"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1106816380.397856.311930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

Only connect
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1399208,00.html

Building physical connections between continents and countries is a
fascinating idea, defying geography and bridging cultures to bring
people together across nature's divides.

Notice the language we use to describe things? Nature doesn't
"divide", this is purely geological. That's like blaming nature
for a Himalayan "blockade" or Australian "isolation".

So it is exciting to hear that
plans for a tunnel linking Spain and Morocco under the Straits of
Gibraltar are advancing. A route for the 24-mile rail link will use

similar model to the 31-mile Channel Tunnel. There is as yet no
timetable or estimate of costs, but exploratory drilling has begun.
Trade and tourism would benefit and it could help regulate

between Africa and Europe - and maybe stop desperate boat people
washing up dead on Spanish beaches. It would be a fitting feat of

century technology to celebrate shared history and build a more
tolerant future.

But without a trans-African railroad or highway, what will it
connect? Is it a financial boon or an egotistical white elephant?

The author didn't mention another proposed rail link between Korea
and Japan. The railroad across North Korea is being reconnected,
which would halve the time from Japan to Europe by ship, as well as
be better for the environment.

Speaking of rail and better for the environment, an above-ground
combination rail and oil pipeline construct across from Siberia to
Alaska would, IMHO, be a far better idea. It is an earthquake
prone area, so going above ground would make construction, rescue
and repair much cheaper.

Bob Dog