I realise this. Do you realise that the volume of water in a ten foot pipe is a lot less than the volume of water in ten feet of ocean? The difference between high tide and low tide in Rance, Brittany, France, is on average 8m and the tidal barrage there generates 240 MW by retaining water/void in an area of 9 square miles. Now even if the tidal drop between the Carribean Sea and the Pacific isn't quite as high as the tidal bore at Rance, you're replacing a 9 sq mi lagoon with hundreds of miles of ocean -- unimaginable billions of tons of water all attempting to level off to the same height as the other side.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  12. but but but.... by trum4n · · Score: 2

    So, a truly massive freshwater lake is about to be flooded with salt water. What about all the fish/creatures/plants that live there?

    1. Re:but but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about all the fish/creatures/plants that live there?

      Why do you think that they're contracting the Chinese? Fuck the fish/creatures/plants/people that get in the way.

    2. Re:but but but.... by trum4n · · Score: 1

      I guess the workers will cook and eat the fish that float to the surface of the 40x90 -mile- lake? Seems slightly wasteful.

    3. Re:but but but.... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since the lake is more than 100 feet above today's sea level, if it ever floods with salt water, there are not going to be many people left to worry about its ecology.

      Now hitchhiker organisms riding on the bottoms of the ships or in their ballast tanks are a reasonable concern. We can assume that inspection and cleaning facilities will be set up on both sides of the Nicaragua canal, since this kind of contamination is a well known problem. I expect that the Panama Canal has been retrofitted by now-- although maybe it is being treated as a lost cause.

      --
      Will
    4. Re:but but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they will be provided with a nice relaxing salt bath, at no extra cost.

      Really, who the hell cares what the fish think? We used to be all green and environmental in the 1960s and 1970s, and then we were cheated and defrauded of billions of our money by the great climate change scam.

      It's payback time, and those fish in Lake Nicaragua are going to get it first...

    5. Re:but but but.... by trum4n · · Score: 1

      so.... the weather hasn't changed where you live? Because in the USA we are having the most violent weather ever recorded, weekly.

    6. Re:but but but.... by operagost · · Score: 2

      Not only did you totally miss that sarcasm, but you are totally ignorant of climate history AND attempted to directly tie localized weather events to global climate change.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:but but but.... by trum4n · · Score: 1

      yes i missed the sarcasm, but across the entire USA and Canada ain't "Localized," boyo. Comparing our weather patterns over the past 100 years is enough to show drastic changes.

    8. Re:but but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Via the locks used in a canal, you carry some of the seawater with the ship into the lake. Suppose you have a series of locks, at each lock, you dilute the saltwater with fresh/mixed water from the higher lock to raise the ship, but when the ship transitions, the water mixes and some of the salt and other content is carried forward to the lake. If you doubled the height at each lock, the salt content would be somewhere around 1/3 sea side + 2/3 lake side at each lock.

    9. Re:but but but.... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Since the first lock would be up river from the ocean, this is not a problem.

      --
      Will
    10. Re:but but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You expect China to be concerned about Nicaragua's ecology? Does the Nicaraguan government understand the potential impacts well enough to ensure this is part of the canal plan, that would likely be more relevants

    11. Re:but but but.... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      These are definitely valid concerns. Have you talked to your political representative about having your government use its influence to assure China and Nicaragua are building effective preventitives into their plans?

      --
      Will
  13. buyer beware by nimbius · · Score: 1, Interesting

    considering america had to basically create panama by blocking columbian troop movement with warships, and bribe its existing stationed troops already in place to lay down arms, id say china should reconsider the proposition being made. the US also had to support a pretty brutal dictator (Noriega) who routinely tortured and murdered his people, as well as fight a brief war to prevent a communist nationalization of the resource. For a country that prides itself on peaceful expansion and nonaggression it may just as well be cheaper to buy the existing canal outright and retrofit it.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:buyer beware by z_gringo · · Score: 1

      ColOmbian troop movement

      --
      -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
  14. Costa Rica by edxwelch · · Score: 5, Funny

    You realise if the pull this off technically Costa Rica will become an island.

    1. Re:Costa Rica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politically and socially, it already is.

    2. Re:Costa Rica by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      According to this logic the entire East Coast of the United States is also an island.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Costa Rica by real-modo · · Score: 1

      No, a peninsula depending from the Candian mainland.

  15. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    Like iOS, they get to set the price to move the goods around.

    I'm pretty sure that you can just 'sideload' through the Strait of Magellan if you feel like it.

