Re:Soviet Collapse Echoes in China’s Belt and Road
by fspeech on Monday August 13, 2018 @10:08PM
(#17755085)
No it doesn't make sense to expect rail to replace sea, however the article failed to note that the Yiwu-Europe rail link is over existing rails and there was very little infrastructure investment other than inland port facilities. The major drive was on the software side -- making trains going through multiple countries less cumbersome. Whatever happens to the BRI the Yiwu-European rail certainly is not to going to be the one to break the bank.
Re:Soviet Collapse Echoes in China’s Belt and Road
by jeffreybezos on Monday August 13, 2018 @11:04PM
(#17755301)
Do you have a reference for the US interstate system being built where there was trade already?
Re:Soviet Collapse Echoes in China’s Belt and Road
by duxup on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @12:10AM
(#17755539)
I guess I don't have any links, but it isn't hard to imagine interstate trade in the US in the mind 20th century. There were military considerations later on but the groundwork before that wasn't entirely military focused.
Re:Soviet Collapse Echoes in China’s Belt and Road
by jeffreybezos on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @11:39PM
(#17763585)
I always thought the interstate was a big 'F you' to the rail industry.
...and the rail system seemed to follow along the path of most of the rivers.
Now fiber is also placed along these paths.
The us interstate system was where there was trade already and not many alternate routes / better systems.
China's strategic concers are obvious and make sense...and yet if push came to shove and they were cut off from the sea, are they really trading via rail with Europe or others in that scenario anyway? / is incurring the costs of whole backup systems making sense?
Personally I don't have a clue how any of this plays out, just speaking to what the article is indicating.