Slashdot Mirror


China May Build an Undersea Train To America

New submitter howtokilltime sends this news from the Washington Post: "China is planning to build a train line that would, in theory, connect Beijing to the United States. According to a report in the Beijing Times, citing an expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, Chinese officials are considering a route that would start in the country's northeast, thread through eastern Siberia and cross the Bering Strait via a 125-mile long underwater tunnel into Alaska."

348 comments

  1. title wayyyy misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The title makes it sound like it would be under water the whole way. Obviously that is wrong

    Also, Russia has talked of doing this to move freight for YEARS, so its one of those 'see it to believe it' deals

  2. Yes yes, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right after we build the Hyperloop, send people to Mars and 3D print a house with a car parked in the garage.

    1. Re:Yes yes, of course by Blaskowicz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please, extremely long tunnels already exist such as the one between Hokkaido and Honshu.

    2. Re:Yes yes, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then I guess that means any tunnel is possible!

    3. Re:Yes yes, of course by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you need a long tunnel, you just join two short ones together with duct tape. If you need a longer one, use three, and so on. Hence the mathematical term, proof by induction.

      Kids today, with all their fancy-pants book-learnin'. If we'd listened to all the people who'd said it couldn't be done there's be no fusion power stations or cities on the moon.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Yes yes, of course by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Right after we build the Hyperloop, send people to Mars and 3D print a house with a car parked in the garage.

      These terms do not make sense to me. Could you please reframe your comment in relation to the international norms for speculative appearance, specifically, in relation to either the commercial, wide scale application of cold fusion, or the time when we all have flying cars?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Yes yes, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you could read it'd make sense. You can't write. We know that much from your 1 line fart replies.

  3. Re:What an idea by WhiteZook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About the same as with a shorter underwater tunnel, such as this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

  4. Oh, to ALASKA! by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not America proper. You had us worried for a minute there, guys.

    .

    1. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's like Russia's backyard anyway, you kids stay off that lawn or you're going to get annexed.

    2. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      So . . . do the Chinese have the technology to get past Sarah Palin . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I would assume their aim would be to keep going through alaska and join up with the main american rail network in canada. Just going to alaska would seem rather pointless.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      You were probably joking, but that deserves an answer.

      The primary reason Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. in the first place was that strategically, it would be extremely difficult for Russia to try to defend it. But the U.S. can.

      That hasn't changed.

    5. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by mpe · · Score: 1

      That's like Russia's backyard anyway, you kids stay off that lawn or you're going to get annexed.

      The Asian side of the Bering Strait is in Russia. The map in the article is rather poor and dosn't show any international borders. In order to build this China would need treaties with both the Russian Federation and The USA.
      Maybe if they wanted to build a tunnel to Japan they could annex North Korea...

    6. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      It's OK she's not in Alaska any more. She abandoned them halfway through her term to take the filthy lucre from Fox News.

    7. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Macrat · · Score: 1

      I would assume their aim would be to keep going through alaska and join up with the main american rail network in canada. Just going to alaska would seem rather pointless.

      Unless the tunnel is really to suck all the oil out of Alaska. ;-)

    8. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world would the Chinese build a tunnel to Japan?! It is not like they are on good terms.

    9. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Canada you dumass

    10. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called money

    11. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why in the world would the Chinese build a tunnel to Japan?! It is not like they are on good terms.

      Yes, that'd be as ludicrous as Napoleon trying to dig one under the English channel.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Citation? The US's revisionist history is well know, but I'd like to see some proof contrary to everything that's out there.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    13. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almighty Greenbacks

    14. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Citation? The US's revisionist history is well know, but I'd like to see some proof contrary to everything that's out there.

      Try searching for "Alaska Purchase" on Wikipedia.

      It may not be THE definitive source of information, but it's not bad either. First sentence, 2nd paragraph on the page:

      Russia wanted to sell its Alaskan territory, fearing that it might be seized if war broke out with Britain.

      Wikipedia tries hard to be objective, so if there is another valid point of view, maybe you should write it up.

    15. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Which might help if I was asking you. I'm asking for a citation to the contrary, or can you not follow a thread?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    16. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That s a proposal of invasion! China-America is not England-France in Europe. Train means weaponry carry, for sure. Wasnt America supposed to be the country of the big and bold engineering feats? You can go very cynical and sarcastic on this...

    17. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That s the moronic comments that allow these statements to happen! You think the political system in the USA is worth anything!! I cannot seem to make any impression on the problem of Nintendo no longer providing most games and machines to the MARKET, do you think you can CONVINCE your mob of old men that China is in a technological war already lost given the idiotic way the USA handles patenting, copyrighting, technology transfers, espionage, sabotage, commerce, dumping, labour costs, etc? Arguing technical problems instead of providing the technological solutions? Really... people should start thinking in abandoning the ship after the technological FIASCO of letting airplanes bring down buildings... independently of ANY justification to the event those morons can provide...

    18. Re:Oh, to ALASKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they were a century ago, but not for a long while now.

  5. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the minds of..... things that would be possible, but never a reality..

    Only a fool would believe in terrorism....

  6. massive project been discussed for decades by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This project, a bridge tunnel between Alaska and either Russia or China, has been discussed for decades. It would be an awesome idea and a massive undertaking. To date, no one has actually done it because of the easy access to air travel, cheap ocean freight, and the expense of building a 100+ mile bridge in some of the harshest environment known to man.

    1. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I can't count how many times I have seen it discussed, TV shows on it and so on.

      Of course, a tunnel would get around that problem of harsh weather.
      Now the only problem will be the massive job of drilling for months on end.

      But then there is, as you mentioned, the issues of cost and paying for it.
      What would people rather do, use boats which are already not to pricey, or planes, again, not too pricey, or pay for a probably expensive tunnel that won't be paid off for decades even with a high price? (acceptably high price)
      Even though it is China that are doing it, who are seemingly gods at construction.

      It would be great to have a direct link, sure, it would open up some great tourism opportunities as well. That may lead to a lower price, but how low can they go.
      Hermes would say not as low as his Jamaican butt.

    2. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I've seen the project discussed for decades too, this is the first time the headline overtly states that China would consider paying for it...

    3. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What would people rather do, use boats which are already not to pricey, or planes, again, not too pricey, or pay for a probably expensive tunnel that won't be paid off for decades even with a high price? (acceptably high price)

      The tunnel makes a whole lot more sense, especially if they run trains through it. Preferably high-speed trains, but at something less than their maximum speeds. The energy cost of its use is next to nothing, as is the environmental cost of its use. Shipping is heinous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Wait, but one problem. This train is going to...Alaska?

    5. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by fnj · · Score: 1

      The energy cost of its [rail] use is next to nothing, as is the environmental cost of its use. Shipping is heinous.

      Utter clueless nonsense. Container ships use considerably less energy per tonne-km than trains. For that very reason they have less "environmental cost" since they process less fuel. As an aside, there is zero cost to "maintaining" the ocean, vs the expense of keeping rail line functioning and safe.

    6. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      and the expense of building a 100+ mile bridge in some of the harshest environment known to man.

      And lets not forget the expense of building the feeder infrastructure on both sides.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:massive project been discussed for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that noise, keep the commies at home.

  7. Package delivery service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World wide, 20 minutes or less?

  8. Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like building the railroad to the Berring Straight, and then using a ferry to cross would be the more practical approach. Can you imagine having a train fire half-way between Russia and the Alaska? The evacuation plans would be insane. On the other hand, high-speed rail up to the Straight and then a robust ferry system would be almost certainly cheaper, and would only add a bit of time to the overall route.

    1. Re:Rail+ ferry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems like building the railroad to the Bering Strait, and then using a ferry to cross would be the more practical approach.

      Shipping by sea is cheaper than rail. I you are going to put it on a ferry, then you might as well just put it on a container ship in Shanghai or Tianjin, and ship it by sea to Seattle or Long Beach. Which is exactly what we do now. There is no way that an eight thousand mile railroad, through some of the world's most rugged terrain and harshest weather, can compete with container ships, even without the cost of building the tunnel.

    2. Re:Rail+ ferry by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      All depends on the cost of oil... with cheap oil, the ships win. Trains move cargo for less energy expended per ton-mile, but cost in the infrastructure construction.

    3. Re:Rail+ ferry by mozumder · · Score: 0

      It takes 6-8 weeks for products to come by ship from China to the US. Airplanes are fast, but cost far too much for commodity products.

      This kills many time and price sensitive freight uses, such as food, documents (brochures, magazines, etc..), fast fashion, and so on.

      Supply chain management becomes more complicated with ship as well. Ideally you want warehouses right next to factories. Rail can allow for warehouses to be near factories, and transported to customer as needed. But with ship, you need them closer to destinations, since the transportation time from factories in China would be too long.

      High-speed rail allows something to be transported from China to the US in a couple of days.

      Also, sea isn't more energy efficient than rail. There's a lot less rolling resistance with rail, compared to water resistance with sea freight. The only way sea would be cheaper is via sail instead of diesel engines. Combine sail with drone freight ships and it could compete against rail. The real expense in rail is the initial infrastructure capitalization, but ultimately in the long run (25-100+ years), rail should be cheaper than sea.

    4. Re:Rail+ ferry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Trains move cargo for less energy expended per ton-mile

      Citation? All the information I can find says the opposite. For US freight transport, ships use less energy. Large ocean-going container ships should be even more efficient per ton-mile.

    5. Re:Rail+ ferry by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Not at all. Channel tunnel is over 50km, while Seikan tunnel is at 240m depth.

      Engineering problems you're talking about have already been solved.

    6. Re:Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, they won't be using American trains silly.

    7. Re:Rail+ ferry by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's even more complicated than that thre's gage breaks, a train that runs on Chinese tracks can't run on Trans-Siberian tracks, a train that runs on Trans-Siberian tracks can't run on North American tracks, so the trains either have to be off loaded-on loaded 3 times ot the cars have to have their axles changed. After all that you end up near Nome AK and Google says, "We could not calculate directions between Nome, AK and Edmonton, AB, Canada.", remember the bridge to nowhere, we'll have to build a lot of them because almost everywhere is nowhere in Alaska.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Rail+ ferry by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      No, there is two track widths. China uses standard 1435 mm. US uses 1435 mm (or whatever you call that in your strange measurements). Russia uses wider 1524 mm.

    9. Re:Rail+ ferry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It takes 6-8 weeks for products to come by ship from China to the US.

      No it doesn't. A typical transit time is two weeks. The 6-8 week figure likely includes invoice processing, administrative overhead, and local delivery, which will be just as bad for a train, or possibly worse since it will cross more borders.

      Also, sea isn't more energy efficient than rail. There's a lot less rolling resistance with rail, compared to water resistance with sea freight.

      Nonsense. The containers aren't pushed through the water one-by-one. They are on large ships, where the efficiency goes up in proportion to the square root of the size. Container ships are far more efficient that rail, even when the rail is rolling on flat ground. Factor in the traversal of major mountain ranges in Siberia, Alaska, and Canada, and the rail is going to be far less efficient.

    10. Re:Rail+ ferry by mpe · · Score: 1

      It seems like building the railroad to the Berring Straight, and then using a ferry to cross would be the more practical approach.

      Unless the ferry can carry trains there is going to be the time and expense of transfering cargo between ships and trains twice.
      Possibly going to make more sense to use a ship between Port of Shanghai and Port of Los Angeles.
      If it's needed faster then PVG to LAX on a plane is always an option.

    11. Re:Rail+ ferry by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      How fast do you want it? Do you want to displace water, or air while you travel at that speed? If you're willing to cruise at lower speed, the oceangoing ships get more efficient, but I don't believe they run that way - they more or less go as fast as their engines are practically capable of, because that's what the customers are paying for - speed of delivery.

    12. Re:Rail+ ferry by mpe · · Score: 1

      After all that you end up near Nome AK and Google says, "We could not calculate directions between Nome, AK and Edmonton, AB, Canada."

      I'm sure Airbus or Boeing FMS can manage PAOM to CYEG better than Google. But if you were air freighting anything to Edmonton from China the starting point would probably be something more like ZBAA :)

    13. Re:Rail+ ferry by satsuke · · Score: 1

      People pay for speed of delivery, but that doesn't necessarily mean fast.. just predictable.

