3 ms·

"Its main connection to Europe would likely go through India, Pakistan and the Middle East. Although, exact routes are not yet determined." Can anyone say "IED

• fnid2 17y ago
  Wow, why all the negativity? This is an awesome project and lots of rational reasons it should go through, but you and other commenters are being so irrationally negative. People in the old days said, "International plane flights will never work. People won't trust flying over the ocean." This project will happen. It's inevitable. It's the only way people will be able to move between countries when planes are too expensive to fuel.
  • tomjen2 17y ago
    It is cheaper for me to fly Aalborg-Copenhagen than it is to take the train. I don't see this as a cost cutting meassure. It would also be a major annoyance to have to go through customs in 10 different countries.
  • drats 17y ago
    It's not negativity, it's a dream that I hope one day will be established; people living in peace and traveling to each others countries to learn and trade, enriching and improving each other's lives. I am being a realist, there are terrorist attacks almost daily in some ME countries and Pakistan. A train packed with tourists and businesspeople is pretty much the same target value to a terrorist as a plane, except you can attack it from the outside much more easily. The prevalence of IEDs and people willing to use them, highly mobile suicide car bombs and the doctrine of certain radical Muslims which allows for moral permissibility of killing fellow Muslims who are "dealing with the enemy" (strains of Wahhabi and Qutbism thinking like Bin Laden's) would make such an attack inevitable. This "negative" attitude of mine is part of the economic damage that is done to the moderate Muslims of these countries by the extremists. How many tourists have decided not to take a trip to many of these countries? How many businesses haven't been set up? How many skilled workers have fled? It's a massive economic damage these people are inflicting beyond the scope of their deplorable murders.
    • baguasquirrel 17y ago
      The Silk Road has existed before in history. Times can change. China has a pretty big army after all.
    • bh23ha 17y ago
      I think the terrorism threat is overblown. This is going to sound horrible but very few people are killed by terrorists compared to pretty much every other cause of death. And a lot of the discourse in countries like Pakistan is not pure terrorism but actually the deeper struggles of any authoritarian regime. Call me a dreamer but I really do hope and think this will happen.
      • Qz 17y ago
        Thank you for saying that. I say the same thing all the time on various websites -- I mean I wouldn't be surprised if you're more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a terrorist accident. I'm more afraid of getting on the highway.
        • techiferous 17y ago
          Fear sells news and news is as much about money as it is journalism.
          • Qz 17y ago
            I realize the news agencies will spout that kind of stuff, but the commenters don't have to go along with it.
      • grinich 17y ago
        But terrorism isn't about the number of people killed. It's about creating a state of fear.
        • rue 17y ago
          The solution is to not be afraid.
  • tjmc 17y ago
    Could you please list those rational reasons? Surely trains only make sense when they get you from A to B faster than driving to airport A, flying to airport B and then driving to B. You could be delayed at the airports for a full day and still fly from London to Beijing faster than this train. Trains are probably better for moving freight, but they don't have to be high speed. Unless JET-A fuel becomes so scarce that aviation is completely uneconomic (highly unlikely with current progress in biofuels IMHO), trains just don't make sense for distances over about 1000kms. Bring in the security issues, where a large rock is just as dangerous as an IED and it's a non-starter.
    • Kliment 17y ago
      Trains (when they work) are a much more pleasurable experience than flying. I prefer trains whenever reasonable because airports are simply nasty and annoying. I spend much more time at airports than I do flying. The security theatre is frustrating and volume and type of stuff one may transport is very limited. The economical argument is volume. Once you have a train line running, it is extremely cheap to transport large volumes of people and goods. Having a train connection would make a lot of travel possible that currently just does not happen due to prices or volume/weight limits. Also, a two day train trip is much less stressing physically than a one day flight. On a train, you can reasonably walk around, interact with people. On a flight, you are mostly bound to your seat except for bathroom breaks.
      • detst 17y ago
        Time is the major factor for me. The issues I have with air travel are nothing more than minor inconveniences. It's really not that bad. Sure, the comfort of a train is nice but in no way comes close to the convenience of an airplane. The exceptions are for short distances and when I actually want to take in the sights that a train affords.
  • mseebach 17y ago
    > Wow, why all the negativity? Why all the positivity? It's a great project, but it's also a project faced by immense obstacles. If China wants to do this, good on them, and I wish them all the best. Most of the suggested route go through political volatile areas, such as Iran. Say, they develop the nuclear bomb and NATO decides to bomb and/or invade. Now it's a war-zone and every foreign service in the world advises against travelling there. The link is unusable for 5-10-15 years. Russia frequently has fall-outs with their neighbours to the extend where they shut off gas in the middle of the winter. But the biggest issue isn't what we know now - it's what we don't know. Such a rail road has a lifespan of decades, if not more. The Train-Siberian railroad is 100 years on. The combined expected volatility over a 100 year period of all the areas the route extends through is extremely high.