    It's not like they're closing the Panama Canal once the Chinese build this. The new canal costs too much, people will just keep going through the old canal (tough luck for those who invested in ships too large to go through the old canal, but doing all those thousands of km through the end of South America isn't less expensive either).

  16. This could be good news by voss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A china that is committed to trading with the world is not waging war. This is about shipping routes from China to Europe bypassing unstable africa and an even more unstable middle east. Its also about ships such as the maersk Triple E class 165,000 tons which is too big for any US port to handle but can be easily handled by ports in china and europe. This would shock americans but the Chinese of 700 years had ships bigger than any in Europe that could travel farther and were more advanced with magnetic compasses and watertight compartments.

    1. Re:This could be good news by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      This would shock americans but the Chinese of 700 years had ships bigger than any in Europe that could travel farther and were more advanced with magnetic compasses and watertight compartments.

      There was a discussion about how some Chinese loathed when emperor in 1300s abandoned their ocean going fleet (a "what if" they continued and sailed to Europe, Americas, etc. the world would have become quite different). However, someone else pointed out though their ships were very large with trips to India and Africa, the technology was same as smaller vessels that traveled along coastlines (could not venture into open waters). Such ships were big and expensive to operate and really didn't provide more capability. Unlike the Europeans smaller vessels used new techniques to allow sailing across the open oceans. I think China policy makers want to not repeat same mistakes as former emperors did.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:This could be good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many soldiers could you hide in a 250,000 tonne ship?

    3. Re:This could be good news by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      A china that is committed to trading with the world is not waging war.

      During the so-called "first great age of free trade" they said the same thing. The European countries were too financially intertwined for war to make sense. For some reason that talking point was dropped in 1914.

      This would shock americans but the Chinese of 700 years had ships bigger than any in Europe that could travel farther and were more advanced with magnetic compasses and watertight compartments.

      Zheng He's voyages were 600 years ago, not 700. Hardly news to Americans, especially since it was a hot topic a few years ago. The magnetic compass was used in Europe by the 12th century, but your other points are probably correct. Unfortunately we know very little about Zheng He's ships since the government ordered the ships destroyed and the records of the voyages burned.

    4. Re:This could be good news by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      how many soldiers could you hide in a 250,000 tonne ship?

      Lots, but killing them is like shooting fish in a barrel -- the ship has no evasive capacity and is difficult to evacuate in the event of an attack. It's also pretty hard to land anywhere. You will be restricted to only invading the world's 10 largest ports.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:This could be good news by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      The Fairview Terminal in Prince Rupert, BC, is undergoing expansion and will be able to handle those ships. It's not in the US, but it's much closer sailing and it's connected to the continental railway network over the lowest (shallowest grade) railway pass (Yellowhead) over the Rocky Mountains.

      --
      Be relentless!
  17. uh by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Funny

    David Lee Roth is confused.

  18. Need to think in more than 2D by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Your direct comparison doesn't make sense because the terrain is different.

    Also the article says the aim is to "weaken US dominance over the key shipping route between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans." The Panama canal is owned by Panama. Has been since 1999.

    Just like GITMO is owned by Cuba?

    1. Re:Need to think in more than 2D by operagost · · Score: 1

      The US actually has a lot more control over Guatanamo Bay. They have a rental agreement, whereas in Panama they only have the right to defend the canal to ensure neutrality is maintained.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  19. And this is the thanks we get in the U.S. by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

    We go to all that trouble to attempt an overthrow of the Nicaraguan government all through the 80's, and THIS is how they say thanks!

    Do you have any idea how much money we spent sending your people to college, you ungrateful bastards?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  20. Water by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is just used as hydraulic fluid and then thrown into the ocean while ships pass by. Everything is wrong with this.

    Are there people dying in Panama for lack of water? Are you proposing to transport water from Panama to the Sudan? Sounds like an amazingly good idea since it's super efficient to transport water large distances... Also, news flash, this new canal will be using fresh water -- from Lake Nicaragua -- in the same way as the Panama canal!

    1. Re:Water by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Are there people dying in Panama for lack of water?

      If not, there will be soon. Clean water is a major problem even in parts of Panama.

      Are you proposing to transport water from Panama to the Sudan?