      It's that time-to-market that has gotten some companies in trouble when dealing with chinese suppliers (capital is tied up for the 3 month lead time when ordering from China and shipping via container ship .. if someone is in a highly cyclical market than that lag time can put you out of business if you are not careful.

    14. Re:Rail+ ferry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Russia uses wider 1524 mm.

      Historical trivia: Russia chose an odd gauge to make logistics more difficult for an invading army. This worked to their advantage during both world wars.

    15. Re:Rail+ ferry by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Sorry I wasn't totally clear, there are no roads, railroads praved trails between Nome and Delta Junction Alaska, if you get from China to America via a rail tunnel across the Barring Straight to Alaska, your stuck. You can't drive from highly populated cities like Anchorage and Fairbanks to the state capital. If your going to load the cars onto a train ferry and ship the down to Vancouver or Seatle, you would have been better off just shipping via freighter.

      You just don't realize how remote Alaska is, there are places where you literally can't get there from here.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:Rail+ ferry by dkf · · Score: 1

      [Ships] more or less go as fast as their engines are practically capable of, because that's what the customers are paying for - speed of delivery.

      No, they go at a speed that maximises profit; ship owners are very keen on optimising for that parameter. As the price of oil goes up, the speed of ships decreases (because the losses due to friction/turbulence are related non-linearly to speed — a quick search indicates maybe it's quadratic, but I'm not sure) because the increase in income due to arriving earlier wouldn't pay for the increase in fuel costs required to get the ship there sooner.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    17. Re:Rail+ ferry by MarkRose · · Score: 2

      If building rail line from western Alaska to connect to the continental system, no significant mountain ranges need to be crossed. Assuming the rail lands at the closest point across the Bering Straight, there is an almost flat route following the Koyukuk and Yukon Rivers over to the Mackenzie River. The North American rail network reaches as far as Hay River, near the south end of the Mackenzie River.

      For a shorter route, the Tanana River could be followed past Fairbanks, and the route could continue paralleling the Alaska Highway to Whitehorse. At Whitehorse it could travel next to Teslin Lake and over land to Dease Lake. While Dease Lake is not currently connected to the continental rail network, but the track bed had been fully prepared in the 1970's, and it would be easy to install the necessary bridges and rail.

      Still, ships would be more efficient.

      --
      Be relentless!
    18. Re:Rail+ ferry by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      However, locally sourced labor and goods most certainly can compete with shipping by sea.

      That's exactly what's happening: a lot of goods are being returned to US manufacture right now. Companies are starting with their emerging products and building the R&D and facilities to do it here, instead of offshoring the 'expensive' production part to China. For instance, go and try to find a new household appliance - you'll be hard pressed to find a GE or Whirlpool appliance which isn't "Made in the USA" now. We're seeing this happen with small bin electronics and inexpensive tools, too. Why?

      Competition. They've been able to slash their product costs markedly by doing so. We're not talking just the cost of shipping, we're also talking about product defects and overall quality, turnaround on even minor R&D revisions, and so on.

      If China can turn the current "time to market" of a product revision from about 2-3 months (after all is said and done) down to a month to a month and a half (at least for select customers and/or producers), the cost of rail over sea shipping would be marginal to the big picture of retaining American income.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    19. Re:Rail+ ferry by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Most displacement hull ships have a "hull speed" that does get higher with longer waterline - so the big cargo ships have that going for them, but, you're right, it's either linear or quadratic, up to a point, and then you hit the hull speed where turbulence makes it just about impossible to go much faster. Try it in a rowboat (small, low hull speed, easily attained with oars...)

    20. Re:Rail+ ferry by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Berring Straight

      Bering Strait. One 'r', no 'gh'.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:Rail+ ferry by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      You just don't realize how remote Alaska is, there are places where you literally can't get there from here.

      Hence the purchase was known as "Seward's Folly".

    22. Re:Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But shipping in two days via rail instead of air freight is significantly cheaper so for lighter weight/higher value items there is some value to be gained. An example would be just in time manufacturing of consumer electronics.

    23. Re:Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in terms of building things if was paid for by the chinese and the nearest russian rail assets were over 2000km away why would they build anything other than 1435mm gauge rail going to the USA?

    24. Re:Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the displacement, but the surface area that affects drag and economy of locomotion.

      A container ship has a much lower SA/volume than a train. Also it's possible to design fast freighters that hydroplane, meaning they have very little water drag and their economy is limited by air drag.

      Also if you had actually read what ShanghaiBill cited, you would see it's not hypothetical, ships going dead slow, economic data, but present mean economic data.

    25. Re:Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring the problem that the two sides are on different continental plates..

      They are moving apart/together at cm or m/year. That's going to pose some serious engineering challenges to a through-ground tunnel.

      I can see a ocean-surface tunnel like they have been deploying in Japan and Korea, using Dutch technology faring better, but you're still going to have to build some tension relief mechanism into the ends of the tunnel to avoid it breaking over time.

    26. Re:Rail+ ferry by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding a cargo ship that can go at those speeds. Having high speed rail connections is one of those things that you don't realize how useful it is until you have it. I can go from Shanghai to Hong Kong easily because of it, and of course it is the norm in Europe. In the US it is hard to picture the benefit since Acela trains' top speed is restricted because of the old rails, so taking your car and driving still beats everything over there.

    27. Re:Rail+ ferry by khallow · · Score: 1

      Shipping by sea is cheaper than rail.

      They aren't going to build a high speed rail for containers. It'll be for much more valuable goods like people.

      So no it isn't cheaper. Shipping by sea is cheaper for time-insensitive goods like what travels in container ships and more expensive for time-sensitive goods like people. If you're getting off a train, slowly inching across the Bering Strait, and then loading on a train again, that's a considerable waste of your life that could have been spent doing other things, like working a job that requires a physical presence or sight-seeing.

    28. Re:Rail+ ferry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      that's a considerable waste of your life that could have been spent doing other things

      If your time was worth anything, you would have taken a 10 hour flight from Shanghai to San Francisco, and not a week long train ride via Siberia and Alaska.

    29. Re:Rail+ ferry by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Every major tunnel like this will have some new interesting engineering challenges. I suspect that one will not be quite as difficult as previous ones.

    30. Re:Rail+ ferry by amaurea · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the problem that the two sides are on different continental plates..

      No, they're not.

    31. Re:Rail+ ferry by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Some of that depends on what you're selling. If you're selling $700 smartphones that weigh 140g and depreciate $1/day then air makes a LOT more sense. If you're selling steel for $200/ton and its price doesn't fundamentally change on timescales measured in years, then sea makes sense.

      Really sea makes sense for any product that you're not in a hurry to put on the market. Once the market is supplied you can always start your manufacturing runs a few months earlier and ship by sea. The problem is with stuff that depreciates fast like computers - you don't want to bring last month's computer to sell on this month's market.

    32. Re:Rail+ ferry by khallow · · Score: 1

      If your time was worth anything, you would have taken a 10 hour flight from Shanghai to San Francisco, and not a week long train ride via Siberia and Alaska.

      There's that. It's not much of a case for high speed rail.

    33. Re:Rail+ ferry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't realise how smart people who build rail tunnels under the ocean are. They can probably manage to build a rail line on dry land too.

    34. Re:Rail+ ferry by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      ships move at around 15 knots (20mph, 30 km/h)
      modern trains move above 80km/h
      perhaps if you slow down trains to go for absolute lowest fuel consumption (perhaps 40km/h) wouldn't it compete well with ships ?
      but yes, rail makes sense when you don't have a waterway link
      the big advantage of rail is quicker delivery, due to significantly higher speeds, but air freight is slowly coming down in price with each subsequent more fuel efficient large aircraft (A350-1000 cost per tonXmile should be pretty cost to A380-800 or B747-8).
      but this isn't just the challenge of the underwater tunnels, just keeping thousands of miles worth of rail snow free is big enough a challenge in the winter (half the year for alaska and the russian counterpart).
      this looks like a big jobs program.

    35. Re:Rail+ ferry by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Plus, ya know, these are the folks who managed this feat of construction prowess: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/13-...

  9. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The days of terrorists? Are you kidding me? Terrorism has always existed. The only way to combat it is to not let it scare or deter us from going about our lives.

    The United States already lost a war against terrorism by instituting ridiculous laws, spying and harassment because the government was scared. That is exactly the goal of terrorism.

  10. Bering Strait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blast my spelling, it's Bering Strait!

  11. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, plate tectonics?

  12. Good on them. by Truth_Quark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They've got the money and the manpower. Nationalism is the only resource that lack of may stop them. Projects such as these and their moon base plans are money well spent.

    1. Re:Good on them. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Eh the Chinese are hugely nationalistic, what are you talking about. I get the feeling that some people seriously think the country is some kind of communist utopia.

    2. Re:Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's better they build this then those giant empty cities. If it brings revenue to their 'socialist/communist' state... republic, oligarchial welfare state, whatever it is it will benefit people. Also modern marvels of engineering are cool. Regardless of who or what builds them.

      I'm not really attacking China's economic model. But I am not sure really what to call it. But this could be a much better thing for a Nation like China to do then what it's been doing.

    3. Re:Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called State Capitalism.

    4. Re:Good on them. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The point is, projects like this bolster their Nationalism. So it's win-win.

    5. Re:Good on them. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      In what way is a tunnel that connects two places nobody wants to travel between "money well spent"?

      For freight, ships are both far more efficient and cheaper.

    6. Re:Good on them. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      It's better they build this then those giant empty cities.

      Those giant empty cities are part of a long term plan to move the equivalent population of the USA from China's rural areas into urban environments.

      China doesn't want to be exporter to the world, they want to kick start internal demand for goods and services in order to help limit their import/export trade imbalance.

      It's been going poorly so far, but it's the long term plan.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the other way around. Their strong nationalism might be a roadblock for the project because of the anti-US sentiment that it partly entails.

    8. Re:Good on them. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      China's economic model can probably be called summarized as calling them pragmatic opportunists (lack of foresight for their empty cities and ecological destruction aside). They leverage the benefits of other peoples' shortsightedness (such as with the exchange rate, and consumerism) to benefit domestically.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    9. Re:Good on them. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether it is "money well spent" but projects like these are things that authoritarian governments are rather good at pulling off. That's why oppressive governments even in third world nations often have rather spectacular monuments.

      In the US spending a billion dollars is a drop in the bucket, but if you want to do it you get into endless debates about whether the expenditure is worth it. That's usually a good thing, but sometimes it does get in the way of progress.

      In a country that is more authoritarian, somebody just makes a decision that they want to do something and even if it takes 20% of the GDP it gets done. If people complain that the train route runs through their home, they're made into examples. The same happens to workers who go on strike, and so on.

      So, getting big projects done is something dictatorships and such are actually rather good at. What they usually can't do is scale it up, because their overall economies just don't have the output to cover it. So, they can build one fancy monument, palace, train line, ship, or whatever. China isn't a banana republic so they can do a bit more along these lines, but even they can only build so much of something unless it actually has an economic return.

    10. Re:Good on them. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      When it's not your money, and you may still benefit from it in the end.

  13. Re:What an idea by WhiteZook · · Score: 5, Funny

    Terrorists use plate tectonics now ?

  14. A nice idea... by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    but it's just an accident waiting to happen

    Over in Boston, they spent a decade on The Big Dig, a 'measly' 3.5 mile underground tunnel to try to deal with their traffic issue. The price tag was roughly 22 billion (when interest is factored in). It had several major lawsuits, mostly notably the epoxy used to hold up the ceiling tiles collapsing literally crushing a driver. In addition, it has some 400 leaks that will steadily destroy the tunnel.

    And they want to make a tunnel 36 times longer? Take a country that isn't particularly concerned with safety and a trillion dollar project and tell me cutting corners isn't going to happen.

    1. Re:A nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But China doesn't have politically vested malice directed against it. Quite the contrary.

    2. Re:A nice idea... by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Check out the new Seattle waterfront tunnel project. It's only 2 miles and currently has no political problems. But it's stuck and racking up the bucks!

