Soviet Geo-engineering

The Soviets did a lot of damage to the hydrology of Central Asia, almost drying up the Aral sea, damming of the Kara Bogaz Gol from the Caspian, nearly drying it out as well, diverting rivers, etc. etc. Besides that, the Caspian Sea is 90 ft below sea-level.

What if the large-scale engineering was conducted to improve the hydrological cycle for the region instead of (unintentionally) damaging it. The Don-Volga Canal in this case was for more than just shipping traffic - the flow of the Don was diverted into the lower Volga and thence the Caspian in the '60's. The increased flow raises the level of the entire Caspian Sea to general sea-level, and the D/V canal now becomes a Dardenelles-like waterway connecting the Sea of Azov with the Caspian - and Volgograd the Constantinople-like city overlooking the vital connection.

Note the Aral Sea is also restored to its full level by its rivers not being diverted.

The effect is a moderated climate in the Central Asia (large bodies of water make winters warmer and summers cooler for surrounding regions) with more rainfall on the Kirgiz Steppe (more Sea-surface evaopration leading to rainfall downwind to the East) leading to less-arid conditions. Lake Balkash also rises with increased rainfall in the area. This makes the area more arable (the reason the Aral was almost killed, but by other means.

What're the geo-poltical effects of this regional environemt transformation? The area might become the CCCP's bread-basket, it's connected to world trade through the Capian-Azov link, much more important to the Russians. More Russian immigration/ethnic displacement?

Caspian Magna.PNG
 

Hnau

Banned
Is the map OTL or TTL? I think this is a fascinating idea. I wonder how it would go about getting support in the USSR? Better environmental studies?
 
But wouldn't diverting the Don lead to a lowering of the level of the Sea of Azov, possibly even turning it into a lake by closing off the Kerch Strait?

Edit: And wouldn't this compromise the existing oil industry in and around the Caspian?
 

Hnau

Banned
The Black Sea actually has an outflow into the Mediterranean... it receives more water from rivers and rain than it does from the World Ocean. In any case, water would just flow through the Mediterranean and the Bosporus Strait to refill the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. It might take a few years to even everything out, but filling the Caspian isn't going to diminish sea-level everywhere (not by more than an inch).

How expensive/difficult would the construction of this canal be?
 
The problem with raising the level of the Caspian sea is that Iran may have a few unsavory words to say about the idea. And, depending on when this is supposed to take place, might ask the United States for help against Soviet Agression. (which is how they would percieve the USSR drowning parts of their coastline). Geopolitics makes that an impossibility.

I believe there was a plan to channel water into the Aral Sea to make up for the water lost by diverting rivers. Maybe this time it was actually put into practice.
 

ninebucks

Banned
But wouldn't diverting the Don lead to a lowering of the level of the Sea of Azov, possibly even turning it into a lake by closing off the Kerch Strait?

Edit: And wouldn't this compromise the existing oil industry in and around the Caspian?

The Sea of Azov is completely open to the Black Sea, which, in turn, is completely open to the Mediterranean, which, in turn, is open to the global ocean. Opening this canal would lower global sea level, but only by a very small amount; a larger Aral Sea would, after all, just be another drop in the ocean.

The problem with raising the level of the Caspian sea is that Iran may have a few unsavory words to say about the idea. And, depending on when this is supposed to take place, might ask the United States for help against Soviet Agression. (which is how they would percieve the USSR drowning parts of their coastline). Geopolitics makes that an impossibility.

I believe there was a plan to channel water into the Aral Sea to make up for the water lost by diverting rivers. Maybe this time it was actually put into practice.

The levels of the Caspian Sea won't be effected, (except for, of course, the small decrease I just mentioned).
 

Valdemar II

Banned
If this succed I think you would see major new Russian* migration to the area, and would likely transform Kazarkstan from a plurality Russian area* to a majority Russian area, if this happen in the 60ties, it could result in a economical boom by the late 70ties early 80ties, which could give USSR a decade longer life. Especially because the export of oil has become much easier.

*other group will likely also migrate to the area, but they will likely assimilated with the Russian

*it were plurality Russian before USSRs fall
 
They diverted lots of water for irrigation projects - cotton and the like. The problem is that the irrigation networks were rather faulty...lots of leakage, lots of inefficiency. Perhaps make sure that they don't lose 90% of the water running through them and ensure better drainage to avoid making the soil salty?
 
isn't there a proposal currently to divert water from the Caspian to the Aral Sea? solving the overflowing of the Caspian and the drying of the Aral.
 
The problem with raising the level of the Caspian sea is that Iran may have a few unsavory words to say about the idea. And, depending on when this is supposed to take place, might ask the United States for help against Soviet Agression. (which is how they would percieve the USSR drowning parts of their coastline). Geopolitics makes that an impossibility.