      It's a major shipping hub and the water goes through ports from which it could feasibly be collected. At least a portion of it could go somewhere.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Water by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Agricultural and industrial processes use freshwater on a scale that dwarfs direct human consumption. The Americans shipped Ice to the Caribbean in the 1800s and 1900s and water is supplied on relief ships for disaster areas but I don't think water is shipped in large scale regularly. Many places run a reverse osmosis plant instead.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:Water by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Water is 'shipped' if you count ballast. It's a problem, how invasive species get around.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  21. 100 years for china... by voss · · Score: 1

    Isnt that much...we spent a trillion dollars on the war in iraq we spent another trillion on stimulus. Imagine if we had spent a trillion rebuilding all our roads, rails, schools, hospitals and ports. Efficiency in infrastructure adds to long term economic growth which increases tax revenue.

    1. Re:100 years for china... by Holi · · Score: 1

      We spent no where near 1 trillion dollars on stimulus. Closer to half that. The largest single part was tax breaks and tax breaks aren't spending.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:100 years for china... by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      "We spent no where near 1 trillion dollars on stimulus. "

      The federal government cranked up spending by 18% between 2008 and 2009. This was to "stimulate" the economy after the housing crash. This wasn't a one time thing where they immediately cut spending back to previous levels. That spending has continued year after year right up to the present. We've spent several trillion on "stimulus" and it hasn't worked.

    3. Re:100 years for china... by dwye · · Score: 1

      Imagine if we had spent a trillion rebuilding all our roads, rails, schools, hospitals and ports.

      Wasn't the stimulus spent on all those shovel-ready projects to rebuild those very things? (ducks)

  22. China needs busywork by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    When you have 100s of millions of unemployed single males, you have a problem. They need busy work. It would be best for them if they shipped them all over with shovels and hand-dug the canal. They also need more countries enslaved to their cheap products in order to keep their factories going, again, because if you have 100s of millions of unemployed single males, you have a problem.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:China needs busywork by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When you have 100s of millions of unemployed single males, you have a problem. They need busy work. It would be best for them if they shipped them all over with shovels and hand-dug the canal.

      I forget who said it (probably Ben Franklin or Oscar Wilde, it usually is) but if your goal is to create jobs wouldn't spoons be better?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. Which Columbia? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 0

    What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?

    Money, for starters. You'll want to read back on the fact that this costs billions of dollars to make, which Costa Rica doesn't have.

    As for Columbia... you refer to the University in New York or the or the district where Washington is located? Either way none of those is close enough to the Pacific Ocean to be considered for an entry point to a canal.

    1. Re:Which Columbia? by z_gringo · · Score: 1

      Surely he meant Columbia, South Carolina as the university in New York wouldn't make sense. And DC would be a horrible place for a canal. Nevertheless, your point is still valid as South Carolina is also long, long, long way from the Pacific ocean.

      --
      -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
    2. Re:Which Columbia? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?

      Money, for starters. You'll want to read back on the fact that this costs billions of dollars to make, which Costa Rica doesn't have.

      Neither does Nicaragua and neither did Panama, which is why the canal is to be built using foreign money in exchange for a long-term contract on the canal itself, as happened in Panama.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    3. Re:Which Columbia? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Well as far as the Atlantic coast's concerned, DC's about as close to Lake Erie as you can get in US territory, and it hardly seems a good idea to go via Lake Ontario and mess up the tourist trade at Niagara. But that leaves a huge expanse of dry land to cross between Lake Superior and Seattle.

      How about instead we suggest to the ultraneocons that a canal along the Mexican border, would provide an easily defended barrier against illegal immigration.

      Then we'd all get to laugh when it was revealed that the contractors raking it in on the public purse were cutting corners and employing illegal immigrant labour....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    4. Re:Which Columbia? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      And DC would be a horrible place for a canal.

      Yeah, except for the C&O Canal you mean? While it didn't work out well for shipping/transportation (due to the untimely invention of the railroad) it makes a great bike path and park.

    5. Re:Which Columbia? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      And which other country, willing to invest dozens of billions of dollars, do you see coming in to finance a third canal? China wants to invest a ton of money making a new canal and it chose Nicaragua to do it (let's not even assume it was the other way around). Where's the market for a third one?

    6. Re:Which Columbia? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Any country powerful enough to have an active space programme would be a candidate, so India, maybe?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  24. It doesn't work! by Thrill+Science · · Score: 0

    A Man, A Plan, A Canal: Nicaragua!

    1. Re:It doesn't work! by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      A Ug, a R, a Cin: Nicaragua!

  25. One volcano can spoil your whole weekend by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Aside from it being a longer route, I thought one of the reasons they decided not to dig there was volcanism.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:One volcano can spoil your whole weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The volcano thing was a bogus excuse.