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    3. Re:A nice idea... by blackest_k · · Score: 2

      well perhaps the channel tunnel between England and France is a better comparison.

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

      (about 31 miles long) the seikan tunnel in japan is about 33 miles long and deeper. 4 to 5 times longer doesn't seem impossible to engineer.

    4. Re:A nice idea... by don+depresor · · Score: 2

      Three words:

      Channel Tunnel

      Just because some people can't build a decent tunnel doesn't mean no one can do it Right

    5. Re:A nice idea... by don+depresor · · Score: 2

      Just noticed that's two words, not three... I was going to call it english channel tunnel then checked the right name...

    6. Re:A nice idea... by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Why is the Boston Big Dig so 'bad'? I ask this honestly, because I don't know much about the big dig at all, and since I know very well in Holland there are many, many tunnels for both rail and cars that are more or less equal to the engineering required in Boston IMHO. Amsterdam for example has 2 or 3 such tunnels for cars, and at least 2 more for trains & subways. And Amsterdam is only a fraction of The soggy below sea-level Netherlands. In my mind, if the Dutch can pull it off handily enough, why can't the Bostonian's do it? Is the underwater engineering soooo different, or is this yet again politics and lowest-cost bidder? Maybe in Boston they have more, difficult rocks to clear. I simply don't know.

      FWIW, and I sincerely don't mean to troll, the Amsterdam Ajax football stadium was built for a pittance compared to American stadiums, and how that came about and was financed was sheer genius, and (as I understand) is worthy study for other similar civic projects. disclaimer: linked document comes from The Amsterdam Arena. http://www.amsterdamarena.nl/w...

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    7. Re:A nice idea... by aitikin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is the Boston Big Dig so 'bad'? I ask this honestly, because I don't know much about the big dig at all, and since I know very well in Holland there are many, many tunnels for both rail and cars that are more or less equal to the engineering required in Boston IMHO.

      More or less because it was done in America where the government always goes with the lowest bidder, meaning corners get cut (the epoxy issue) and runs into the fact that, Americans as a whole (albeit less so in the huge metropolitan areas like NYC), actively avoid public transit.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    8. Re:A nice idea... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 36 times longer is just a question of cash.
      A ring build system with computer controlled placement and setting of grout is now better understood.
      Grouting can be very well timed via computer controlled additives as needed reducing water ingress issues.
      The Qinghai–Tibet Railway had permafrost issues that had to be solved.
      It really depends on what rock types they find, if grouting gets too difficult.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:A nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Big Dig, a 'measly' 3.5 mile underground tunnel

      Engineering constraints are vastly different building tunnels inside of a major metropolitan area and building tunnels in the middle of freaking nowhere.

    10. Re:A nice idea... by chrisgeleven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Personally traveling to and through Boston is a 100x better than it used to be because of the Big Dig. Not to mention it reconnected two parts of the city that the original above ground highway effectively severed from each other, allowing for an insane amount of development in the seaport area since (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/07/rise-seaport-district-boston/). The entire area has been transformed.

    11. Re:A nice idea... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      In america our public transit is abysmal as in turns a 30 minute car ride into a 15 minute car ride, 2.5 hours on a train and a 10 minute taxi ride. We do idiotic things like turn 2 lanes of highway into 1 lane of high occupancy only and let buses in, so you can not pass and are stuck behind a bus and we lost 25% of the highways caring capacity to do it. Oh and all mass transit goes through Rhode island because the needed two more votes and a couple hours added on wont detract at all.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    12. Re:A nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Big Dig cost twice as much as estimated, took twice as long as estimated, made the traffic worse instead of better during its 16 years of construction, and the construction noise kept people up all night.

    13. Re:A nice idea... by rapierian · · Score: 2

      Nothing about the big-dig is associated with any "lowest bidders". Speaking as a Bostonian, the project was a massive demonstration of the sort of crony capitalism that runs on Beacon Hill, and especially within the various transportation departments. Massachusetts, for example, spends roughly 7 times per highway dollar as New Hampshire, and yet has far worse roads. It's all about kickbacks to cronies. http://reason.org/studies/show...

    14. Re:A nice idea... by Mendy · · Score: 1

      CrossRail also seems to be going okay.

    15. Re:A nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you're one of the of the oppressed motorists. Yes, you're absolutely right, thge problem with American transportation over the past decades has been that we have not had enough focus on automobiles.

    16. Re:A nice idea... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Americans as a whole (albeit less so in the huge metropolitan areas like NYC), actively avoid public transit.

      Your statement would be true if America had any public transit. It doesn't with the exception of Boston and NYC. And guess what? in those two cities people do use public transit.

      The same thing happened around here. A nearby city had nominal public transit with a bus every 30-60 minutes moving rather slowly. A forward thinking manager increased the frequency and speed of buses so that it would be properly be called public transit and ridership went through the roof. In there have been times during rush hour the bus is so full that it cannot pick up all passengers. Capacity continues to be added while load factor is now at highest ever.

      Los Angeles reported similar outcomes: increasing the bus frequency on a route lead to increased load factors.

    17. Re:A nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do idiotic things like turn 2 lanes of highway into 1 lane of high occupancy only and let buses in, so you can not pass and are stuck behind a bus

      So use the other lane if it is faster? You are not forced into high-occupancy lane just because you have more than a few people in your car. Or are you just whining that you want to *speed* but the bus is not?

      Someone call the WHAAAAMBULANCE!

    18. Re:A nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost overruns, corruption, shoddy construction, took forever to finish ... nice idea, but poor implementation.

    19. Re:A nice idea... by retroworks · · Score: 1

      I thought "three words" was making the point about not doing it right. Now you ruined it.

      --
      Gently reply
    20. Re:A nice idea... by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Um, Chicago, San Fransisco, LA, Detroit (less so now), and, oh yeah, we've had the transcontinental railroad system in place longer than the bloody car as been around. I live in a city with public transit, I will never use it because, guess what, I want to be on time! They stop at appropriate intervals. They just do a piss poor job of getting people where they need to go. Americans, as a whole (ask anyone outside of a major metropolitan area, say in any suburban area or even smaller pockets like university settings, if they'd rather drive or ride a bus), will avoid public transit. The university I went to had a bus that ran every 15 minutes...supposedly. I took it 3 times because I needed to get to a bar on the other side of town and didn't want to drive back drunk. What happened? I was late to the event I was going to because the bus showed up nearly 30 minutes late. It was better than paying a cabbie, but it was still not really effective means of travel.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    21. Re:A nice idea... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Personally traveling to and through Boston is a 100x better than it used to be because of the Big Dig.

      Now, if only they could have spent an order of magnitude less to provide you with that experience. I'm sure that the US government could make me a really amazing sundae for a billion dollars. But would it be worth that billion dollars? I'll let you think about that.

      My point here is that just because there is benefit, doesn't mean that the costs are justified. There are huge opportunity costs with expensive government projects and they tend to be quite invisible. You can point to the modest benefits of the Big Dig money pit, but you can't point to the many things that didn't happen because so much of Massachusetts's wealth was squandered on that project.

    22. Re:A nice idea... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I will never use it because, guess what, I want to be on time!

      That's exactly my point. In cities with real public transit, like Paris or New York you are likelier to make it on time if you take the subway than if you drive.

      In the example quoted in my posting, the bus is only slightly slower than the car, runs on a precise schedule with buses every 15 minutes at most, and much more frequent than that during rush hour. The result was a large increase in riderships.

    23. Re:A nice idea... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Los Angeles reported similar outcomes: increasing the bus frequency on a route lead to increased load factors.

      Makes sense. Back when I lived in Philadelphia the local transit authority was trying to promote bringing bikes onto public transit, which makes sense. The problem is that only a few buses in the entire city were equipped with bike racks, and they were just stuck in a pool and not concentrated on any one route. So, if you tried to rid a bike to a bus stop there was a 95% chance that the bus would tell you to buzz off, so nobody used them at all (so the bike racks were just a waste of money).

      Nobody wants to use a transit system where at every connection you have to stand and wait an hour outside.

      Also, to be effective you need a lot more train/subway and a lot less bus. When I commuted by public transit I chose to live in a place where I could ride a bus for 5 min (with buses arriving every 5-10min), take a subway, and then walk 5 min. If I lived even a few miles further away from a major bus hub that would have turned into riding a bus for 15-20min with buses arriving every 30-60min, and I'd never have gone for it.

  15. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both sides of the Bering strait are part of the north american plate.

  16. Re:What an idea by stoploss · · Score: 1

    Both sides of the Bering strait are part of the north american plate.

    True, but if we're going by plate tectonics then a tunnel from China to northern Japan could be considered a tunnel to North America as well.

  17. Why? by man-element · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are they building this tunnel to move cargo less efficiently than a cargo ship or to move people less efficiently than an airliner?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To ship high value, time sensitive cargo faster than ship but much cheaper than air freight

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only cheaper if you neglect the public subsidies; if you take total cost, it's more expensive than air travel. And it's likely not faster than high speed shipping either.

    3. Re:Why? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      More like from nothing to nothing. Sure you can build a bridge, then what? There's nothing on either side. There's no roads, there's no rail, heck there's no rail connection from Alaska to the lower 48 - there's rail barges. Goods and passengers would have to come from thousands of miles away and then like you say, by sea for goods and by air for people. If we did it'd just be for show so you can drive from Asia to Northern America it wouldn't make any sense other than as a gimmick and tourist attraction. And really, north-eastern Siberia doesn't sound like my kind of attraction.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Why? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Neither.

      The "nothing compares to the bandwidth of a minivan full of tapes" maxim applies here. Specifically, it applies to the length of time it takes for a cargo ship to transgress the Pacific.

      Rail can move a large number of people faster than a plane can.
      Rail can also move a relatively small volume of cargo faster than ships can.

      They want to be able to get R&D and "latest greatest" products and similar over here ASAP so that they don't lose out to fledgeling US industry which is popping up to deal with the length of time it takes to get foreign made products.

      They may also want to have a more direct venue to get large numbers of Chinese people here to "colonize". They do own a large percentage of the US, at this point.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To move it within two days between China and the USA. That way they can undercut three day delivery from warehouses in the USA.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or is it a long-game camel's nose ? ? ?
      1. build tunnel...
      2. whistle whilst casually strolling into America...
      3. look up one day to find Alaska/Canada with a LOT of Chinese faces around...
      4. prophet !

  18. Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This was an actual thing on Seaquest DSV.

    Though in practicality, the bering straight crossing gets proposed every year by Russia or some other billionaire in Asia-Pacific, but never from the US side.

    There are plenty of technical problems but I think the founding problem is that we, as humans, have not mastered the sea, there's no undersea colonies, therefor there is no practical reason to have an undersea transportation network. You think oil spills are a bad idea, and derailments are a fact of life, imagine what would happen if there was a transpacific or transatlantic crossing that was treated exactly the same way. One fuckup and the entire line is destroyed. Ask the cities that have transport tunnels why they haven't built any more. A) Cost, B) in case of fire, die quietly.

    1. Re:Deja Vu by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Ask the cities that have transport tunnels why they haven't built any more.

      Incomplete list of cities surprised to learn that they are not building new transportation tunnels right now:

      New York
      London
      Delhi
      Toronto
      Beijing (multiple lines)
      San Francisco
      Los Angeles (just getting started)
      Paris (multiple lines)
      Seoul (including a maglev line)
      ...and so on. Those are just the ones I'm immediately aware of.

  19. Re:What an idea by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    We should build an underground train near the South Pole, 100 miles away on each side from it, and watch the terrorists show up. They'll be like, where are all the passengers? Why are these trains so empty? Because only morons would build them in the middle of fucking nowhere, like the South Pole, or the Behring Strait.

  20. Planting seeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won because they planted seeds of fear. From the looks of it, those seeds of fear have fully bloomed.

  21. Re:What an idea by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    but obama told us terrorism was over!!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  22. lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    This is a ridiculous project and will never get build. There are far cheaper and far more practical ways to get people to and from China/America.

    All that being said, if they do waste lots of money building this, I'll be one of the first on it. It sounds like it would be the best train ride on earth!

