China to build 40 billion dollar Nicaraguan canal

[jimmy olsen]

Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-building-a-nicaragua-canal-2013-6

Nicaragua has approved plans for a mysterious Hong Kong-based company to build an estimated $40 billion canal across the middle of the country, Luis Manuel Galeano and Michael Weissenstein of The Associated Press report.

The waterway, which would have to be roughly three times as long as the 50-mile Panama Canal, would be one of the largest infrastructure projects ever.

The plan has some serious detractors: Environmentalists say it would devastate Lake Nicaragua, the country's primary source of fresh water, while shipping experts say that it may be an economically unfeasible power play by China.

The company, HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co. (HKND Group), has provided virtually no details about the canal and declined to comment to the AP on the record about its funding and backers.

The path would certainly cross Lake Nicaragua — meaning the water used by the canal's locks could seriously deplete the lake.

"We're at a crossroads because either you use Lake [Nicaragua] for floating boats or you use it for drinking water, but you can't use it for both things at once," Victor Campos, assistant director of the Humboldt Center environmental organization, told the AP.

Furthermore, global engineering and shipping experts told the AP that lowered demand for massive container shipping and increasing competition from potential alternate routes could make the project economic unfeasible.

"It's addressing a need that definitely is not here now and I'm not sure if it's 'a build it and they will come' sort of thing," Rosalyn Wilson, a senior business analyst at the Delcan Corporation, a Toronto-based transportation consultancy and author of the U.S. logistics industry's annual report. "I wouldn't invest my money in it."

(Check out ABC's glance at the history of Nicaragua canal plans.)

panama

Wikimedia Commons
Nicaragua's National Assembly, dominated by President Daniel Ortega's Sandinista Front, disagree with those assessments. They say the canal will transform one of the region's poorest countries by bringing tens of thousands of jobs to the country and fueling an economic boom.

"Global trade demands that this canal is built because it's necessary," Sandinista congressman Jacinto Suarez said during Thursday's legislative debate. "The data shows that maritime transport is constantly growing and that makes this feasible. Opposing it is unpatriotic."

On its website the HKND Group argues that the rapid emergence of China as a manufacturing center and global economic growth will bolster international container traffic for decades to come.

Wilson noted that the global economic slowdown led to a lower demand for massive container shipping, and that climate change means that the Arctic could become a viable alternative to crossing Central America by canal.

Roberto Troncoso, president of the Panamanian Association of Business Executives, told the AP that he believes that the plan represents China's desire to trump the Panama Canal.

The Panama Canal was completed by the U.S. in 1914 at the cost of about $375 million and thounsands of lives. The waterway gave passage to 6.6 million shipping containers on freights in 2011.

"The money is totally irrelevant," he said. "We're talking about national hegemony. China is looking to turn itself into the predominant economic power. Whoever dominates trade, dominates the world."

China has been actively investing in Latin America. In March Ecuador agreed to auction off three million of the country's 8.1 million hectares of pristine Amazonian rainforest to Chinese oil companies.

[Josquius]

Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.

Why would the US do that?
No way would  they be able to do it.

[garbon]

Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.

Why would the US do that?
No way would  they be able to do it.

Don't mind, Tim. He's just contemplating some alt-hist scenario.

[Eddie Teach]

Why would the US do that?

So far, so good.

No way would  they be able to do it.

[jimmy olsen]

Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.

Why would the US do that?
No way would  they be able to do it.

IF NECCESSARY

The article makes it sound like Chinese ownership makes the canal inviolate and gives them a strangelhold over world trade.

If the US went to war with China over Taiwan or to help out Japan or whatever, the canal would be siezed to ensure freedom of trade.

Why do you doubt America's ability to so?

Garbon AltHIST happens in the past, so this in no way qualifies.

[Josquius]

IF NECCESSARY

The article makes it sound like Chinese ownership makes the canal inviolate and gives them a strangelhold over world trade.

If the US went to war with China over Taiwan or to help out Japan or whatever, the canal would be siezed to ensure freedom of trade.

Why do you doubt America's ability to so?

I don't.
In the remote theoretical of WW3 then that could certainly be done.
Thinking more realistically however that is unlikely to happen and isn't at all what the canal is about. It would be politically impossible for the US to seize it.

Why would the US do that?

So far, so good.

No way would  they be able to do it.

Why lmfao?

[Jacob]

Tyr, when you said "no way they'll be able to do it" it sounds like you're saying "no way the US could take control of this canal"... which doesn't seem right.

If you meant "no way China will be able to actually build the damn thing", then that's a much more reasonable point.

[Josquius]

Tyr, when you said "no way they'll be able to do it" it sounds like you're saying "no way the US could take control of this canal"... which doesn't seem right.

No, that's what I meant. Even a US company aquiring it seems a long shot let alone the US government just outright seizing it.

If you meant "no way China will be able to actually build the damn thing", then that's a much more reasonable point.

Nah, they can do it if they get the political will together. This canal was considered back before the Panama canal was built, it was just a volcanic eruption in the area and local politics which led to Panama being chosen. Nicaragua is in many ways considered to be an easier build since it largely involves using already existing waterways.

[Eddie Teach]

It would be politically impossible for the US to seize it.

We deposed a dictator in Panama because he was trafficking drugs. If it's militarily possible, it's politically possible.

[Jacob]

No, that's what I meant. Even a US company aquiring it seems a long shot let alone the US government just outright seizing it.

I think the posited scenario was "in the case of a major armed conflict, the US military can seize control of the canal if necessary".

You think this is unlikely? What would stop them?

[Josquius]

No, that's what I meant. Even a US company aquiring it seems a long shot let alone the US government just outright seizing it.

I think the posited scenario was "in the case of a major armed conflict, the US military can seize control of the canal if necessary".

You think this is unlikely? What would stop them?

The conflict is unlikely. Not that if it did happen the US could just send in a small ship to take over administration of the canal for the duration of the war.
It's an irrelevant issue really. To China the canal has very little military value whatsoever, the only use I could think for it would be in sneaking through unconventional assets to the Atlantic ocean a bit quicker, but that's not at all what the canal is about, its purely about economic and political dominance.

[Jacob]

I mean yeah... it's not like when (if) the Chinese finish building this alleged canal the US will just waltz in and say "nice canal, I think I'll take it" out of the blue. That's politically impossible... mainly because the US doesn't do shit like that.

But if push came to shove and the canal was significant, do you doubt that the US could take control of it? It would be an act of war, against significant Chinese interests so it would likely precipitate an armed conflict between the two countries (if one was not already under way)... but do you doubt American ability to actually pull it off?

[Jacob]

The conflict is unlikely. Not that if it did happen the US could just send in a small ship to take over administration of the canal for the duration of the war.
It's an irrelevant issue really. To China the canal has very little military value whatsoever, the only use I could think for it would be in sneaking through unconventional assets to the Atlantic ocean a bit quicker, but that's not at all what the canal is about, its purely about economic and political dominance.

So when you say it's impossible, what you mean is that it's perfectly possible but you're talking about something else. Gotcha

[garbon]

Garbon AltHIST happens in the past, so this in no way qualifies.

[Razgovory]

An interesting move.  The US essentially announced it's presence on the world stage with the Panama canal.