Project Carryall

[kernals12]

In 1964, the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad Company had a problem. They wanted to build a new railroad through the Mojave Desert, which would be 15 miles shorter than the one it would replace. But it would run straight through the Bristol Mountains and clearing that out by conventional methods would be expensive.


So they, along with the California Department of Public Works who wanted to build a new freeway which would come to be known as Interstate 40, decided to call on the assistance of the Atomic Energy Commission. They wondered if they could remove the obstacle with nuclear fucking explosions. The AEC at the time was running a project called Plowshare, which aimed to find peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. This would be a perfect demonstration, so they started drawing up plans. Project Carryall had begun


Here's how they envsioned it:
23 nuclear explosives with a combined yield of 1.8 megatons would be detonated hundreds of feet underground. 22 of these would be for digging a trench that was 2 miles long, 1300 feet wide, and 360 feet deep. The last one was for creating a drainage ditch.



It was assumed that most of the fallout from the blast would stay underground and what little did emerge would not travel more than 5 miles away. After a few months, it would be safe for construction crews to build 2 rail lines and a 4 lane highway. They estimated it would reduce the cost of the project from $22 million to just $14 million.


But obviously the idea of nuking Southern California did not go over well and previous tests had shown that containing the fallout was very difficult. It was just too dangerous and so it was decided to go with good old fashioned dynamite.

[cahwyguy]

I believe this was discussed here in the past. I certainly remember including it in the headline links sometime this summer, and incorporating the information into my pages.

[Max Rockatansky]

The story about nukes being proposed to blast out I-40 in the Bristol Mountains is popular in US Route 66 circles.  I guess that the planners didn't really have a solid understanding on how radioactive fallout spreads or radioactive decay.  I seem to recall (and I may be wrong) that the planners didn't consult parties (namely the Nevada Test Site) which might have been able to provide some insight on the viability of nuclear explosives for excavation.

[kernals12]

The story about nukes being proposed to blast out I-40 in the Bristol Mountains is popular in US Route 66 circles.  I guess that the planners didn't really have a solid understanding on how radioactive fallout spreads or radioactive decay.  I seem to recall (and I may be wrong) that the planners didn't consult parties (namely the Nevada Test Site) which might have been able to provide some insight on the viability of nuclear explosives for excavation.

The whole success of Plowshare rested on the development of "clean" nuclear explosives. Edward Teller convinced President Eisenhower (and probably himself) that such devices were just around the corner. But that wasn't true.

The Soviets were much more aggressive in their ambitions. In 1971, they tested what may be the "cleanest" nuclear explosive ever, which got only 2% of its yield from fission, .3 kt out of 15 kilotons. But even so, it created a crater that 30 years later was still highly radioactive. The canal they wanted to build this way would've required hundreds of such explosions and even for the Russians, that was just too dangerous.

[skluth]

Here's a bit of background on the Soviet project, which was intended to link a tributary the Volga River (which drains into the Caspian Sea) to a river flowing into the Arctic Ocean. There is already a canal linking the Volga with the Don (which flows into the Black Sea), so this would have given river commerce an alternate route to Arctic ports.

Considering how many other Soviet mega-projects ended in disaster, we should all be grateful this was never pursued more than this.

[kernals12]

Here's a bit of background on the Soviet project, which was intended to link a tributary the Volga River (which drains into the Caspian Sea) to a river flowing into the Arctic Ocean. There is already a canal linking the Volga with the Don (which flows into the Black Sea), so this would have given river commerce an alternate route to Arctic ports.

Considering how many other Soviet mega-projects ended in disaster, we should all be grateful this was never pursued more than this.

The idea of reversing the flow of Arctic rivers into Central Asia goes back to Tsarist times. You can read about it here. At one point in the 1940s, one engineer wanted to divert a full ⅓ of the flow of the Yeinsei and Ob Rivers into Central Asia, this would be done by nuking a mountain range that divided the two watersheds.

Not known at the time was that enormous oil reserves were located where that giant reservoir was to be.

By the 70s, there were major environmental concerns in the West. There was worry that by taking away the freshwater from those rivers would disrupt the Arctic halocline, which prevents the warm Atlantic water from flowing at the surface of the Arctic, which would keep the Arctic ice free even in winter, causing Global Warming. On the opposite scale there was worry that taking away the relatively warm water would make the Arctic colder and cause Global Cooling.

Gorbachev cancelled it, probably because of the enormous cost.

[US 89]

Gorbachev cancelled it, probably because of the enormous cost.

You seem to think cost is the only thing that decides whether something happens or not. While that is often times the case for infrastructure projects, when you're talking about vaporizing entire mountain ranges with nuclear material there are far, far greater issues at play than how much it costs.

[kernals12]

Gorbachev cancelled it, probably because of the enormous cost.

You seem to think cost is the only thing that decides whether something happens or not. While that is often times the case for infrastructure projects, when you're talking about vaporizing entire mountain ranges with nuclear material there are far, far greater issues at play than how much it costs.

At this point, nobody was calling for using nukes for the project. The canal was going to be built the old fashioned way. And I think we can assume it wasn't cancelled to save some endangered animal.