    2. Re:One volcano can spoil your whole weekend by dwye · · Score: 1

      Aside from it being a longer route, I thought one of the reasons they decided not to dig there was volcanism.

      No, that was the bad PR that helped kill the idea of the Nicaraguan Canal (supposedly by sending mail with the volcano on the stamp), so that the people with the option to build across Northern Columbia could become rich from it. Alas, after all that trickery, the French company still went broke without building one.

    3. Re:One volcano can spoil your whole weekend by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Nono, it was a PR trick to get the US to buy the canal off the collapsed French group instead of building the Nicaragua Canal, which would have been much better for the US, given that it would have been much closer to the US.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  26. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like iOS, they get to set the price to move the goods around.

    I'm pretty sure that you can just 'sideload' through the Strait of Magellan if you feel like it.

    It's not like they're closing the Panama Canal once the Chinese build this. The new canal costs too much, people will just keep going through the old canal (tough luck for those who invested in ships too large to go through the old canal, but doing all those thousands of km through the end of South America isn't less expensive either).

    I don't think the significance of this development is so much commercial as it is geo-political. Not that long ago, if the Soviets had done this, it would have caused a major shit-storm. This is a subtle but deliberate and clever provocation on part of the Chinese since they are effectively invading what the USA has regarded as it's 'sphere of influence' for about 200 years without firing carrying a single gun but still doing something of considerable military significance. I'm not sure what the PRC is trying to achieve here but between the recent hacker attacks, this and a whole lot of other pinpricks the PRC is poking a sleeping Grizzly with a stick. I'll actually be surprised if this won't eventually lead to some sort of US counter-provocation. Traditionally this would have taken the form of a couple of US carrier group steaming through the Taiwan Strait with full brouhaha and unofficial orders to Navy pilots to deliberately interpret the limits of PRC airspace rather loosely. This would then have been followed by the US congress approving a massive package of arms sales to Taiwan. Who the hell knows, perhaps approval of F-35 stealth fighter sales to Taiwan has been deliberately kept in reserve for just such an occasion?

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  27. Infrastructure by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    One challenge is the existing infrastructure. Would ports spend the money to handle mega-Panamax ships and can the rail infrastructure handle the increased freight. The ability to move freight beyond the port can be a big bottleneck.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  28. CHINA NEEDS WOMEN by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    100s of millions of unemployed single males...you have a problem

    Uhhhh, JERBS are the least of their problems.
    Unless they're going to work them 24/7, they need 100s of millions of wimmins . And these idiots keep aborting females. Unless China has the plans for the gay bomb. It's going to take a world war the likes we haven't seen to burn off that many unattached bachelors. Sexbots and VR porn only fulfill the basest needs and will only serve as a stopgap. (but what a market opportunity!!!)

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:CHINA NEEDS WOMEN by Eccles · · Score: 1

      > Sexbots and VR porn only fulfill the basest needs and will only serve as a stopgap.

      Well, how do we keep U.S. male virgins occupied?

      Clearly we need a Chinese version of slashdot.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  29. Learn, dammit. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "the new canal should be able to allow passage for mega-container ships with a dead weight of up to 250,000 tonnes. This is more than double the size of the vessels that will be able to pass through the Panama Canal after its expansion,"

    Meanwhile, factions in the US fight tooth and nail against deepening harbors by 5 feet (fights that have, so far, taken longer than the original Panama Canal to build), using regulatory blocks.

    That's just to handle the new Panama size. These new super-supercargo ships, forget it.

    Whether a nation is crushed under the weight of corruption and kickbacks (you must pay to get anything done) or well-meaning regulation (you must pay to get anything done) the result is the same. We are closer to Mexico with kickbacks than China, with a freer economy.

    There's a lot more to freedom than just speech. Maybe the next empire will learn this. The US didn't, just like Europe before it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. What really happened.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the Wiki: ... Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense....

    Government Man: "We're going to build a new harbor for you!"
    Inuit: "No want harbor. Want seals"
    GM: "Look, this harbor will be really neat. It will be a big hole in the ground next to the sea where ships can park..."
    I: "No want harbor. Want seals"
    GM: "...and at night it will glow faintly, so that the ships can find their way in...."
    I: "Any seals in harbor?"
    GM: "No, no seals. But there will be lots of sailors. And bars..."
    I: "No want harbor. Want seals"
    GM: " If you don't stop saying that, we won't give you anything at all!"
    I: "No want anything. Except seals. You got seals?"
    GM: "Oh, for God's sake! Come on, Martin, lets go and blow up an island in the Pacific instead. The weather's better there, anyway..."