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

      the best train ride on earth!

      Ya, just imagine the view. Simply breathtaking.

  23. Propoganda by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there any Chinese propaganda that Slashdot won't breathlessly repeat?

    1. Re:Propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there any Chinese propaganda that Slashdot won't breathlessly repeat?

      Really... Remember that hoax about the "world's biggest dam?" They must take us for complete fools.

    2. Re:Propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a dying empire whose finest engineering achievements took place over 50 years ago.

    3. Re:Propoganda by stenvar · · Score: 1

      America is a dying empire whose finest engineering achievements took place over 50 years ago.

      If by "finest engineering projects", you mean "huge government financed engineering megaprojects", you're right: we have neither the engineering skill nor political will to engage in those anymore. Good riddance.

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

      yes, because engineering products are made for international publicity ...

      unfortunately this has been belief and practice numerous times throughout history

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

      If even nerds dismiss achievements like Apollo and the SR-71, it's certain that American engineering has a bleak future.

    6. Re:Propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why good riddance?

    7. Re:Propoganda by fnj · · Score: 2

      I see, so you're a luddite who thinks we'd be better off without the cheap energy from Hoover Dam, the Rural Electrification Project and universal phone service were wastes of money, the Port of New York is no use, the Panama Canal was a waste, and so on and so on.

    8. Re:Propoganda by stenvar · · Score: 1

      You should look up the term "Luddite"; it doesn't mean what you think it means. It certainly doesn't refer to objecting to environmentally destructive, overly expensive megaprojects. Nor does it refer to government handouts to powerful politicians and lobbyists from rural states.

    9. Re:Propoganda by fnj · · Score: 1

      How about "deranged"?

    10. Re:Propoganda by Salgat · · Score: 1

      For those who aren't aware, he is talking about the Three Gorges Dam, the largest dam and power station in the world built at a cost of $26 billion. China could do it if they wanted, it's just a matter of whether it's worth it to them.

    11. Re:Propoganda by stenvar · · Score: 0

      Yes, you should know the meaning of that word very well, if you only realized it.

      Those kinds of megaprojects are not so much about engineering, they are about a political and economic ideology; they are popular particularly with progressivists, and their close cousins, fascists and socialists. The US experimented with those ideologies in the 1930's but never went as far as Europe. Fortunately, the world seems to be growing out of it. Some people (like you apparently) never learn from history.

  24. Nope by koan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Newly compiled Russian and U.S. seismological data support an independent Bering block in motion relative to the North American plate. This motion is likely to be driven by the westward extrusion of southwestern Alaska, resulting from compression in southern Alaska due to subduction of the Pacific plate and terrane accretion. Seismicity extends from central Alaska, through the Bering Strait, and into Chukotka. In eastern Chukotka several southwest trends are evident, some of which continue through the Koryak Highlands to Kamchatka. The seismicity outlines the Bering block, which includes most of the Bering Sea, Chukchi Peninsula, Seward Peninsula, and parts of western Alaska. Focal mechanisms, young basaltic volcanism, and normal faults in western Alaska and Chukotka indicate that the Bering Strait is under northeast-southwest extension. This, in conjunction with thrust faulting in the Koryak Highlands, indicates that the Bering block is rotating clockwise relative to the North American plate.

    http://geology.gsapubs.org/con...

    Also the Aleutian islands are quite active, that entire area is active.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  25. Ring of Fire. by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    Facepalm! Good idea, let's build a tunnel on the sea floor that crosses tectonic plates, what could go wrong? http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media...

    1. Re:Ring of Fire. by mab · · Score: 1

      Both ends of the tunnel would be on the same plate.

    2. Re:Ring of Fire. by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought they were digging straight down and surfacing in Texas. I should have RTFA.

      --
      Gently reply
  26. Re:What an idea by arth1 · · Score: 2

    Because only morons would build them in the middle of fucking nowhere, like the South Pole, or the Behring Strait.

    I would be careful tossing around words like "moron" if you don't even understand that the location of a route is secondary to the end points.

    We send ships across the ocean too, and soon now, the Northwestern Corridor too.

    My question is what purpose it would solve. By the time the route is finished, there won't be any way for the US to import anything from China. Food exports from USA to China, perhaps, as an attempt to pay the interest on what is owed?
    There's also the minor problem of Mother Russia - they would not want this done for free, or without the US doing things in return. An oil line from Iran through Afghanistan without US intervention and a few other concessions, most likely.

  27. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. That was Bush. Mission accomplished.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/01/bush-mission-accomplished-iraq-thumbsup.jpg

  28. Passengers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For freight, you're absolutely right. When "the slow boat from China" is fast enough, cntainer ships are absolutely the most economical approach. For passengers though, a high-speed rail link between continents might make sense. For international business in 2050 it might be economical... although I am not sure how it might compete with the future versions of the Airbus A380 or Boeing 787...

    1. Re:Passengers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      For passengers though, a high-speed rail link between continents might make sense.

      Planes are cheaper than trains for distances over 400 miles. This would be twenty times that far.

    2. Re:Passengers by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      But the hard part is untangling the 400 mile extension cord for the electricity when you get to the other end.

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

      For passengers though, a high-speed rail link between continents might make sense.

      Planes are cheaper than trains for distances over 400 miles. This would be twenty times that far.

      For passengers. This would not be a passenger train, this would be for the millions of tons of cargo that go between the US and China.

    4. Re:Passengers by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      On what basis? International air gets tax breaks. So the price isn't comparable. In terms of energy, it's more efficient to be supported by rail than by wings & jet fuel. And it's more efficient to cut through the air if you are travelling slower. Although planes do get the benefit of thinner air to cut through.

      Furthermore, as fossil fuel becomes rarer, electric trains become far more sustainable and cheaper than fossil fuel jets.

    5. Re:Passengers by SourceFrog · · Score: 1

      Hm, a signficant cost driver of rail transport today is requisitioning - planning, environmental assessments, analysis of complex urban layouts in densely populated areas, legal wrangling with property owners where you want to build the route, purchasing many properties where you want the rail to run, dealing with protesters and legal obstacles, etc. etc. - this is because the world is much more densely populated now than when most our original rail infrastructure was laid out - but much of these costs don't apply if you're building out in the middle of nowhere and nobody's living there. I don't know much about rail infrastructure budgeting, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that 'average' costs apply.

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    6. Re:Passengers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planes are cheaper than trains for distances over 400 miles. This would be twenty times that far.

      The fares currently are. But that doesn't necessarily even corerlate to current or future cost or future fares. Trains will most likely be cheaper to operate as long as the tracks are used frequently enough.

    7. Re:Passengers by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      For passengers though, a high-speed rail link between continents might make sense.

      Planes are cheaper than trains for distances over 400 miles. This would be twenty times that far.

      Trains have the potential to be cheaper, or even faster, but not the way we do them today. I don't really see building one as a technical problem so much as a political one (getting the rights of way, deciding what route is worth building, actually doing the project, etc).

      A bit problem with fast/long train routes is that you can't do it if you have stops along the way, which means that you have to either build a lot of point-to-point lines, or you need to figure out a way for trains to share lines on a network at very high speeds (this involves routing problems and design challenges as the turn radii have to be VERY large).

      The big advantage of planes is that you can create or change routes at any time inexpensively since once a plane is in the air it can fly anywhere unimpeded. While traffic control is a challenge, it isn't as bad as having 12 trains that all want to use exactly one pair of rails.

      But, if you can get around those issues with today's technology you could build a maglev train that travels in a vacuum at speeds MUCH higher than a plane using much less energy. It might make sense to anchor the routes at airports so that aircraft could be used to extend the network.

  29. A Pipe Dream by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    That is one heck of a pipe they are talking about. I won't be using such a tunnel and I'll bet that it would be a financial blunder and practical nightmare. Does any American actually want such a tunnel?

    1. Re:A Pipe Dream by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That is one heck of a pipe they are talking about. I won't be using such a tunnel and I'll bet that it would be a financial blunder and practical nightmare. Does any American actually want such a tunnel?

      I wouldn't get into it, but I would prefer that my goods come through a tunnel on a train that will have to be running some kind of relatively clean fuel (if not on electricity) by definition given the environment, than on a container ship powered by a diesel engine running on bunker fuel.

      I mean, I'd prefer they didn't have to come from China at all, but that's a whole other discussion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:A Pipe Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans just want to watch reality TV and eat themselves to death - obviously an infrastructure project would be of no interest to them.

    3. Re:A Pipe Dream by fnj · · Score: 1

      Nobody has used Bunker C in steam turbines for ships in many years. Container ships use the same diesel fuel as locomotives. Oh, and one more thing: they burn less of it per tonne-km than trains do. If you electrify railways, than close to the same amount of fuel is still being burned, just in central power stations - given that the electric power system is neither all nuclear nor all renewable.

      Now that you know the facts, is your opinion modified? No one is against the CONCEPT of utopia, but right now container ships are the most effieient and greenst practical means of transporting general cargo over long distances.

    4. Re:A Pipe Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise they wont be finished in time for this Christmas or the next. It's much more likely electricity will become greener than diesel locomotives will.

    5. Re:A Pipe Dream by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nobody has used Bunker C in steam turbines for ships in many years.

      That's right. They burn it in bigass diesel engines the size of a house.

      Oh, and one more thing: they burn less of it per tonne-km than trains do. If you electrify railways, than close to the same amount of fuel is still being burned, just in central power stations

      Where it can have emissions controls applied to it, e.g. algal carbon capture.

      Now that you know the facts, is your opinion modified?

      You haven't expressed any new facts. You may try again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. I have to ask why? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Planes are faster, cheaper, and safer for passenger traffic at that distance.

    Possibly they want the underwater tunnel for cargo trains? Then you're competing with container ships which are themselves very cheap though possibly not as fast.

    The only way a train beats a plane is if the tunnel is a vacuum. And that radically complicates the engineering especially if you're putting it under the ocean.

    And that doesn't even address the political problems.

    Tensions with china are increasing and then you have this train going through Russian territory which has its own problems.

    So... why would we build the train? Yes the chinese are saying they're paying for it. Great. But its going to go through our territory and give the Chinese physical access to the whole route. Why would we give them that for something which appears pointless and doomed?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I have to ask why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got any empirical evidence that airplanes are? Especially with the safety of US airplanes which are about as terrible as the worst parts of Africa, you're safer to take rubber motor boat across the ocean...

      Right, no proof....

    2. Re:I have to ask why? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Planes are faster, cheaper, and safer for passenger traffic at that distance.

      As fossil fuels become more and more expensive, the price of air travel is going to go up. Way up.

      Makes sense to being looking at other options today, assuming they'd roll out in 50 - 75 years.

    3. Re:I have to ask why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you suggesting that nuclear will generate electricity for this train? Solar? Or will it be coal at a chinese fired plant?

    4. Re:I have to ask why? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Planes are cheaper?
      This place really has gone downhill. People used to be careful not to expose their lack of a high school education but now it just does not seem to matter.

    5. Re:I have to ask why? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      When the oil is gone, a coal fired train is just a little more practical than a coal fired plane...

    6. Re:I have to ask why? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Coal fired trains were a proven and successful technology in, oh, about 1850.

      But this isn't about coal. Trains run on rails and the rail infrastructure can be designed to include energy delivery infrastructure around it.

    7. Re:I have to ask why? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You think a trans Atlantic train from China to Seattle is cheaper then a commercial airliner?

      And you think I am ignorant?

      Either you don't know what our air network costs per passenger or you don't know what the rail network costs per passenger.

      There is a reason Amtrak for example gets government subsidies but most airlines do not.

      Passenger rail over long distances is not competitive with airplanes for price or speed.

      And doing it from china to the United States is moronic for PASSENGER traffic.

      For freight, it might make sense... if not for the political problems which just render it moot.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:I have to ask why? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Entirely theoretical.

      the people predicting spikes in oil prices have been wrong for about 100 years... which is about as long as they've made those claims.

      The current spike in prices has more to do with politics then it does with resource scarcity. Remove the extra taxes put on oil over the last 10 years and relax the regulations on the oil industry back to what they were ten years ago and you could have 2 dollar a gallon gas.

