3 ms·

From a system design perspective, it's kind of nuts that the entire planet has only one single canal connecting two major bodies of water, and it's in a country

From a system design perspective, it's kind of nuts that the entire planet has only one single canal connecting two major bodies of water, and it's in a country with a, shall we say, precarious government. Surely such a single point of failure is a massive risk. Granted, geography doesn't leave us many choices, but could we at least build another, parallel canal to it?

pasttense01 6y ago
There is another alternative: going around the southern tip of Africa. While this adds a couple weeks to trip time it also saves the massive Suez Canal transit tolls. And remember the Suez Canal was closed for 8 years after the 1967 Israel/Egypt war. https://thegamming.org/2014/08/31/how-the-closure-of-the-suez-canal-changed-the-world/ https://thegamming.org/2014/08/31/how-the-closure-of-the-sue...
- spurgu 6y ago
  Yeah and I'm under the impression that the fees are balanced so that it costs roughly the same amount to take either route. Ships only choose Suez because it's faster.
disgruntledphd2 6y ago
When it was built, the notion that the land around it wouldn't be a colonial possession seemed unlikely.
rtkwe 6y ago
The Suez is at basically the one point it makes sense to build it. The next closest is off the Gulf of Aqaba and that's right on the border of Egypt and Israel. It really doesn't make sense for Egypt to go through the trouble of cutting a second one on the one in a million shot a ship gets stuck like this. The usual answer is just make sure they don't get stuck rather than spend the billions of dollars cutting a second canal would cost. Even if Egypt was somehow charged the losses for this screw up that probably wouldn't be enough to make it worth cutting a second backup canal.
geoduck14 6y ago
There are actually 3 separate single-points-of-failure when you ship around the world. Suez Canal Panama Canal Straight of Gibraltar- I think

pasttense01 6y ago

There is another alternative: going around the southern tip of Africa. While this adds a couple weeks to trip time it also saves the massive Suez Canal transit tolls. And remember the Suez Canal was closed for 8 years after the 1967 Israel/Egypt war. https://thegamming.org/2014/08/31/how-the-closure-of-the-suez-canal-changed-the-world/ https://thegamming.org/2014/08/31/how-the-closure-of-the-sue...

spurgu 6y ago
Yeah and I'm under the impression that the fees are balanced so that it costs roughly the same amount to take either route. Ships only choose Suez because it's faster.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

When it was built, the notion that the land around it wouldn't be a colonial possession seemed unlikely.

rtkwe 6y ago

The Suez is at basically the one point it makes sense to build it. The next closest is off the Gulf of Aqaba and that's right on the border of Egypt and Israel. It really doesn't make sense for Egypt to go through the trouble of cutting a second one on the one in a million shot a ship gets stuck like this. The usual answer is just make sure they don't get stuck rather than spend the billions of dollars cutting a second canal would cost. Even if Egypt was somehow charged the losses for this screw up that probably wouldn't be enough to make it worth cutting a second backup canal.

geoduck14 6y ago

There are actually 3 separate single-points-of-failure when you ship around the world. Suez Canal Panama Canal Straight of Gibraltar- I think