• 0 Posts
  • 337 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • The difference everyone always ignores is that most of Chinese infrastructure is new. For the US they’d need to buy people out of their land, build new tunnels and bridges, and disrupt so many things to implement high speed rail.

    You can’t just leverage the existing rail network because they have curves and grades that are incompatible with high speed rail (northeast corridor has 30-40mph limits on some curves).

    In addition you’re competing with airplanes which are already proven and support current travel demands. And even if you could get the rail implemented there isn’t any guarantee it’ll be any cheaper than flight (meaning low usage). As it stands today going from major hub on Amtrak can be more expensive and takes an equal amount of time (when accounting for security/etc.)


  • I feel like people forget how much infrastructure is required to keep high speed rail running. Not only do you need the stations, but the tracks (bridges, tunnels, etc.) all need to be maintained. Additionally, when doing maintenance you can’t run the line, so you either need extra capacity so you don’t disrupt service or you end up with times you have to shut lines down.

    In comparison, planes just need a strip of flat land at takeoff and landing (you technically don’t even need an airport). You’re primary bottleneck is how fast you can get planes on/off the tarmac.

    One of the other big issues in rail vs plane is that high speed rail only works at certain grade levels and turn radiuses. So for example, I believe you couldn’t convert the existing northeast corridor in the US to 300mph rail from end to end simply due to the geography. You’d need to create a new route. Looking it up there are speed limits around 30-40mph for Amtrak around Baltimore and Wilmington.


  • You make it sound like blockades are not common events during a war. Just cause the US is blockading the strait right now doesn’t negate their desire for free passage in the future.

    Additionally, if people didn’t think Iran was justified in closing the strait (due to a war) then they probably wouldn’t be negotiating with them for access.

    This is what happens during war, both sides look for ways to create pressure on the other to force them to the table. Iran is fighting an uphill battle so needs to turn people against the US by limiting oil shipments, but that doesn’t mean the US is just going to let them keep selling their oil.


  • Im surprised by the comments here, this was an obvious outcome of Iran dictating that only Iranian interests could use the strait. The only real move for the US is to block all traffic (or at least all traffic heading to Iran). Why would the US allow Iran to continue to sell oil while Iran is destroying other ships.

    I’m sure the GCC have no issue with this policy, and it doesn’t really change the situation for most other US aligned countries as they weren’t buying Iranian oil for the most part anyways. No one wants Iran to be able to charge for access to the Strait and this would put pressure on the to find a more agreeable end to the conflict.

    Not supporting either side, just stating that this is a reasonable strategic move for the US.