on the assumption it could get past the SOSUS system that would be placed on both ends of the canal route that isBut Fareed Zakaria said don’t fear the “rise of the rest”, so no worries.
on the assumption it could get past the SOSUS system that would be placed on both ends of the canal route that isHow deep would it be?
It would be easier to put a sub on a cargo ship and take it through that way.
If you knew that subs could cross through, you would watch both ends of the canal.
The only nations that haven't ratified UNCLOS are Turkey, Syria, Israel, Iran, and the US.
Just being covered by a few feet of water would not make them “undetected”.
This sounds like BS to me.
The Panama Canal Expansion Project is due for completion next year. When done it can handle all but the very largest container ships. Nicaragua is building a canal for basically a few dozen ships that aren’t on that shipping route anyway.
Submarines are not the real issue here. The proposed canal would destroy one of the largest freshwater lakes in the region at a time when water is becoming a scarce commodity to much of the world.
This project defines the term boondoggle...it will never get built.
Cheaper to buy a little beachfront property in South America and Africa, no?
“... would be deep enough to allow submarines to pass through undetected”
IIRC, sea level in the Pacific is 26 ft. higher than the Atlantic. Locks would be required for navigation.
How would a sub go through the locks undetected?
Duh?
So, China will control both canals? Do bunker busters work under water?
The ONLY submarine that cannot be readily detected is the one motionless on the bottom of the sea.
The entire premise is ridiculous.
While subs may use the canal, they will be EASILY detected, tracked and tailed.