I believe there was a plan to channel water into the Aral Sea to make up for the water lost by diverting rivers. Maybe this time it was actually put into practice.


Except as can be seen on the map, most of the area below sea-level around the Caspian actually lies in the Soviet Union. Look on the map, has anything changed for Iran? I doubt it.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy said:
But wouldn't diverting the Don lead to a lowering of the level of the Sea of Azov, possibly even turning it into a lake by closing off the Kerch Strait?

Edit: And wouldn't this compromise the existing oil industry in and around the Caspian?

Oil rigs in the Caspian then?
 
The problem with raising the level of the Caspian sea is that Iran may have a few unsavory words to say about the idea. And, depending on when this is supposed to take place, might ask the United States for help against Soviet Agression. (which is how they would percieve the USSR drowning parts of their coastline). Geopolitics makes that an impossibility.
Except as can be seen on the map, most of the area below sea-level around the Caspian actually lies in the Soviet Union. Look on the map, has anything changed for Iran? I doubt it.
Oil rigs in the Caspian then?

yeah - I was surprised by how little aparent effect the Sea-level rise had on anywhere but the north end of the Caspian. As for Geo-politics, the Soviets may be able to claim they were doing this for developmental reasons (Iran would gain a northern sea-coast, afterall), as well as environmental improvement (in the 60's sense of taming the environment, not today's sense of restoring/protecting it).

And there are real-world examples of water-diversions effecting neighbours and it not leading to conflict - Turkey drastically cut the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates to fill reservoirs, and Iraq had to just take it.

http://www.azerb.com/az-map-topo.jpg
http://www.askasia.org/images/teachers/media/64.gif
http://www.askasia.org/images/teachers/media/102.gif
http://www.askasia.org/images/teachers/media/58.gif

There will be problems. Everything colored 'under sealevel' will be underwater... evidently. There will be populations that will need to be relocated.
Displacing people is not that big concern for some governments either - Three Gorges anyone?
The oil rigs already built will become useless, as will the oil and gas wells in the flooded area.
Existing infrastructure can be upgraded/improved, if the benefits are deemed large enough
 
(Iran would gain a northern sea-coast, afterall)

It already had one, and some ports there that will now be flooded. As will Baku, Astrakhan, Derbent, and other Soviet ports.

Existing infrastructure can be upgraded/improved, if the benefits are deemed large enough
We're talking about raising the level of the Caspian by 27 meters. Do you know of any way to raise an oil platform by 27 meters? If you don't then you have to rebuild it.
 
Last edited:
It already had one, and some ports there that will now be flooded. As will Baku, Astrakhan, Derbent, and other Soviet ports.
I meant a sea coast that connects with the world's oceans
We're talking about raising the level of the Caspian by 27 meters. Do you know of any way to raise an oil platform by 27 meters? If you don't then you have to rebuild it.
Yes, replace and rebuild...and since you know its happening, and it isn't going to happen quick, you have plenty of time to build on top of the existing infrastructure
 
I meant a sea coast that connects with the world's oceans
Yes, replace and rebuild...and since you know its happening, and it isn't going to happen quick, you have plenty of time to build on top of the existing infrastructure

One more problem, depending on how much mixing there is, the die off in the Caspian Sea will range from mild to severe (i.e. a few species to making the current Aral Sea look like a fisherman's paradise) due to changes in salinity, new species encroachment, destruction of habitat and other factors.
 
One more problem, depending on how much mixing there is, the die off in the Caspian Sea will range from mild to severe (i.e. a few species to making the current Aral Sea look like a fisherman's paradise) due to changes in salinity, new species encroachment, destruction of habitat and other factors.
Again, I don't see the Soviets being that much more concerned about fish then they are about people being displaced. They could always say they will restock with brackish/fresh water fish - like sturgeon, source of caviar.
 
Again, I don't see the Soviets being that much more concerned about fish then they are about people being displaced. They could always say they will restock with brackish/fresh water fish - like sturgeon, source of caviar.

Again, international politics comes into play. The Soviets might not care that much, but the Iranians might be very upset if there is a massive die off of fish in the Caspian.
 
Again, international politics comes into play. The Soviets might not care that much, but the Iranians might be very upset if there is a massive die off of fish in the Caspian.
How important is the Caspian fishing industry to Iran - as a whole, obviously there are fishing villages that are very dependent. But if the Soviets decided they were going to do this, would Iran feel compelled enough to make enough fuss to actually stop it? The effects on Iran are (relatively) quite limited after all.

In fact they might benefit if the greater Caspian is substantially fresh water (I don't know the hydrology, just conjecturing) then there would be a great deal more irrigation possible for them as well.
 
Top