[cl94]

Gorbachev cancelled it, probably because of the enormous cost.

You seem to think cost is the only thing that decides whether something happens or not. While that is often times the case for infrastructure projects, when you're talking about vaporizing entire mountain ranges with nuclear material there are far, far greater issues at play than how much it costs.

At this point, nobody was calling for using nukes for the project. The canal was going to be built the old fashioned way. And I think we can assume it wasn't cancelled to save some endangered animal.

Are you suggesting that canceling/modifying projects due to environmental issues shouldn't be done?

Screw the environment, let's blow up all the mountains and cut down the rainforest!

[kernals12]

Gorbachev cancelled it, probably because of the enormous cost.

You seem to think cost is the only thing that decides whether something happens or not. While that is often times the case for infrastructure projects, when you're talking about vaporizing entire mountain ranges with nuclear material there are far, far greater issues at play than how much it costs.

At this point, nobody was calling for using nukes for the project. The canal was going to be built the old fashioned way. And I think we can assume it wasn't cancelled to save some endangered animal.

Are you suggesting that canceling/modifying projects due to environmental issues shouldn't be done?

Screw the environment, let's blow up all the mountains and cut down the rainforest!

If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project, I would not support cancelling it (see Westway and Striped Bass).

[Alps]

Gorbachev cancelled it, probably because of the enormous cost.

You seem to think cost is the only thing that decides whether something happens or not. While that is often times the case for infrastructure projects, when you're talking about vaporizing entire mountain ranges with nuclear material there are far, far greater issues at play than how much it costs.

At this point, nobody was calling for using nukes for the project. The canal was going to be built the old fashioned way. And I think we can assume it wasn't cancelled to save some endangered animal.

Are you suggesting that canceling/modifying projects due to environmental issues shouldn't be done?

Screw the environment, let's blow up all the mountains and cut down the rainforest!

That's not at all what he's suggesting. He's saying that in this case, that was unlikely to have been the issue, which is probably true.

[cl94]

If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project, I would not support cancelling it (see Westway and Striped Bass).

Different issue. Striped bass was an issue dug up by NIMBYs to kill a project. I definitely agree that finding things like this to kill a project is pure NIMBYism. But blowing up mountain ranges to build a road or canal is an entirely different level of this.

Ironically, not building Westway may have contributed to Hurricane Sandy issues, as part of Westway included storm surge protection. And the West Side still ended up with a ton of high-rise development, just with less green space than it would have had Westway been constructed.

[kernals12]

If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project, I would not support cancelling it (see Westway and Striped Bass).

Different issue. Striped bass was an issue dug up by NIMBYs to kill a project. I definitely agree that finding things like this to kill a project is pure NIMBYism. But blowing up mountain ranges to build a road or canal is an entirely different level of this.

Ironically, not building Westway may have contributed to Hurricane Sandy issues, as part of Westway included storm surge protection. And the West Side still ended up with a ton of high-rise development, just with less green space than it would have had Westway been constructed.

I said "If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project".

And actually, they blow up mountains to build roads and canals all the time. A few months ago, there was a sign on I-95 in Waltham that said "blasting zone ahead".

[SectorZ]

If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project, I would not support cancelling it (see Westway and Striped Bass).

Different issue. Striped bass was an issue dug up by NIMBYs to kill a project. I definitely agree that finding things like this to kill a project is pure NIMBYism. But blowing up mountain ranges to build a road or canal is an entirely different level of this.

Ironically, not building Westway may have contributed to Hurricane Sandy issues, as part of Westway included storm surge protection. And the West Side still ended up with a ton of high-rise development, just with less green space than it would have had Westway been constructed.

I said "If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project".

And actually, they blow up mountains to build roads and canals all the time. A few months ago, there was a sign on I-95 in Waltham that said "blasting zone ahead".

Are you sure that's due to road construction?

Also, knocking out the top 100' of a hill and carving a 3000' gash thru a mountain range are a tad different in both cost, environmental effects, and engineering hurdles.

[kernals12]

If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project, I would not support cancelling it (see Westway and Striped Bass).

Different issue. Striped bass was an issue dug up by NIMBYs to kill a project. I definitely agree that finding things like this to kill a project is pure NIMBYism. But blowing up mountain ranges to build a road or canal is an entirely different level of this.

Ironically, not building Westway may have contributed to Hurricane Sandy issues, as part of Westway included storm surge protection. And the West Side still ended up with a ton of high-rise development, just with less green space than it would have had Westway been constructed.

I said "If destroying the habitat of some endangered species was the only environmental concern of this sort of project".

And actually, they blow up mountains to build roads and canals all the time. A few months ago, there was a sign on I-95 in Waltham that said "blasting zone ahead".

Are you sure that's due to road construction?

Also, knocking out the top 100' of a hill and carving a 3000' gash thru a mountain range are a tad different in both cost, environmental effects, and engineering hurdles.

I said that it was probably cancelled for cost reasons. Given what the Russians did to the Aral Sea, I don't think they would've cared much about the environmental impact.