  31. Hive by hraefn · · Score: 0

    I have been trying http://hivereader.com/ part time, while I use Feedly full-time. Hive shows a lot of promise.

  32. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    Eh I don't think the Chinese are viewed as a monolithic political bloc like the Soviets were, it's not nearly as much of a provocation.

  33. That's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's much harder to make a good palindrome in mandarin.

  34. How will they defend it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a particularly stable, rule of law part of the world.

    I'd like to see the canal built, but if they succeed, what's to keep the govt there from nationalizing it.

    Seems like either China or some coalition would have to defend the asset for the next 100 years.
        Some care would be required for that to play in the US.

    Overall, this seems a good positive thing for all, it's just that the details are tricky.

    1. Re:How will they defend it? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      That's not a particularly stable, rule of law part of the world.

      Jesus, are you stuck in the '80s. Almost every nation in the Americas has been a more-or-less-stable, more-or-less democracy since the end of the Cold War. Nicaragua's government is a bit socialist for U.S. tastes, but it's perfectly legitimate.

  35. priorities when comparing China and USA by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I go to the article that begins, "Project will reinforce China's growing influence on global trade and weaken US dominance over a key shipping route." and off to the side are several articles, "Edward Snowden: Russia offers to consider asylum request" and "NSA snooping: Obama under pressure as senator denounces 'act of treason'." Well you can see what this will lead to.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  36. Forget the 250k size by voss · · Score: 1

    No US port can even handle the 165k EEE maersk class that already exists.

  37. I hope it materialises by ArgonautThief · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a ship owner and order my vessels to transit via Panama quite often. To transit one of our smaller vessels (~30,000 DWT) it costs ~USD$90,000.00 and is one of the major costs calculated on our voyages, especially on a bad economic market. Despite the fact that ship owners are faced with a bad market, the PCA (Panama Canal Administration) keeps needlessly inflating the costs to transit at least once or twice per year. Our larger vessels can easily cost ~USD$200,000.00 and more to transit. The industry has long been awaiting some competition to mitigate these over-inflated costs and it is high time it materialised.

    --
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:I hope it materialises by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      There is a funny story about when the Panamanians took over the Canal they had a meeting with the Army to discuss revenue and in that meeting discovered that the tolls on the Canal barely covered the cost of operating the canal and that the entire military presence that maintained and administered the canal was supported by US taxpayers.

      To this date it is my understanding that even with the toll increases Panama makes very little money on the canal. The increases in tolls are to pay for the canal expansion. $6 billion is a lot of money and I have no doubt it will cost significantly more when complete, including that a larger canal will cost more to operate. Canals aren't cheap, either to build or operate. Lots of labor and lots of equipment that needs constant repair.

    2. Re:I hope it materialises by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that ship owners are faced with a bad market, the PCA (Panama Canal Administration) keeps needlessly inflating the costs to transit at least once or twice per year. Our larger vessels can easily cost ~USD$200,000.00 and more to transit.

      Regardless of how much they inflate the cost, if it costs less than a trip around South America, it's still a good deal.

      The industry has long been awaiting some competition to mitigate these over-inflated costs and it is high time it materialised.

      That's what makes me wonder how viable this really is. I suspect the financial viability reports just used the Panama's current transit rates to estimate the potential financial payoff from this. It may very well end up being built, but then taking over 100 years to pay for itself due to Panama and Nicaragua underbidding each other to try to attract more traffic.

      My hunch is the bigger payoff will be global shipping transitioning to larger-than-Panamax cargo ships. And that Panama and Nicaragua won't see as much benefit (Panama has had multiple plans to add more locks. If you look at their geography, it'd be a helluva lot cheaper for them to do it than Nicaragua too. They just haven't had much incentive to do it quickly since there's no competition.)

    3. Re:I hope it materialises by ArgonautThief · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that ship owners are faced with a bad market, the PCA (Panama Canal Administration) keeps needlessly inflating the costs to transit at least once or twice per year. Our larger vessels can easily cost ~USD$200,000.00 and more to transit.

      Regardless of how much they inflate the cost, if it costs less than a trip around South America, it's still a good deal.

      The industry has long been awaiting some competition to mitigate these over-inflated costs and it is high time it materialised.

