[ul]
[li]A declassified memorandum reveals a 1963 US plan to create an alternative to the Suez Canal.[/li][li]It would have excavated more than 160 miles through Israel’s Negev desert with nuclear bombs.[/li][li]A cargo ship is currently stuck in the Suez Canal, blocking the vital shipping route.[/li][/ul]
The US considered a proposal to use 520 nuclear bombs to carve out an alternative to the Suez Canal though Israel in the 1960s, according to a declassified memorandum.
The plan never came to fruition, but having an alternative waterway to the Suez Canal could have been useful today, with a cargo ship stuck in the narrow path and blocking one of the world’s most vital shipping routes.
[ATTACH=full]356160[/ATTACH]
According to the 1963 memorandum, which was declassified in 1996, the plan would have relied on 520 nuclear bombs to carve out the waterway. The memo called for the “use of nuclear explosives for excavation of Dead Sea canal across the Negev desert.”
The historian Alex Wellerstein called the plan a “modest proposal for the Suez Canal situation” on Twitter on Wednesday.
The radioation fallout would have been too much. The US was also trying to create a sea in the Sahara in the 1960s using nulcear bombs but the plan was cancelled.
Ile kitu najua, shipping is wasteful. Most shipping containers are usually empty or carrying very light products that can be easily transported by air.
Me I support air cargo. It’s efficient and would move economies faster. Plus it is much less polluting. One giant container ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars.
In 1960 the wazungus calling themselves Jews were not occupying a controlling part of Palestine. Any ship attempting to pass through the canal would have been destroyed.
Like I said most containers are usually very empty or carrying a few very light gunias that can easily be ferried by air very efficiently.
For instance in 2020 the large ships were living L.A back to Japan carrying totally 100% empty containers. The ships were just polluting the sea and air.
Air Cargo transport is very well planned. No wastage of space like in ships. If more customers adopted air, the costs would definitely go down. And air is less polluting if you care to read that article from the previous comment.
And as far as size of cargo goes a ship takes weeks to travel, a jetliner only takes hours. Within those weeks imagine how much cargo the jetliner can ferry, whitling down whatever the ship is carrying.
@T.Vercetti If you didn’t have a brain of a chicken, you should be knowing that not everything can be transported through the air, as far as the profitability of transporting such goods is concerned. But you have a brain of a chicken.
Do you really think I made this analysis without reading very widely and asking around?
Enda port uangilie what is usually in those containers utashangaa sana.
A container is bigger than a house. Kujaza hio kitu sio mchezo. And most of them are usually very empty.
Kama ni spares za gari ni tugunia kadhaa hapa na pale.
For instance to fill a 20 foot container with flat screen TVs you need at least 400 TVs of about 60 inches each.
There is no store or supermarket in Kenya that can order that many luxury TVs juu first of all who is going to buy them? Hio ni dead stock.
Unakuta mtu ameitisha 30 TVs and a few fridges and cookers. And kujaza hio container hapan mchezo it takes forever if mnaleta mkiwa wengi. Sometimes that product goes out of fashion by the time it arrives in Kenya.
Kama ni washing machines a 20ft container can hold 100 washing machines…
Who can order that many machines in Kenya?
Now imagine how many smartphones and laptops one container can hold. And yet hizi ni vitu unapandisha kwa ndege zinafika within a few hours from Guangzhou.
You are limiting yourself to Kenya. What about LG which sells millions of TVs in the. US for instance.
How many TVs can they haul by air to the states? think
