deeply ambivalent here. on the one hand anything that furthers the aims of anti-imperialism or its agents is good. but on the other hand this is a horrible fucking sign for the climate.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
27 points (93.5% liked)
World News
2307 readers
130 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, climate change is a big reason why this route is now much more viable and why it will continue to gain in relevance. In that way this is quite a bleak sign...
Ya i wouldnt be so sure it cant be blocked. The US is turning Alaska into a fortress for exactly this reason. War in the arctic is likely within 10 years maybe less.
Ya i wouldnt be so sure it cant be blocked.
It can be blocked but only by force and the only countries that can do this are the US itself, the baltics, the scandinavian countries, occupied Korea or Japan, neither of which could attack Russia/China without a high likelyhood of getting nuked in return. Meanwhile, the Suez can be closed and there is nothing Russia or China could do (other than going around or making more trains).
The way things are going these days i think there will be much more... creative, solutions. Just off the top of my head.
Privateering coming back in the arctic, and pacific.
Using environmental concerns to pass a UN resolution putting major restrictions on what can be shipped through it.
"Accidentally" crashing a nuclear powered sub and having its reactor melt down up there so a choke point is unusable forcing ships to go through NATO waters to bypass radiation.
Doing "military exercises" in the Bering Strait constantly.
False claims of Russian/Chinese boats entering US Alaskan waters constantly, and disputing the maritime boundaries constantly changing where they claim the line is to confuse captains. Firing warning shots at any ships that cross the line that they move every morning.
Plus this doesnt even take into account that the US is working to create a maritime exclusion zone around Chinas entire coast.
This will work for now, but the end goal needs to be a huge railway project connecting Russia and China over land deep within their territory where its safe from any attack. High speed cargo trains running from the Chinese coast up into Russia all the way to Moscow would be an economic game changer.
Privateering coming back in the arctic, and pacific.
Anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, drones and many other solutions would make it not sustainable for long enough to hurt these countries, specially if Russia nuked whoever gave support to such privateers as their new nuclear doctrine (that they presented in the last 48 hours) would likely require they answer like that.
Using environmental concerns to pass a UN resolution putting major restrictions on what can be shipped through it.
That's why veto power exists, and if Russia lost their veto power then Russia would not follow anything comming out of there and the UN itself would likely go the way of the League of Nations.
“Accidentally” crashing a nuclear powered sub and having its reactor melt down up there so a choke point is unusable forcing ships to go through NATO waters to bypass radiation.
Two can play that game. Although I don't think there are any chokepoints for that anyway.
Doing “military exercises” in the Bering Strait constantly.
If civilian ships got hit by the "exercises" that would be an act of war because to the victim that is just a direct attack on them.
False claims of Russian/Chinese boats entering US Alaskan waters constantly, and disputing the maritime boundaries constantly changing where they claim the line is to confuse captains. Firing warning shots at any ships that cross the line that they move every morning.
That's the same as invading and taking Russian land and would likely be considered an act of war and nukes might fly. And there is also many ways to avoid crossing into the wrong borders anyway so it shouldn't be a problem.
Plus this doesnt even take into account that the US is working to create a maritime exclusion zone around Chinas entire coast.
Again, the US can circle China as much as they want but they can't fully block them without attacking China/Russia which would be considered an act of war.
This will work for now, but the end goal needs to be a huge railway project connecting Russia and China over land deep within their territory where its safe from any attack. High speed cargo trains running from the Chinese coast up into Russia all the way to Moscow would be an economic game changer.
It would be good but those lines are still attackable by drones and missiles, that's why there is no way for the US to block them without nukes flying being a very high likelyhood.
I just want to say i really appreciate the quality of this discussion and i think very good arguments have been made by both sides, many of which also reflect my thoughts on this matter.
they can't fully block them without attacking China/Russia which would be considered an act of war
I think this is the essential point here. This is the crucial difference between the old sea routes, where other countries control passage, and this one. Blocking the former would require much less escalation.
Other factors to mention are Russia's growing superiority in the arctic (US has nothing to rival Russia's modern nuclear icebreakers), and the capability of shore based hypersonic missiles to interdict a conventional naval presence. The US really only has two options here which is submarines or air sorties from Alaska, both of which involve serious risk of starting a nuclear war...and that's a threshold I'm not sure the US is willing to cross yet.
You're right that interrupting shipping along this route would be much harder than closing the Suez, but the U.S. still has carriers and submarines, so it could act alone without any of those nearby countries you mentioned.
In my mind, the big shift here is (1) cost and (2) forcing a longer route now means you have to shoot at boats, you can't just refuse them entry to a canal. It would mean a much larger escalation.
As long as it's not blocking Russian ships from the Black Sea the US can do anything and not much would come out of it straight away. Some countries would try to become independend of the canals but that would likely not lead to war.
On the other hand, the US literally shooting at Russian or Chinese ships would be a declaration of war that would require an immediate response of those attacked else it would just escalate to them losing more ships and probably even their ports and coastal infraestructure/cities being targeted soon as well.