Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ethagknight 91 days ago
It’s not fear, it’s cost-benefit, and it would take all the trucks in the middle east to move a tiny portion of the export that typically goes via ship. It would be easier and more aligned for Qatar, UAE, Saudis to pay mercs to keep the strait clear.
2 comments

> it would take all the trucks in the middle east to move a tiny portion of the export that typically goes via ship

May I suggest an alternative mode of freight that pre-dates trucks and can move much larger volumes at a much lower CO2 cost, namely... a transcontinental train line?

(obviously not going to happen, and might even trigger a few PR cycles about a "hyperloop", but if you were going to try to build large-volume freight, that's where I'd start)

Pipelines are by far the best option for large-volume oil freight on land!

Note that it takes about 10000 trucks to carry the 2 million barrels of oil in one typical oil tanker.

I can't believe that I didn't think of a pipeline first. So... yes.

Also another argument against trucks: they consume fuel to carry fuel.

> I can't believe that I didn't think of a pipeline first.

Don't feel bad, a pipeline is just a different type of train. The tracks are hollow and the cars are molecular in size.

I guess a train line has a similar risk of security concerns/disruption, vs. trucks which can be re-routed.
that railway can be bombed too
I'd say there are orders of magnitude of difference between attacking a narrow passage of water that borders your very large country (here the narrower the area you want to block, the better), versus a few-meters-wide railway that starts in another country and goes thousands of kilometers in a direction pointing away from you (and in the second case, the narrower the target, the more difficult to hit).
I'm reminded of the pre ww1 Berlin–Baghdad railway.
Well see? Problem solved!
Is there a real merc naval power that can support operations against ground based anti-ship missiles?