      That's what makes me wonder how viable this really is. I suspect the financial viability reports just used the Panama's current transit rates to estimate the potential financial payoff from this. It may very well end up being built, but then taking over 100 years to pay for itself due to Panama and Nicaragua underbidding each other to try to attract more traffic. My hunch is the bigger payoff will be global shipping transitioning to larger-than-Panamax cargo ships. And that Panama and Nicaragua won't see as much benefit (Panama has had multiple plans to add more locks. If you look at their geography, it'd be a helluva lot cheaper for them to do it than Nicaragua too. They just haven't had much incentive to do it quickly since there's no competition.)

      Most definitely it is cheaper to transit via the Canal rather than via South America. The point is that the PCA and the majority of port and facility operators in BOTH North and South America are over-inflating their prices making it more and more non-viable to operate vessels at a profit. The freight rates chargeable no longer reflect the reality of the costs of fuel and operations. In regards to global shipping transitioning to "larger-than-Panamax" vessels, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capesize and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valemax The ship owners and other interests that invested heavily in these vessels are now suffering mightily at the hands of depressed commodity prices, over-inflated fuel prices and once again, over-inflated port and transit costs. Operating "smaller" vessels, (30,000 - 100,000 DWT) is often more feasible as it is easier for a commodity trader to buy and sell cargo quantities in those ranges rather than in the much larger quantities those over-sized vessels are designed to carry. The ultimate point is that the PCA and all port operators in general should take a lesson from the Canadian and US Seaway authorities that operate the waterways transiting to the US Great Lakes. They have a monopoly as well and they made it __ridiculously__ expensive for ship owners to trade the area and now..... we hardly do. So their business is dead and their people are out of work.....

      --
      The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:I hope it materialises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry. Before either this or the Panama expansion completes, the North-West passage will open up (global warming for the win!).

  38. No, the water isn't "wasted" by sirwired · · Score: 1

    If the canal wasn't there, the water would simply flow into the ocean naturally. Panama doesn't exactly need that water for irrigation (it's rains enough already), and bulk water transport is impractical, the only other use vs. letting it flow naturally would be a hydroelectric dam. But the canal is far more valuable to Panama than using that same water to generate electricity.

    Saying the water is "wasted" is like saying that we should suck all the water out of the Mississippi and send it to dry parts of the US instead of letting it flow into the Gulf. (As a side-note, this is essentially what we do with the Colorado; while it's slightly better now, 20 or so years ago the mighty Colorado withered down to a muddy drainage ditch by the time us and Mexico were done with it.)

    1. Re:No, the water isn't "wasted" by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Saying the water is "wasted" is like saying that we should suck all the water out of the Mississippi and send it to dry parts of the US

      Don't give California and Arizona any ideas. They're always talking about what wonderful sunny places they are, but seem to have overlooked that water is essential for life. They'd be good places for solar power stations though.

  39. Except that it is not good news by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    This is a country willing to economically wage war with the First World. Anyone working in that area with that deserves whatever they get (and if the US had a willing administration, indirect assistance).

    If the US wasn't hampered by an anti-American administration, that government would not be building the canal. Or at least they'd not have a known enemy of the United States building it.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Except that it is not good news by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      If the US wasn't hampered by an anti-American administration,

      Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    2. Re:Except that it is not good news by real-modo · · Score: 1

      What enemy? China has "most favored nation" status in the USA. That doesn't sound like an enemy.

  40. I Don't Understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rene Nuñez, announced the $40bn (£26bn) project, which will reinforce Beijing's growing influence on global trade and weaken US dominance over the key shipping route between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

    The Panama Canal is under Panamanian control, and is open to all ships. I don't understand the U.S. control reference. And even if there is residual U.S. control over the canal, how does that impact China. So far as I can see, size is the only limitation that they face and that has nothing to do with U.S. control.

    I suppose cost may be an issue that Chinese ships could eschew during the concession period. But, would they really spend more than $80bn(see note) in Panama Canal fees over the concession period?

    Note: The project plan calls for $40bn with completion in 10 years. Anyone ever involved with any construction will know that this really means $80bn with completion in 20 to 30 years.

  41. Ports can handle the ships fine by sirwired · · Score: 1

    There are already ships far larger than Panamax in operation and docking at ports, they just have to take a different route if they want to get from the Pacific to the Atlantic (or vice-versa.)

    1. Re:Ports can handle the ships fine by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      There are already ships far larger than Panamax in operation and docking at ports, they just have to take a different route if they want to get from the Pacific to the Atlantic (or vice-versa.)