      Or maintain the taxes and regulation and pay upwards of 2.50 in nothing but government interference.

      Regardless the price of a gallon of gasoline has about as much to do with the scarcity of oil as the price of a pack of cigarettes has to do with the scarcity of tobacco. Aka... nada.

      You can't fuck with the market and then claim the prices are market prices. They're not. They're the price after you fucked with the system.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:I have to ask why? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Airplanes are very safe statistically.

      About 1.5 million people in the US alone travel by air EVERY SINGLE DAY.

      And of those people how many of them are killed due to a safety issue on the plane or pilot error etc?

      We have a serious air crash about once every 5 to 10 years and those tend to claim something between 100 and 400 lives.

      The cruise industry loses more people to the flu then the airlines lose to anything as a percentage of travelers.

      I don't understand why people are mindlessly against airplanes. They're great.

      If you were traveling more then a thousand miles in the US, tell me you wouldn't take a plane?

      No one travels by train more then a couple hundred miles at most. Its too slow and too expensive.

      Try to book a train from Los Angeles to New York city. Tell me what that train seat costs.

      Okay... that is WITH government subsidies making it cheaper. Now look at the plane ticket. That is not only without government subsidies but with additional government taxes on top of it.

      Planes are RADICALLY cheaper.

      And planes are more flexible too. With trains a given station is connected to another given station. Airports have no such physical connection. You can take off at any airport and land at any airport.

      Trains can't compete with that.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re: I have to ask why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safer than what, swimming?

    11. Re:I have to ask why? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And you think I am ignorant?

      Disturbingly so.

      For freight, it might make sense

      You just may be getting a moment of lucidity here and starting to understand my reaction and beginning to get the idea of what the line is intended for in the first place.

      if not for the political problems which just render it moot

      In China potential profits make political problems vanish like magic.

    12. Re:I have to ask why? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      It was about coal. AC was trying to imply dirty Chinese coal would be used. I was saying at least coal is practical for trains, (via electricity as you so helpfully pointed out). Power cables in the sky for a plane, not so much.

    13. Re:I have to ask why? by fnj · · Score: 1

      the people predicting spikes in oil prices have been wrong for about 100 years...

      Yeah, that's why I am now coughing up $3.88/gal for heating oil compared to about 18 cents 45 years ago. This has nothing whatever to do with taxes, and everything to do with simple economics.

    14. Re:I have to ask why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your $2 gas will make quite a few producers unprofitable and actually decrease production.
      What your magical market will push the price up and replace the tax anyway. Damn.
      Even if it didn't increase the price again anyway, where is all the extra oil coming from? Are you going to find it for free? The harder to find oil will be more expensive, again pushing the price up.
      All this is even assuming there is enough oil to find.
      Why don't you just come out and say it, you want the tax money to be replaced with other taxes (maybe some poor people) so the oil industry can make more money.

  31. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    By what objective standard did the terrorists "win"? Their goal was to eject the US from the Mideast and unite the Muslim world under something like Sharia law. I see no progress on that front.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  32. Stops at Alaska by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    What is the point of a passenger train to Alaska? There is not even a pasenger train from LA to Anchorage. From what I have seen there is only bus/plane/ferry travel from USA to Alaska.

    1. Re:Stops at Alaska by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so the Chinese start high speed rail companies in the USA, what's the problem? we're far too lazy and stupid to be hooking up the big cities in our country this way, should have done it in the 90s

    2. Re: Stops at Alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats the beauty of it. No link to other places means no one wuill use it. See, all safty concerns eliminated. Next?

  33. Shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earthquake = non-project

  34. Older than dirt. by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative

    The concept of an overland connection crossing the Bering Strait goes back before the 20th century. William Gilpin, first governor of the Colorado Territory, envisioned a vast ''Cosmopolitan Railway'' in 1890 linking the entire world via a series of railways. Two years later, Joseph Strauss, who went on to design over 400 bridges, including the Golden Gate Bridge, put forward the first proposal for a Bering Strait railroad bridge in his senior thesis. The project was presented to the government of the Russian Empire, but it was rejected.

    A syndicate of American railroad magnates proposed in 1904 (via a French spokesman) a Siberian-Alaskan railroad from Cape Prince Wales in Alaska through a tunnel under the Bering Strait and across northeastern Siberia to Irkutsk via Cape Deshnev, Verkhnekolymsk and Yakutsk. The proposal was for a 90-year lease, and exclusive mineral rights for 8 miles (13 km) each side of the right-of-way. It was debated by officials and finally turned down on March 20, 1907.

    -----

    Aside from the obvious technical challenges of building two 40-kilometre (25 mi) bridges or a more than 80-kilometre (50 mi) tunnel across the strait, another major challenge is that, as of 2011, there is nothing on either side of the Bering Strait to connect the bridge to.

    The Russian side, in particular, is severely lacking in infrastructure, without any highways for almost 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi) (the nearest is M56) and no railroads or paved highways for over 3,200 kilometres (2,000 mi) in any direction from the strait.

    On the American side, at least 800 kilometres (500 mi) of highways or railways would have to be constructed in order to connect to the American transport network

    Bering Strait crossing

    1. Re:Older than dirt. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that George Carlin also suggested it.

    2. Re:Older than dirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bridge s constructor name is Strauss?!?? But that is the kind of NAMES and PEOPLE AFRICANS in the USA do not want ALIVE! No wonder NOTHING new is hapenning...

  35. No Thanks by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    I rather like the status quo where they need a usable navy to get to resources that they will eventually want to take by force. They're about out of fresh water and other key resources aren't far behind.

  36. And then what? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    This faces the same problem that a cross-Bering rail connection would have: "And then what?" Alaska doesn't have a particularly robust rail network (the tunnel would have to go all the way to Anchorage), and what it does have doesn't leave the state; there are no connections to Canada, let alone to the 48.

    Anyone or anything that arrives by tunnel would immediately have to get onto a truck, bus, ship or plane. Unless China sees that much of an untapped market in Anchorage and Fairbanks.

    1. Re:And then what? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you're thinking small, China could make money building high speed rail system for us, since we're too ignorant and stupid to do it ourselves

  37. expansionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would provide Asia more access to Alaska than most US citizens in the lower 48. Alaska is not for sale!

    1. Re:expansionism by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Alaska is not for sale!

      Of course it isn't - we already bought it.

  38. Under the sea floor or on it? by swb · · Score: 1

    Could they build a tunnel as a long conduit on the sea floor, perhaps giving it some flexibility to deal with the seismic activity in that area?

    1. Re:Under the sea floor or on it? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Could they build a tunnel as a long conduit on the sea floor, perhaps giving it some flexibility to deal with the seismic activity in that area?

      Another option is a free-floating tunnel anchored to the sea floor. Put it just far enough under the surface that waves/storms/etc don't bother it. That has a whole bunch of challenges as well, but probably scales better than something on the sea floor as terrain doesn't matter at all.

  39. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorism is never used as a mean of battling head on, it is used to instil terror into a stronger enemy force, hence the term. The goal wasn't to blow up soldiers, it was to strike at the heart of their enemies, causing fear and uncertainty. Beyond that, terrorists don't have to do anything, the frightened people will take care of the rest.

    It's a war of the mind more than anything else and in that respect, the United States lost badly.

  40. The standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

    military defeat: score 0

    political breakup: Score 0.5 - our political polarization is damn close to a breakup.

    ideological downfall: score 1 - yep conservative, liberal, everyone is disgusted

    economic bankruptcy: score 0.5 - came damn close in '08

    Well, so far Osama is 2 for 4.

    Here's the sad part, we did it to ourselves. All he did was push the right buttons and showed what a stupid people we are.

    Everyone who "feels" safer with DHS and our police state is at fault. As well as the actors - like the NSA - they are in Osama's plan.

    Everyone who is clinging to political ideology is at fault.

    And everyone who is in deep with our consumerist-oil guzzling society is at fault.

    1. Re:The standards by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      political breakup: Score 0.5 - our political polarization is damn close to a breakup.

      But has nothing to do with Afghanistan. We were having government shutdowns in the 90s. Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, etc. Fun times.

      ideological downfall

      Again, when you look at what the US did during the cold war (Cuba, Shah of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, etc), I fail to see how we have changed in this respect.

      economic bankruptcy

      That was due to a housing bubble, bad government debt policies, and shoddy deregulation. The US could afford - in financial terms - to occupy Afghanistan pretty much perpetually. Even if you disagree, most of the costs are long term and in no way precipitated the financial crisis. The human toll, on the other hand...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  41. Chinese quality! by tcheleao · · Score: 1

    With well known, Chinese workmanship quality!
    I wonder who, in a good mental health,
    would ride in this train, bellow the ocean....
    I don't.!!!!!!

    1. Re:Chinese quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's America's high speed rail network like?

    2. Re:Chinese quality! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      China, just like the USA, makes high quality as well as low quality items. Note they have high speed rail, we don't, because we're stupid

    3. Re:Chinese quality! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      What's America's high speed rail network like?

      First, this isn't about high speed rail - it would mostly be for freight. Second, I'd gladly take a French or Japanese hi-speed train than a Chinese one. Last time I checked, China and the US aren't the only two places in the world.

    4. Re:Chinese quality! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      China ... makes high quality as well as low quality items.

      Really? Where are they hiding the high quality stuff?

      Note they have high speed rail, we don't

      They have hi-speed rail because it's very heavily subsidized. The same is true of France's famed TGV. As much as I like hi-speed rail, I think there is a limit to how heavily subsidized it should be.

    5. Re:Chinese quality! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Oops, didn't read the 2nd link. It is for high speed rail - which makes it even dumber than I thought.

    6. Re: Chinese quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound a lot like when people experienced the first steam-powered trains. Horses were considered a lot safer back then, and reliable, who needs to go so fast anyway?!

    7. Re:Chinese quality! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I have quality high tech electronics that was made in China; you probably do too but don't realize it?

      as for heavy subsidies for rail transportation, you think the US government does not?

    8. Re:Chinese quality! by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They have hi-speed rail because it's very heavily subsidized. The same is true of France's famed TGV. As much as I like hi-speed rail, I think there is a limit to how heavily subsidized it should be.

      The right level is probably about the level at which freeways are subsidized. Rail detractors keep conveniently forgetting that roads are also heavily subsidized.

    9. Re:Chinese quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were comparing the workmanship and quality of the respective countries. I chose rail because it seemed relevant to the topic. I had trouble finding info on the American high speed rail network for comparison. Can you enlighten me at all?

    10. Re:Chinese quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason they produce cheap crap is because american corporations are asking them...

  42. Re:What an idea by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Russia is interested, at least as much as China. This would massively increase trade between continents. Train freight is far cheaper than shipping. If I remember correctly, they have an offer for several billion USD for any entity that would agree to build such a tunnel.

  43. Re:What an idea by mfh · · Score: 1

    You're joking but a geospecialist could easily hold a government for randsom if they had an earthquake machine.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  44. Makes little sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This makes little or no sense. Ship transport is many times cheaper than trains and, given how awful the weather can be up Alaska way, any time savings would not be reliable. It makes even less sense with the enlarged locks for the Panama Canal.

  45. This is Slashdot . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . Where George W. Bush is a hero. You will be modded down.

  46. Re:What an idea by germansausage · · Score: 1

    You just listed the long term goal. The immediate goals of a terrorist act is to cause terror and to provoke a disproportionate reprisal. The reprisals helps further radicalize people and help recruit more members. I think they succeed on all 3 short term goals. As for the long term goals, the war isn't over yet.

  47. Learn from history for once! by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    The last time we had a bridge up there, the USA was invaded by Siberians! Come on, Americans, get your heads out of your butts and fight back!

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Learn from history for once! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      what's the problem, among the invaders will be hot asian chicks (and for you gay fellers hot asian studs)

      I say bring it on

  48. Re:What an idea by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Russia is interested, at least as much as China.

    Yeah i bet they sure are...

    This is a really, really dumb idea...sort of like putting your mailbox on a 4000ft tall pole so it can get "air mail" better

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  49. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Bush is out of the Whitehouse!

