SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Betteridge-says-No...-how-about-you? dept.
Boris Johnson recently suggested that the UK could construct a bridge to France, which would cross the English Channel and span at least 20.7 miles (33.3 km):
Mr. Johnson, the British foreign secretary, raised the notion in a summit meeting with French officials on Thursday, according to people briefed on the talks. The two nations agreed to convene a panel to explore big projects, and Mr. Johnson wrote on Twitter: "Our economic success depends on good infrastructure and good connections. Should the Channel Tunnel be just a first step?" The idea generated extensive news coverage and even more ample mockery on social media, where the hashtag #BorisBridge quickly gained popularity.
[...] In 1930, the British Parliament only narrowly rejected a proposed tunnel, and in the 1960s, officials in both countries confidently declared that construction of some kind of crossing was imminent.
But in an island nation whose best defense against continental armies has always been the Channel, generations of military and political leaders saw proposed bridges and tunnels as potential invasion routes. Lately, the Channel Tunnel has beckoned intruders of a different sort: migrants from Africa and the Middle East hoping to reach Britain.
The Channel Tunnel already exists:
Proposed Channel bridges have, at various times, been dismissed as possible threats to navigation. (The Dover Strait, at the Channel's narrowest point, is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, currently used by over 400 commercial vessels a day, according to the British Maritime and Coastguard Agency.) And even when the political will existed to build a crossing, coming up with the money was always a challenge.
The Channel Tunnel, opened in 1994, cost more than $10 billion to build, and was not heavily used at first, raising questions about whether it was worth the expense. But it now carries more than 10 million passengers and more than 20 million tons of freight annually.
Also at BBC, The Guardian, Channel 4, and CNBC.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:00PM (2 children)
While true, I don't think a bridge would have helped too much.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:55PM (1 child)
Right. If a theoretical bridge existed, and Hitler had started to use it to bring troops/equipment/supplies across, it would have been blown to bits. In actuality it probably would have been rendered useless before that.
A tunnel could be a bigger threat. If captured intact, as long as the two end are kept secure it would be a lot harder to stop an invasion force from using it.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:35PM
The brits can just call back the Dambusters [wikipedia.org]. A bomb that big going off anywhere in the channel above the tunnel would probably kill it.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh