What if?...the US built a transcontinental canal?

What if the United States built a transcontinental canal? This canal would, theoretically, begin on the West Coast -- say, for example, Los Angeles-- and cut directly across the United States to the East Coast -- for the sake of argument lets' say Myrtle Beach, North Carolina. The canal would vary in width but it would be at least one mile wide at it's most narrow point. Of course this mammoth undertaing would utilize the "peaceful uses" of nuclear weapons that were promised in the fifties. Nuclear detonations would be used to move huge volumes of earth, rock and material (like the Rocky Mountains). Wouldn't this greatly alter the econmic capabilities of the US? Using desalinization plants, fresh water could be brought to America's arid heartland and, perhaps, compensate for adverse climate changes. What do you forsee as problems and positives in such an undertaking?

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
...compensate for adverse climate changes...

You propose we compensate for adverse climate changes by detonating nuclear weapons, burnings millions of tonnes of fossil fuel to operate the machinery involved in this project, and most likely cutting down hundreds of square miles of woodland and forest in the process?

As for "positives of the undertaking", irrogation would be a plus, however the enormous investment needed for such a project would never give a substantial return, and so, it will never happen.

For what purpose? It'd be cheaper to either go through Panama, or transfer and ship by rail, etc.

To compensate for adverse climate changes, such a canal would certainly pay for itself. By allowing for irrigation in mid America, the US could continue to be a "bread basket" instead of an arid wasteland. The underground detonation of nuclear weapons would allow for a minimized release of radiation into the atmosphere AND help eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of atomic warheads from the US arsenal. US employment would be at an all time highs for decades. Global as well as d somestic shipping and transportation would be enhanced while costs could be dramatically cut. Keep in mind that this canal would not be a short term project, costs could be re-couped after several generations as this would certainly be a new feature on the planet. Imagine, a three thousand mile canal bringing new industries, irrigation, transportation, even fishing to the US. Besides, even if costs can't be re-couped immediately, isn't it worth it if the influx of water could be used to temper climate change? What the hell? Let's build something BIG.

This seems almost useless, would cost a truly astronomical amount of money, and would devestate the environment.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This seems almost useless, would cost a truly astronomical amount of money, and would devestate the environment.

The pyramids in Egypt are certainly useless, except as a monument for dead kings. But here they are a sight to behold after four thousand years. On the other hand, a transcontinental canal would not be without use. Just on a transportation front, factories would spring up along the three thousand mile length of the canal with ready access to the worlds markets. Trucking traffic and roads could be minimized. Tourism, recreational boating and fishing could prosper. Farms could use desalinized water from the canal for irrigation and, then, easily ship their produce to world markets. Furthermore, a canal, with it's vast body of water through the center of the continental US might counteract many of the adverse effects of the coming climate changes. Arid zones might be prevented and temperatures moderated.

You would never get approval to use the type of equipment you are describing on US soil. Also, you have a big ass mountain range before you reach the west coast. Cheaper to build more railroads or aircraft.

Originally posted by jetsetter
You would never get approval to use the type of equipment you are describing on US soil. Also, you have a big ass mountain range before you reach the west coast. Cheaper to build more railroads or aircraft.

..Keep in mind that this is a hypothetical concept...to build a transcontinental canal.....It must have been the source of a bit of debate to build that first pyramid or to build a monument like the Eiffel Tower or even Mount Rushmore. Keep in mind that there definitely would be some economic spin offs in building such a canal. In fact, I envision that it would cause the development of entirely new industries in areas that could never have foreseen such new endeavors; i.e., fishing in Kansas. As for using nuclear weapons to dig the canal...well, again this is conjecture. I am asking "what if?". But if radiation can be contained, minimized or even eliminated from the issue, it might be easy to gain acceptance for their use. After all, Americans do love a big explosion. Better yet, a series of explosions. If the canal could moderate adverse climate changes, this would be payback for the investment. Furthermore, this could be a TVA project on a very, very grand scale. The canal project alone would create thousands, if not millions, of jobs for decades and decades to come. Then there would be the "spin off" jobs. Think of the canal as one massive monument to American ingenuity, technology, persistence and desire to meddle where, perhaps, humans should not go.....isn't that the US in a nutshell?

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
The pyramids in Egypt are certainly useless, except as a monument for dead kings. But here they are a sight to behold after four thousand years.

But the Egyptians didnt detonate hundreds of nukes to build the pyramids!

To build this canal would cost hundreds of billions, hundreds of billions that the US doesnt need to spend on something that is not needed!