  50. works just like fracking by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    funny how Deep Injections Fracking wells do essentially the same thing as a theoretical earthquake machine

    remember the "US Navy Flood Map"?

    http://earthshiftx.com/wp-cont...

    Now correlate to where fracking has been alllowed...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  51. Re:What an idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

    Russia is very interested in Alaska. There are even elements within the Russian political scene who would like to 'take back' Alaska from the U.S.

  52. Re:What an idea by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    sigh, the mission accomplished was a gaff in that the mission WAS accomplished, for that ship that he was on. It was a dumb move by any means

    on the other hand obama did in fact make a statement saying terrorism is over

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  53. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. So China can, what, use it to infiltrate the U.S. with it's agents more readily? Will it be high-capacity so that when the day comes they want to openly invade with ground troops, they can use it to first establish a beachhead here, then use it to transport more troops to invade an occupy us? Or are they going to use it to transport more toxic shit to poison us, ruin our homes, and kill our pets? Fuck that shit, fuck China, fuck the whole thing.

  54. Re:What an idea by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Informative

    Train freight is far cheaper than shipping.

    No, water is always the cheapest way to ship things long distance. In fact it's not unusual for container ships from China to use NY harbor (just take a look from the Narrows) in spite of the much longer distance than shipping to the West Coast and then shipping cross-country by rail.

    The problem is the proverbial "slow boat to China" (or from China these days). A trans-Pacific cargo ship generally takes around 3 weeks. You could steam faster, but the fuel consumption would rise dramatically.

  55. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    If you want to talk short term, they have made no progress towards their long term goals. Radicals do undermine democracy, but they can strengthen a dictatorship as moderate people fear the radicals and side with the dictatorship. You see this right now in Egypt and Syria. The result of these dictatorships harms the cause of the terrorists. They probably have more representation in Turkey than they do in these other countries that they've been working so hard in, because their assumptions are flawed. They make temporary victories, capturing cities which quickly empty. But ultimately they make no long-term progress.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  56. I think its safe to say by daninaustin · · Score: 2

    No, they won't. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should, or will. Alaska is too far away and it would cost too much. China won't build it, Russia won't build it and we won't build it.

    1. Re:I think its safe to say by SourceFrog · · Score: 1

      Don't you need to calculate some actual cost projections before you know it "would cost too much"? As far as I can tell, they're only at the stage of talking about the idea. Have you seen cost projections or an economic feasibility study somewhere?

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
  57. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    If you believe that terrorists simply want to strike fear in our hearts, and have no larger goal in mind, well... let's just say that we disagree.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  58. Re:What an idea by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    There are even elements within the Russian political scene who would like to 'take back' Alaska from the U.S.

    Then they can go straight to Hell.

    The U.S. did not "take" Alaska, they bought it, fair and square. Any contingent that wants to "take back" what they sold fairly for hard cash is a gaggle of criminals, by Russian, American, and international law.

  59. Re:What an idea by wiggles · · Score: 5, Informative

    >My question is what purpose it would solve. By the time the route is finished, there won't be any way for the US to import anything from China. Food exports from USA to China, perhaps, as an attempt to pay the interest on what is owed?

    Your post displays a lack of knowledge of how the trade deficit works.

    In a nutshell, we don't borrow money from China. We buy goods and services from China, and we use US Dollars for the transaction.

    China can then spend those US dollars in the American economy - perhaps to buy American goods in exchange - but they choose instead to put those greenbacks into US treasuries, which is the single safest investment in the world. Other countries would sell those greenbacks on the currency markets to obtain their native currencies, causing currency prices to fluctuate accordingly, but China has decided to keep their exchange rates at artificial levels that advantage them and disadvantage the rest of the world, especially the United States. But I digress.

    The US treasuries that China owns can't be all called in at once. They can be sold on the open market, which technically could cause US treasury rates to rise, making borrowing more expensive for the United States, but in all likelihood they would not impact those rates by very much. The important thing here is that China can't roll up to the US Treasury with a briefcase (well, okay - trucks) full of bonds that haven't matured yet and expect to cash in. It doesn't work that way. While the US does pay interest on those treasuries, the interest rates are quite low right now.

    There's a lot more to this - but suffice to say, macroeconomics is not microeconomics - things you need to take care of at a household level often don't mesh with what governments have to do in order to keep the books balanced. It's a common misconception that the US national debt is necessarily a bad thing.

  60. Re:What an idea by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    Ukraine didn't "take" Crimea either, it was assigned to their jurisdiction when both were completely subservient to the USSR, and then amicably* left with them when the republics separated. That doesn't seem to be stopping Putin now; neither does international law. Our missiles probably would, though.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  61. Re:What an idea by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

    The United States already lost a war against terrorism by instituting ridiculous laws, spying and harassment because the government was scared. That is exactly the goal of terrorism.

    They didn't "lose a war against terrorism", they lost a battle against Statist politicians. Not the same things.

    But although those Statists won a battle, and made it last a few years, they are losing the war. Slowly but surely.

    AND they will go down in history as the Bad Guys. So there's that.

  62. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, but if we're going by plate tectonics then a tunnel from China to northern Japan could be considered a tunnel to North America as well.

    It depends on whose plate boundaries map you believe and which part of Japan you're talking about. Most boundary maps agree that the southern part of Japan is on a plate that also holds China. Simplistic maps (like the one you linked) put the Northern part of Japan on the North American plate while more detailed maps are putting it on the Okhotsk plate, or even on a smaller, unnamed plate.

  63. It better be Mag-Lev by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    I don't think the entire line needs to be a mag lev train but the connection between continents should be. The trip under the straight should be a short as possible with a little noise as possible.

  64. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're joking...

    And so are you.

  65. Re:What an idea by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ukraine didn't "take" Crimea either, it was assigned to their jurisdiction when both were completely subservient to the USSR, and then amicably* left with them when the republics separated. That doesn't seem to be stopping Putin now; neither does international law. Our missiles probably would, though.

    However (see my other comment in this thread), Crimea is close and accessible, while Alaska is remote and in fact on another continent. Crimea is relatively easy for them to take and then defend. Alaska would be very difficult for Russia to either take or defend; that was largely why they sold it in the first place.

  66. China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Author, when pigs fly.

  67. Re:What an idea by meerling · · Score: 2

    The Bering Strait isn't "in the middle of fucking nowhere", it's the least water between two distinct and useful somewheres. The problem is you don't see the value of that location.
    There has been talk of building bridges or tunnels across that span for at least a century.
    Though ships are cheaper than planes, they are more expensive than trains. A railway across the Bering Strait would instantly become a big hit with shipping between North America and Eurasia. After all the USA gets a lot of products from China.
    Come to think of it, I do believe that particular route by train would even be faster than the usual sea route by ship for the China-USA trade.

    Although to be honest about it, I doubt anything will happen. This would probably be the most extensive and expensive engineering project ever attempted. Then there's a whole thing about China running the hype machine like usual. In exercising their control over the media, China sometimes forgets that the latest musings of a powerful or educated person is not the same thing as a realistic plan.

  68. The SinoAmerican Union by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

    On one hand, you can look at this and wonder why anyone would want to undertake the incredible expense of a sub oceanic tunnel across the Bering Strait. What, with Anchorage already housing one of the world's busiest international airports, particularly for cargo aircraft.

    However, completion of such a tunnel would have profound, long-reaching consequences, both negative and positive:

    Chinese manufactured goods would presumably have shipping time cut in half. Even given the considerable distances, a 2km long freight train maintaining 110 km/h is a wee bit faster than a stacked & loaded Maersk container ship wallowing across the girth of the Pacific at a leisurely 20 km/h, and those trains can be run back to back separated only by a few km with basic logistics tools.

    Rail and Trucking distribution arteries from Alaska down to the lower 48 would become among the busiest in the world.

    American manufacturing jobs would be murdered. Already bled nearly to death, the ability to Skype an engineer in Guangdong, email schematics and have 14 boxcars of finished goods on your back dock in less than 2 weeks would be a deathblow to a lot of American jobs.

    The economies of the U.S. and China would become increasingly tightly woven together, possibly creating a stabilizing effect diminishing the possibility of armed conflict - essentially the draft purpose of the European Union, after Germany went out on two world tours. The U.S. would be the loser in this scenario, as Chinas ascendancy would only continue on the world stage, while the U.S. ability to project and maintain power would suffer in the face of a diminished economy.

    Americas incredible military would become unaffordable, and go through many rounds of contractions, until the U.S ends up a peer to countries like Russia or combined UK, FR and Germany - regionally powerful, globally insignificant.

    So essentially this tunnel represents another step in a trade arrangement largely favoring only one partner, leading the other to contract, economy foundering, military eventually becoming unsustainable at current levels, heading into France-like levels of global insignificance excepting cultural impact.

    Rome 2.0

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    1. Re:The SinoAmerican Union by fnj · · Score: 1

      2km long freight train maintaining 110 km/h

      Mean freight train speed in the US is closer to half or one third that.

      Maersk container ship wallowing across the girth of the Pacific at a leisurely 20 km/h

      Try 47 km/h. We've come a long way since those slow WW2 convoys.

      So you see, given that the train route would be much longer than the direct one to, say, Los Angeles, ships are fast if not faster.

    2. Re:The SinoAmerican Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you jest.

      Why would a brand new advanced high tech rail system be as slow as a crumbling US one?

  69. That's a perfect way to deliver a nuclear bomb by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

    China wants revenge on America? Problem solved.

    1. Re:That's a perfect way to deliver a nuclear bomb by johnsie · · Score: 1

      Everyone is always out to get the poor Americans...

  70. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Missile democracy always works like a charm!

  71. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States already lost a war against terrorism by instituting ridiculous laws, spying and harassment because the government was scared. That is exactly the goal of terrorism.

    The government of the United States is scaring the people.
    Terrorism is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth: you are a slave, to sustain the richest of the rich.

  72. Re:What an idea by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Does that include the rising prices of liquid fossil fuels? If they keep rising, electrified railway might overtake shipping one day, unless you make those ships sail at a snail's pace. (Environmentally, it might be sound to try to get rid of bunker fuel long before that, though. All that sulphur can't be good, now can it?)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  73. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do have a larger goal, but it's not their immediate goal. Their actions are meant for us to become paranoid and to divide ourselves. So far, that's working out quite well for them.

  74. America's finest engineering achievement was 1968 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, both White males, took selfies on the moon.

    At the time, it was protested by Black activists, claiming that the money would have been better spent on uplifting the Black community.

    Since then, America has made every effort to uplift the Black community - not just Section 8 and EBT, but affirmative action anywhere, that few can breathe a word against lest they lose their jobs.

    As long as Americans have these priorities, they're not building anything.

  75. Hum.. by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

    I wonder how that will change the labor dynamics if we're just a 48 hour train ride to China? The best part is watching Ameicans labor on the train just like the Chinese did when we built the transcontinental railroad. :-) Payback? :-)

  76. how to turn coal into airplane fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ask the Nazis

  77. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    There's also the minor problem of Mother Russia - they would not want this done for free, or without the US doing things in return.

    What? Russia wouldn't want a train line that allows them to passenger and freight access to/from the USA and the rest of the Americas - paid for by someone else? What are you smoking?

  78. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh, I didn't know that Alaska was bought from the Russians. I see on wiki that it was bought for $7.2 million. Which is $119 million in 2014. Which makes Alaska worth about 1/25th the value of Beats by Dr Dre.

    Funny old world.

  79. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on now, it's not that remote. Putin said he could see Alaska from his house.

  80. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    It might also overtake passenger air travel.

  81. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Although to be honest about it, I doubt anything will happen. This would probably be the most extensive and expensive engineering project ever attempted.

    The Chinese built the Chinese Wall entirely by hand. And the US Transcontinental railway. This is bigger, but now machines do all the heavy lifting.

  82. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Informative

    sigh, the mission accomplished was a gaff in that the mission WAS accomplished, for that ship that he was on.

    False. In the speech accompanying the picture Bush claimed "major combat operations" in Iraq were over. He was wrong. And that was the context of the banner.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    on the other hand obama did in fact make a statement saying terrorism is over

    Also false.