      What's the largest today? 180,000 tons? IIRC, they do Europe - Asia runs; where ports can accommodate them. Not sure how many do say Europe - New Orleans They're talking almost 50% bigger ships - which would have an impact on port operations. I'm not saying they won't, but such ships will need a rethink of how operations are done in order to handle them and unload them fast enough to make the size worthwhile. I wonder if a transit through Nic. would be quicker than via the Suez. Be interesting to see, at least.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Ports can handle the ships fine by ArgonautThief · · Score: 1

      The largest today are 380,000 - 400,000 DWT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valemax The (sad) joke in all this was that Vale (massive mining and trading company) ordered and built these ships when the iron ore market was at its peak in 2008 and they had contracts to supply China with gazillions of tonnes for gazillions of dollars. They then ordered the ships to be built in China (and a few in S. Korea) and the Chinese happily built them to order for their "good friends and trading partners" Vale. Finally the iron ore market tanked really badly and the Chinese did not want these massive shipments coming in any more. Vale turned around and said "but we have a contract". The Chinese government turned around and said "yes, but your ships are too large to safely enter any port in China so you are banned from trading here". Vale got pwned. Now they have had to build a massive offshore transshipment facility in Singapore to keep being able to use the ships and sell the ore to the Chinese for a minute fraction of what they were gambling on.

      --
      The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
  42. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by cusco · · Score: 1

    Most likely the result will be yet another coup or fake election in Nicaragua. It will be interesting to see whether DC waits until the Chinese have sunk a lot of time, money and engineering into the process or not. If they wait until it's partly completed I would assume that they intend to steal the whole canal and hand it over to SAIC or one of the other Pentagon mega-contractors.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  43. Poor Costa Rica.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the most beautiful & bio diverse places on earth is due to wild life having been able to move between north & south america.

    panama to the south, now maybe nicaragua chopping the jungle in half from the north.

    a few will make some money while destroying more of our planet. -sweet

  44. good luck with thgat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose the chinese build a sea level canal the whole way -- they wont finish it for a thousand years and it will backrupt them much sooner.

    Unfortunately they are probably going to try to get outside investors (the chinese economy is imploding and this loooks alot laike a PR stunt)

  45. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by booch · · Score: 1

    So the USA can meddle in Taiwan, but China cannot meddle in Central America? Seems fair...

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  46. Me cago en Ortega by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sudaca de mierda.

  47. Arctic melting renders this moot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why dig another canal when, with the soon-to-be ice-free Arctic, they can navigate the Northwest Passage? Just add a port at Moosonee on James Bay and you're all set.

    1. Re:Arctic melting renders this moot. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't *think* that's a reasonable question. IIUC it's a lot shorter to go from, say, Shanghai to London via Central America than via the Bering Strait. I'll admit, though, that I don't have a globe in front of me, so I could be wrong about that.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Arctic melting renders this moot. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which way do airplanes fly? I'm pretty sure the northern route is much shorter.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Arctic melting renders this moot. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      By ship. I'm pretty sure an airplane would never cross the Bering Strait from Shanghai to London. (IIRC Northern route for an Airplane means across Canada...usually southern Canada. Not real sure about that, though.) Ships have to make all kinds of detours to avoid land masses.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Arctic melting renders this moot. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You should have Google Earth in front of you though. I measured it.

      Shanghai to London via Northwest Passage: 16,000 km.
      Shanghai to London via Panama Canal: 25,000 km.
      Shanghai to London via Suez Canal: 19,500 km.

      The Earth is not a rectangle.

      (Amazingly, the Northwest Passage is not just the fastest way to go from Shanghai to London: it's also shorter than the Panama route if you're going to Cuba or Puerto Rico.)

  48. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by Chickenlips · · Score: 1

    Never heard of the Monroe Doctrine? (I'm being sarcastic)

  49. Costa Rica will benefit by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    The plan is on the BORDER of nicaragua and costa rica. The full story is far more interesting. Nicaragua invaded costa rica in 2010 for the sole reason of capturing a portion of the river that is going to be used for the canal. Because it is on the border, I fully expect Costa Rica will also reap benefits from this project. * I have lived in Nicaragua and Costa Rica for past five years.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Costa Rica will benefit by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      The plan is on the BORDER of nicaragua and costa rica. The full story is far more interesting. Nicaragua invaded costa rica in 2010 for the sole reason of capturing a portion of the river that is going to be used for the canal. Because it is on the border, I fully expect Costa Rica will also reap benefits from this project. * I have lived in Nicaragua and Costa Rica for past five years.

