Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

1599281988981.png

1599283788257.png


During the construction of Interstate 40 in California, the Santa Fe Railway Company wanted to find a way to cut through the Bristol Mountains, as this would prevent the highway from having to swerve around them like the Santa Fe Railway and Route 66 did. That would, however, involve cutting through 4,000 feet of rock, which would've necessitated either a huge tunnel or 500-foot-deep cuts in the mountains, costing around $22 million . Far too expensive for the company.

This attracted the attention of the Atomic Energy Commission, who offered their own plan, called Project Carryall. This would've involved the use of 23 nuclear weapons, 22 to hollow out the path and the 1 for the runoff water, excavating a total of 68,000,000 cubic yards of land. All of this would cost only $13.8 million.

Of course, as with all of Operation Plowshare's proposals, none of them panned out. Carryall was scrapped in 1968 and Interstate 40 was instead carved out using conventional means.
 
This attracted the attention of the Atomic Energy Commission, who offered their own plan, called Project Carryall. This would've involved the use of 23 nuclear weapons, 22 to hollow out the path and the 1 for the runoff water, excavating a total of 68,000,000 cubic yards of land. All of this would cost only $13.8 million.
I suspect that the true cost would have been much higher as history proves that humanity consistently underestimates the level of danger regarding fallout, so it could turn into an EPA superfund site for the levels of decontamination that would be required.
 
As seen on reddit:


proposalsatirical.jpg


To quote the redditor fatyoshi48 who posted the map over there:
So, this map was brought up in the satirical Dutch show ‘Zondag met Lubach’ (Sunday with Lubach, the presentor) while discussing the current problems with regarding the Belgian government. As Flanders doesn’t want to belong to another nation, and Wallonia wanted to belong to someone, he satirically proposed this.

Okay, it was a satire show and as such the proposal is not meant serious, but nevertheless it still is a proposal...
 
I suspect that the true cost would have been much higher as history proves that humanity consistently underestimates the level of danger regarding fallout, so it could turn into an EPA superfund site for the levels of decontamination that would be required.
Oh yeah, definitely. And especially because they planned to use 50 kiloton bombs, which have more overall fallout. 23 of them in the Mojave Desert? Nobody's using that road anytime soon.
 
I have a question and would be greatful if anybody can help, does anybody know if Austria-Hungary had any territorial claim against Italy in the First World War?
I know that Austria-Hungary saw Italy as a traitor because although they were techically allied to Germany and Austria, they first declared themselves neutral and then attacked Austria.
Would they just let them go unpunished if they had won the war? I never saw any references to any territorial claims about this
 
I have a question and would be greatful if anybody can help, does anybody know if Austria-Hungary had any territorial claim against Italy in the First World War?
I know that Austria-Hungary saw Italy as a traitor because although they were techically allied to Germany and Austria, they first declared themselves neutral and then attacked Austria.
Would they just let them go unpunished if they had won the war? I never saw any references to any territorial claims about this
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_austria-hungary said:
Interestingly, even after Italy entered the war in 1915, Vienna had paid only modest attention to its war aims against its former ally. For some the recapture of Venetia became the ultimate rationale for the endless campaigns, though Conrad talked grandiosely of taking all of Italy. [15]
 
This was just more of Ghadaffy's insanity at play... the ONLY possible claim Libya could've had towards Chad under Uti Posssidetis Juris would've been to the Aouzou Strip... and the ICJ had already ruled against him on that, on the basis of the Treaty of 1955...
The only thing that would've made his death more appropriate would've been if they had hung him up by the heels in a gas-station parking lot and pelted his dead body with bricks :p
 
I have a question and would be greatful if anybody can help, does anybody know if Austria-Hungary had any territorial claim against Italy in the First World War?
I know that Austria-Hungary saw Italy as a traitor because although they were techically allied to Germany and Austria, they first declared themselves neutral and then attacked Austria.
Would they just let them go unpunished if they had won the war? I never saw any references to any territorial claims about this
The A-H Empire really had far less territorial claims on Italy than Italy had on them... as the best thing that could've been hoped for by 1918 (after the Italians sidelined the idiot Cadorna) was sort of a draw, I'd think a "border adjustment" would be in order... maybe exchange Triento with its overwhelmingly Italian population for Friulia, to push the Italians away from the Julian March and Trieste...
And hey, next time you pick up a bottle of Moretti, think... does the old Friulian guy on the label look like he'd really be out-of-place in the A-H Empire? :openedeyewink:
 
The A-H Empire really had far less territorial claims on Italy than Italy had on them... as the best thing that could've been hoped for by 1918 (after the Italians sidelined the idiot Cadorna) was sort of a draw, I'd think a "border adjustment" would be in order... maybe exchange Triento with its overwhelmingly Italian population for Friulia, to push the Italians away from the Julian March and Trieste...
And hey, next time you pick up a bottle of Moretti, think... does the old Friulian guy on the label look like he'd really be out-of-place in the A-H Empire? :openedeyewink:
This looks like a happy subject of the A-H Empire to me....
moretti man 1.jpg
 
Does that suggest that that either (A) the map was subsequently annotated, prior to scanning, (B) that it is a fake?
Or C) that it was actually discovered prior to when is commonly accepted, which is not at all common in the Age of Exploration. I think there are several such examples along the Pacific Coast.
 
Does that suggest that that either (A) the map was subsequently annotated, prior to scanning, (B) that it is a fake?
I don't think it's either as other digitised copies of that map, also dated 1753, also have the same text.

Or C) that it was actually discovered prior to when is commonly accepted, which is not at all common in the Age of Exploration. I think there are several such examples along the Pacific Coast.
Wikipedia says that the area now known as Drakes Bay had previously been called Bahia de San Francisco and that the two areas were confused, with the name San Francisco Bay coming to be applied to its current area when it was explored by the Spanish in 1769.
So it might be (C1) a previously named bay in a poorly mapped area was misattributed to a nearby bay by a later expedition whose more accurate maps caused the name to stick.
 
Top