  83. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Who said that was their goal? The difference with these terrorists over most is that they didn't have any coherent objective.

  84. Re:What an idea by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    And regular rail freight is far cheaper than maglev train freight.

  85. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

    So glad you're liking Obamacare.

  86. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That does not mean he can't be brought before the courts for his crimes, which are slightly worse than Benghazi and the IRS scandals.

  87. actually it is being built already by Max_W · · Score: 1

    The Trans-Siberian Raylway, the Northern Route, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... is almost reaching Yakutsk already http://osm.org/go/8_CbR-?m=

    It is actively constructed.

  88. Re:What an idea by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    sorry if i dont trust wikipedia as a main source for that

    but you are correct about obama and I was wrong, he stated that the war on terror is over, not that terrorism is over.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  89. Re: What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF you want that pile of geriatrics back then please take it! The only thing bitchier than Canadians is elderly Americans. While your at it take the tip of Minnesota that jets on into Canada. Angle, MN I think. Yeah, I'd sell if I owned it.

  90. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    You don't have to trust Wikipedia. That's what their citations are for. Here's the text of the speech from the horses mouth. It is as Wiki says it is.

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse....

  91. OH NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH NO! I know what's really happening. They're using it to steal our slightly better air! They'll pump it in rather than giving citizens the "novelty" of bagged air during the worst of their smog attacks.

    Fucking thieving bastards!

  92. Re:What an idea by Stickerboy · · Score: 2

    It was actually a fair price back then. At the time of purchase, Alaska was a frozen wasteland whose biggest known natural resources were fur pelts and hairy men.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  93. Re:What an idea by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    So glad you're liking Obamacare.

    This is what is known as "trolling". Just in case you didn't already know. I mean real trolling, not just "I disagree".

    Or, I suppose depending on how you look at the comment, it might qualify as "flamebait" instead.

    If you don't think so, then please explain to me what Obamacare has to do with (or is even supposed to have to do with) terrorism.

  94. Re:What an idea by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Come on now, it's not that remote. Putin said he could see Alaska from his house.

    Haha! Now that was genuinely funny. Props.

  95. Re:What an idea by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not according to this chart

  96. What American goods would China buy? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't exactly buy software, they pirate it. They don't buy cars, since they manufacture their own and quality isn't actually better in USA cars. Food? There's only so much soy the USA can export to China at interesting prices. China is buying up the entire USA economy and buying shares in lots of companies.just like Japan and Arabian Oil states have been doing in the past. Sorry, but the USA doesn't really produce a lot of goods that other countries are interested in any more. If anything, China buys raw ores, fuel and such, not finished products.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:What American goods would China buy? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The US manufactures more goods by dollar value than China. We just don't export them.

    2. Re:What American goods would China buy? by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 1

      China buys many American cars, as well as European and Japanese cars. Chinese cars are generally held in disdain, as their quality is regarded as inferior. And in China, a car is a status symbol more than anything. You should try visiting China before claiming utter nonsense about purchasing habits. There is a lot of money in China, most of it held by a large upper-class that has more than enough cash to buy a Ford.

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    3. Re:What American goods would China buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American corn, rice, and raw materials like aluminum and steel.

    4. Re:What American goods would China buy? by phmadore · · Score: 1

      The Chinese import a lot of coal from us, last I knew. Aren't they willing to burn the coke that no one else will?

    5. Re:What American goods would China buy? by phmadore · · Score: 1

      If I can ever afford it, I want to buy one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

    6. Re:What American goods would China buy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't, and hasn't for a few years now. https://www.mapi.net/china-has...

    7. Re:What American goods would China buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should look more closely at the 'foreign' cars you see. All the ones with Chinese and English are in fact made in China, and are the vast majority.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_China

    8. Re:What American goods would China buy? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself; I'm saving up for one of these awesome new Chinese cars: http://www.mlive.com/grpress/b...

    9. Re:What American goods would China buy? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the USA doesn't really produce a lot of goods that other countries are interested in any more.

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

      Check out the exports and imports section on the right side. The US exports 1.57 trillion worth of stuff each year (and imports 2.5 trillion), with 28% of that being capital goods (durable stuff like machinery, cars, high tech things, etc..). Another 25% of that is stuff like industrial chemicals.

      Overall, the US is third in the world for exports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports European Union at 5.5 trillion, China at 2.2, and the US at 1.5.

      Here is a more detail breakdown:
      http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html
      Machines, Engines
      Electronic equipment
      Oil
      Vehicles
      Aircraft
      Medical equipment
      etc....

  97. Re:What an idea by SourceFrog · · Score: 2

    Yes, it's important that we borrow from people who are aren't born yet 'in order to keep the books balanced'.

    --
    My other UID is three digits.
  98. Re:What an idea by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    The free market value of real estate - back then that's how much people were willing to pay for it.

  99. Re:What an idea by SourceFrog · · Score: 1

    Too many Muslims use the Chunnel, it would be too much like attacking one of their own countries, so it's probably safe.

    --
    My other UID is three digits.
  100. Re:What an idea by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    The market is down the west coast, Vancouver,Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego. Not that much market up in Alaska or Canada. Alaska is the largest US state at 663,268 sq miles but 47th in population at 735,132. A train route going through the rugged terrain of North East Siberia and North West North America would cost huge amounts of money through very rugged terrain, often with iced/snowed over tracks, maintenance of the tracks and expensive tunnels would be extremely expensive, and it would take more fuel and to get from Shanghai to San Francisco than directly by a humongous cargo ship, per container load. Granted, even cargo ships go a bit up north on their tracks, as the geodesics, the shortest distances, on a sphere go that way. If you had a cheap way to blast vacuum tunnels through any kind of terrain, or at least near 0% longterm interest rates, you could have a vacuum tain transportation means that beats anything in speed and fuel cost, but that would be first constructed from NY to Boston, San Francisco to LA, Beijing to Shanghai. But Beijing to LA vacuum train would have to go through the Behring strait. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  101. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a common misconception that the US national debt is necessarily a bad thing.

    Fuck me that's a bold statement.

  102. Re: What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the Chinese can come right to us to take US jobs!

  103. Re:What an idea by Alioth · · Score: 1

    It would still be a monumental task. Look at what it took to make the Channel Tunnel and that's barely 25 miles long and is in an area that's seismically a lot more stable than the gap between North America and Siberia.

  104. Re:What an idea by niftymitch · · Score: 2

    I was wondering how this might get financed....
    The answer is:

    WALMART.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  105. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I'm certain that the idiots blowing themselves up don't have a sophisticated strategy, but the people recruiting, training, equipping, and financing them sure do have some goal in mind.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  106. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Again, that is just their strategy and not their end goal. Their strategy, while going according to plan, is not having the results that they expected. So while it is true to say that they have successfully executed their strategy, it is also true that their strategy appears to be failing.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  107. Re:What an idea by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    Exactly, people seem to ignore that ships may need a long time to get there, but they carry a MUCH larger load. It is like a network with high latency but also high bandwidth. Also the fuel they burn is practically useless for any other purpose.

  108. Re:What an idea by arth1 · · Score: 1

    What? Russia wouldn't want a train line that allows them to passenger and freight access to/from the USA and the rest of the Americas - paid for by someone else? What are you smoking?

    Politics have never been about what you want, but what you can get. Look up Realpolitik.

  109. Re:What an idea by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Fair? Not really. For one thing, Russian Empire hasn't seen a cent from that payment. You see, it sank.

  110. Re:What an idea by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    macroeconomics is not microeconomics - things you need to take care of at a household level often don't mesh with what governments have to do in order to keep the books balanced.

    This is 100% right, but hardly anybody understands that. I don't really know why, but I suspect politicians are largely to blame - "Social security is like a cookie jar..."

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  111. Re:What an idea by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    . Here's the text of the speech from the horses mouth.

    I believe you mean "the monkey's mouth."

  112. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government was never scared. It used terrorism as an excuse to push an agenda. They had little choice, as the two previous "enemies", Nazists and Communists, do not frighten people anymore.

  113. Re:What an idea by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    The Bering Strait isn't "in the middle of fucking nowhere", it's the least water between two distinct and useful somewheres.

    You've got Korea, which is sort of somewhere. Then you've got Kamchatks, which is nowhere. Then the strait. Than there's Alaska, which is another bunch of nowhere before you get to Seattle[1].

    How is it not in the middle of nowhere? It's certainly a long way from anywhere that counts as somewhere.

    [1] Well, there's that Canadian place that Heart come from.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  114. Re:What an idea by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    But that was built 20-25 ears ago. And this is probably a project for some time in the future yet. Technology moves on...

  115. Re:What an idea by gtall · · Score: 1

    Uh...don't know if you've noticed but Muslim terrorists have no problems attacking other Muslims. If we forget about the intrasect animosities....

    In this corner of the WWF, we have the Shi'ite, rabid anti-Jew, chief country planning nuclear weapons in the hopes it will make their dicks look bigger, claim women have no souls, supporting Assad against his country.

    In this other corner of the WWF, we have Sunni, rabid anti-Jew, chief country proud of stoning women for looking at men and holder of an annual Stone Satan Jamboree, able to take billions of oil wealth and still make it nothing more than sand.

    In the other corner, we have the Al Qaeda wack-a-jews, willing to use any weapons to attack just about everyone else, dreams of a Grand Unified Sultanate stretching from one corner of Heaven to the other corner of Hell, creators of Hell on Earth.

    In this other corner, we have the cowering masses of Muslims, also rabid anti-Jew, unable to raise a whimper to any atrocity as long as it was done in the name of Allah, worried to death their kids are going to wipe their toy governments off the map.

    Who will win, who will raise the belt showing them the winner of solving Hitler's Jewish Problem?

  116. Re:What an idea by gtall · · Score: 1

    And this deep analysis holds up until the terrorists get nukes, or chem weapons. Nice fairytale.

  117. Re:What an idea by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    " It's a common misconception that the US national debt is necessarily a bad thing."

    I am old enough to remember when it was a concern among serious people that if the US paid down too much of the national debt that the lack of Treasuries in circulation could have a destabilizing effect on the world economy.

    Then again, I am also old enough to remember when is was a concern among unserious people that the Japanese might own everything in the US.

  118. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People can have multiple goals. Now you're just being purposely obtuse

  119. Re:What an idea by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    If you can borrow now at a rate less than inflation and productivity growth then you are already reducing future outlays, even before you consider the additional productivity growth from current additional spending.

  120. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, or they could create radioactive mutant super men with wings, fly them over and dump radioactive shit on us...

    Could've, would've, should've. I don't deal in what ifs. Now either get the fuck out of my country or go back to bed you frightened little child.

  121. here it comes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    numerous stories or novels contain a world war (ww3, final war, apocalyptic, etc, etc) of some sort that starts with a chinese (with or without other asian/middle east allies) invasion of north america by way of alaska and the bering strait..

    be afraid, be very afraid.

  122. Re:What an idea by Apocryphos · · Score: 1

    dude I am so entertained by this apk guy that follows you around

  123. Build Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will our laws and regulations put up with the notorious quality of chinese mega engineering?

  124. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not. You can use tactics that have nothing at all to do with your goals. You might even use tactics that you find unpalatable. Your tactics themselves can be quite successful without furthering your goals at all. Yes, terrorists want us to be afraid, and they wanted to damage us in various ways. And mission successful. But the Mideast has changed in a way that is not favorable to their ultimate cause. Thus, while they have been tactically effective, they have not advanced their goals at all - and in fact appear to have damaged their cause.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  125. isn't that "through to america" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you go undersea, just go underneat.

  126. Re:What an idea by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

    I was a little disappointed not getting to see apk's insult bot in action here.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  127. Re:What an idea by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

    Heart? Really? I'm guessing you aren't a USian or you might have said Pamela Anderson, but heart?

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  128. Re:What an idea by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with you? Are you a paranoid jew?

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  129. Re:What an idea by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    I thought the terrorists were the ones actually terrorisizing the US population, i.e., the US government and US media. With their colour alerts and propaganda they were the only ones actually spreading FUD.