      Uh, no. Nicaragua didn't invade anything. Costa Rica threw a fist when Nicaragua started dredging operations on the San Juan River, over which Nicaragua has full sovereign from border to border (that is sovereignty over the totality of the surface area) as per the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858 (with Costa Rica having only commercial navigation rights.)

      There is a lot more the story than what you have been implying here. For example Costa Rica for a while insisted in sending armed police and patrol up and down the surface of the river in direct contravention of the Cañas-Jerez Treaty. And then complaining about the dredging operations on the river (again, under the complete sovereignty as per the treaty just mentioned.)

      The so called island Calero is still under dispute, and until the ICJ pronounces itself, it cannot be legally called an invasion. I would also suggest people refer to the ICJ provisional ruling/advisory on this issue circa March, 2011, or the previous ones (2009). This is not to say that Nicaragua is free from any responsibilities, and has in fact violated certain Costa Rican navigational rights.

      But the preponderance of sovereignty violations has been committed by the Costa Rican government (not the people who in general just mind themselves.) Again, don't take my word, just look at the ICJ rulings.

      One thing for certain is that a canal, if one is ever created, it will benefit both economies substantially. And it will be stupid by both governments to create trouble around a region with so much potential.

    2. Re:Costa Rica will benefit by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      I agree both countries will benefit and think it is an excellent idea to pursue. Too bad the two countries could not work together on this. However, I believe it was an invasion based on the news I read (in costa rica) and worldwide. As far as I can see from my brief search online, the international court of justice is still deciding the main issues and there has not been any substantial ruling yet.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  50. It was fun while it lasted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's slide to mediocrity continues.

  51. sharks and dynamite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so much for the freshwater sharks. and the fresh water.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nicaragua

  52. Fictional Science by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    The only reason no one worries about this scenario (they used to, see Waterworld)

    Sorry but in Waterworld there was no land except for the peak of Mount Everest. This represents a sea level rise of ~8km which is two orders of magnitude more than the effect of melting all the ice on the planet (~80m). This is not a scenario that anyone with even the loosest of ties to reality has ever considered a real possibility.

  53. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    China wants us to stop meddling in Taiwan. This seems counterproductive to that end.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  54. Re:Me cago en Ortega by abuelos84 · · Score: 1

    Fuck you.

    --
    -- Counting backwards since 1984!
  55. Don't Forget The Difference in Ocean Heights by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    Sea level is different between Atlantic and Pacific, at least down near the Panama Isthmus where they've bothered to really track it. Average only 9.2 inches maybe (sources vary), possible a maximum of 9 meters (depending on tides, winds, etc.).

    Maybe that'll matter, maybe it won't.

  56. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    I realize you're making a dig at the US, but I don't think the Chinese would be on board with your analogy. They'd see it this way:

    "So the USA can meddle in Taiwan, but China cannot meddle in Florida? Seems fair..."

    (Puerto Rico might be a better analogy, but you get the point.)

  57. Re:For the Chinese, trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    niggers

  58. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the rednecks in Florida will be glad to take any weapons that the Chinese want to send them.

    But I don't think it will balance the effects of the weapons we send to the Taiwanese.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  59. OK, I'll do the maths by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia articles for Antarctica and Earth:
    Area of Antarctica = 14 million km^2. Area of Earth = 510 million km^2,
    so Antarctica covers 2.7% of Earth's surface, or 3.9% of the water surface.
    98% of Antarctica has ice at least 1600m thick. For back-of-envelope calculation, call it 100% at exactly 1600m thick.
    Then if this all melts, the oceans will rise by 3.9% of 1600m, or 62m.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  60. the age old question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about the volcano?

  61. Remmeber.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is going to space, will have a space station and will be on Mars in the next few years. REmember when America was great, today she cant even put her own men in space and has to buy tickets from Russia. How the mighty have fallen.

  62. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by booch · · Score: 1

    It wasn't meant to compare 2 equal situations. It was meant to imply that Americans think this is an encroachment on our "rights", but it's not nearly as bad as what we're doing regarding Taiwan, when viewed from the perspective of a disinterested party.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  63. Re:The new commerce gatekeepers by booch · · Score: 1

    Yes, but international doctrines don't usually apply to one nation and not another, especially if those 2 nations are equal in power.

    Which is why the Bush Doctrine really scares me. By that doctrine, if China feels threatened by the USA, and if the USA has weapons of mass destruction (which we do), then China has the right to invade the USA. It's sad when you set a precedent that could lead to your own demise.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.