    I also thought they got exactly what they wanted, i.e., more control over the population, more surveillance, and less freedom of the population.

    You seemed to be confusing terrorists with the freedom fighters trying to prevent evil capitalism from encroaching on their territories.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  130. Re:What an idea by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    You are falling into the same trap as the AC you are arguing against.

    Terrorism was born in the US. None of the 'terrorist' groups have ever stated that their purpose is to terrorize. If you think about it, that's about the stupidest purpose anybody could ever have. Nobody is going to die for that, yet US Kool-aid is just soooooo sweet.

    Terrorism is a pure fabrication of the US govt and media. They have terrorized you so they could take away your freedom and you would be glad to give it. What those countries actually want is just to have the US stop fucking with them. Most USians don't know it, but those 'terrorists', they're actually fighting for your freedom as well.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  131. Re:What an idea by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

    I wonder when the US will realize that it can actually survive without constantly needing a 'mortal enemy'.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  132. Re:What an idea by phmadore · · Score: 1

    This has been said about literally every major feat of engineering in human history, and every time, you guys were wrong.

  133. Re:What an idea by phmadore · · Score: 1

    And how many natives they were willing to kill for it.

  134. Re:What an idea by phmadore · · Score: 1

    Instructable? I could really use some favors at the federal level.

  135. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post displays a lack of knowledge of how the trade deficit works.

    Ahem

    In a nutshell, we don't borrow money from China. We buy goods and services from China, and we use US Dollars for the transaction.

    In a different nutshell you don't produce enough things that the rest of the world wants to buy. You want to spend more money than you earn (or collect in taxes) on other peoples things. The difference you borrow, sometimes from other countries, some of that from China.

    China can then spend those US dollars in the American economy - perhaps to buy American goods in exchange - but they choose instead to put those greenbacks into US treasuries, which is the single safest investment in the world. Other countries would sell those greenbacks on the currency markets to obtain their native currencies, causing currency prices to fluctuate accordingly, but China has decided to keep their exchange rates at artificial levels that advantage them and disadvantage the rest of the world, especially the United States. But I digress.

    China could spend those dollars on American goods or services(,or anywhere else that takes $US, oil for example) America just doesn't produce and sell what China wants to buy.
    Other countries could buy American goods or services also, maybe you don't make anything (they want either). Other countries can also just print their currencies (just like America) they dont need your permission. This has a far greater effect on currency fluctuations.
    China's currency has been steadily increasing for many years, but it doesnt seem to make any difference to the US's trade defecit. Keeping China's currency semi pegged to the $US has a much bigger effect on other countries that arent so lucky so your 'especially' here is quite false even if your premise was true.

    The US treasuries that China owns can't be all called in at once. They can be sold on the open market, which technically could cause US treasury rates to rise, making borrowing more expensive for the United States, but in all likelihood they would not impact those rates by very much. The important thing here is that China can't roll up to the US Treasury with a briefcase (well, okay - trucks) full of bonds that haven't matured yet and expect to cash in. It doesn't work that way. While the US does pay interest on those treasuries, the interest rates are quite low right now.

    Making your borrowing more expensive is just the trigger for all your high debt problems. America is fundamentally incapable of producing enough to pay of its current debt at current interest rates, it's obvious what will happen if the rates go higher. So obvious and devastating that it just wont be allowed to happen. The fed will pump out so much money to keep the rates low and keep/force your dollar low. (just like you were complaining about the Chinese trying to do btw)

    There's a lot more to this - but suffice to say, macroeconomics is not microeconomics - things you need to take care of at a household level often don't mesh with what governments have to do in order to keep the books balanced. It's a common misconception that the US national debt is necessarily a bad thing.

    Well at least one of your paragraphs is true.

  136. Building bridges by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    Let me add to this with a reminder for readers.

    China first started making things for other countries as a mode of defense thousands of years ago.

    Instead of spending money on standing armies, resources are spent on supporting economic dependence from other countries. This is more efficient. It is also less open to abuse.

    The USA points out that this defensive move can be abused. It can be - but at cost. At least it is skewed towards the defensive. I'm not saying to be complacent. China plans 100's years ahead while we only have rich families planning ahead. America is not a million miles away with the petrodollar.

    Propaganda or not, the poetic image of literally building a bridge between east and west (which are currently in economic war over natural gas in Ukraine) should not be lost in this discussion.
    My god, how can that be overlooked? What are we to miss that!?

  137. Here's the Alaska-Canada Rail Study by evilsofa · · Score: 1

    Alaska, Canada and the US did a feasibility study in 2007 for connecting Fairbanks and Anchorage to the US by rail:

    http://alaskacanadarail.com/in...

    The Phase I report there refers to a "Nominal US$11 billion investment". This is only for connecting Anchorage to the US by rail. There has been no followup on this since 2007 that I am aware of. There are 521 miles of utterly undeveloped and unpopulated terrain between Nome and Fairbanks that includes 65 miles of mountains, 185 miles of wetlands, and the Yukon river. Just building a road between Fairbanks and Nome was estimated to cost $27 billion in 2010.

    My family's small business in Fairbanks would inevitably be very much involved in any project to build railroads anywhere in Western Alaska, and there has been absolutely no indication that either the Alaskan government or the US government has ever had the slightest interest in building so much as a dirt road in that direction, much less a multi-continental railroad.

    1. Re:Here's the Alaska-Canada Rail Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that's only money, you can make some more.

      How much were all the wars, given away to banks, tax cuts, farm subsidies.

      The real problem is there are no votes in it. The companies who would profit dont have enough money to bribe the right people to get it passed.

  138. Re:What an idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I don't really care what we call these people, the point is they have a tactic that - while damaging to the US - is not working to further their cause.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  139. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a nutshell, we don't borrow money from China. We buy goods and services from China, and we use US Dollars for the transaction.

    China can then spend those US dollars in the American economy - perhaps to buy American goods in exchange - but they choose instead to put those greenbacks into US treasuries, which is the single safest investment in the world.

    A US treasury is an IOU note: a promise to pay US dollars at some point in the future. In other words, China buying treasury bonds from the US is the same thing as the US borrowing money from China.

    You're correct that China cannot call in the debt before the bonds mature, and that the interest rate is low. But it's incorrect to state that it isn't a debt.

  140. House of Cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WAFJ! Let them! This will hasten the demise of their economic, house of cards.

  141. Alaska Railroad by nessman · · Score: 1

    Event he Alaska Railroad doesn't have a physical connection to the lower 48 states. Train cars to and from the Alaska Railroad are barged in via Seattle.

  142. forget the Harrry Harrison reference by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    So, the underwater part would be across the Bering Strait, rather than the Pacific Ocean. Thus ends any chance of a quip about reality providing a sequel to Harry Harrison's alternate history, "A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!".

    Instead, a question: Is that near the part of Alaska that doesn't get big earthquakes, and is far far away from the part that does? If not, I'm not riding on that train.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  143. Re:What an idea by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    A technical "plausible" Channel Tunnel construction with a good chance to finish it was started three times. Construction of the first attempt, planned since 1866, was started in 1881, but halted in 1882 due to political/military reasons. The second attempt, planned since the 1950 started construction in 1974, but construction was stopped in 1975 after Euro-sceptic Labour won the British elections. Only the third attempt started in 1988 didn't snag on any political problems before it was finished.

    The Channel Tunnel was technically feasible for at least a hundred years before it cleared all political hurdles. I think that is around in the same ballpark as any China->US Rail link.

  144. Re:What an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even that overstates China's power. The Federal Reserve controls the interest rate on Treasuries, full stop. The Federal Reserve can buy or sell US bonds in unlimited quantities (well, they can't sell more than they have or get from the Treasury, but they have a ton), so if China tries to manipulate the price the Fed can cancel them out in a minute just by making an equal and opposite sale or purchase.

  145. Re:What an idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

    If it worked as Tesla said it did, which is unlikely. He made up so much nonsense during his final years it's no wonder people on the internet get all loved up for Tesla. If they were true, he'd have been a brilliantly wonderful scientist. As it stands, he was just a brilliant scientist.

  146. Re:What an idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

    No, the only way to combat it is for governments to listen to grievances from parties outside their borders, and to earnestly engage them with diplomacy. It's easier to talk to a concerned citizens' group and find a suitable solution than wait 20 years and talk to their children's terrorist organisation. Your solution isn't a solution but simply ignoring a problem and hoping it doesn't get any worse. We can look at Northern Ireland to see how diplomacy is the most powerful weapon against terrorism.

  147. Re:What an idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

    No, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of force against a population in order to coerce them politically. So if they're just doing it, then it's not terrorism, it's being a dick. If they have an agenda they wish to further through their attacks, then they are indeed terrorists. Words have meaning.

  148. Re:What an idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Terrorism is the use or threat of force against a people in order to coerce them. That is it. Any disproportionate response which might gain more supporters has nothing to do with it. In fact, if that was their aim, they are not engaged in terrorism, but provoking an attack. These words have meaning, and terrorism doesn't mean what you think it does.

  149. Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the current tensions from Russia and China's relations with the west not being so perfect. I am not sure what's the US views on having a high speed link between the two countries?

  150. K. S. Kyosuke = "Run, Forrest: RUN!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  151. K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  152. Disappointing seeing K.S. Kyosucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using illogical offtopic ad hominem attacks (post parent to apk) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  153. Re:What an idea by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    That chart is incredibly wrong. The physics behind it all will always make waterborne shipping more energy efficient. Cost per mile is a poor metric because it can be easily manipulated by choosing basis areas with saturated/barren markets. In this case, the computations are done by the DoT and wouldn't include international shipping numbers, by far the most efficient, but would only include barge cargo which is the only way to ship domestically. To frame the comparison, that blog link compares domestic transport links like Chicago to New Orleans via barge, or NJ to Chicago via rail. In practice this is less than 10% of the transit, 90% is shipping it overseas.

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

    It is important to note that while the ships listed are more energy efficient than rails, they are also the least efficient of all cargo transport ships. Barges are tiny and barely move anything in proportion to their dead weight. There are ships over 100 times the size with economies of scale to match.

  154. Is that true? i saw this on many sites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that true? i saw this on many sites. http://www.colombocitylife.com/2014/05/china-to-build-under-sea-train-to-america.html

  155. Re:What an idea by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    There's no chemical mechanical or logical impediment to refining "bunker oil" so as to remove the sulphur, benzenoid chemicals etc. It just increases the cost of the fuel. Which is why cost-conscious shipping lines use the cheapest fuels they can get. Already, it is normal to have to use a steam line (itself heated from the exhaust gases from the engine) to warm the fuel in the day-tank sufficiently to get it to flow into the fuel injectors.

    It's a cost thing - pure and simple. Every time that you vote with your wallet by buying the cheaper of two otherwise similar products, you're supporting the use of bunker oil.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  156. Re:What an idea by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    The Bering Strait isn't "in the middle of fucking nowhere", it's the least water between two distinct and useful somewheres.

    What is the "useful somewhere" on the Western side of the Bering Strait? Come to think of it, what of great use is there on the Eastern side of the Strait? Nome's last contribution to history was a diphtheria epidemic and the origin of the Iditarod race. By that point it was a failed gold rush town.

    Yes, there is oil in Alaska. A long, long way away from the proposed line for this railway. And there's already a pipeline in place, which it will remain much cheaper to mainain and keep in use than to replace with tank cars on a railway. There's fair prospectivity of gas in the Chukchi sea ... which will require cross-country pipelines to bring it to this route too. At which point you really do have to look at the costs of pumping directly into a LNG tanker, and sailing that to Japan as an alternative.

    It's not an impossible project. It doesn't strike me as being particularly useful though.

    Incidentally, someone muttered about "plate tectonics. That's obviously one of those people who don't carry maps of plate boundaries around in their head. Which I do. no problem there.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  157. Re:What an idea by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    The shortest sea route from Eurasia to North America is considerably (some hundreds of kilometres) to the north of the Aleutian Islands, which is where the major seismic activity is.

    See, for example, http://www.iris.edu/seismon/zo...

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  158. Re:What an idea by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    Heart rocks. I saw them a few years ago, and they've still got it. Also, early 70s Nancy was hot :)

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.