Yeah. Good luck. With the current government in charge, every company involved will be riddled with nepotism, corruption or other scandals. Which the current government will of course excuse, benefit from bribes with or make way for because their political alignments are towards hurting people.
post
Although not convinced any such bridge is an efficient use of resources, I'm glad the plan includes railway as well as road.
This video is extremely relevant and points to reasons his is impossible, and the Italian government being currently run by an actual Nazis bodes poorly to any megaproject https://youtu.be/ei-bG4XfB4s
With three car lanes in each direction flanked by a double-track railway, the bridge would have the capacity to carry 6,000 cars an hour and 200 trains a day
based
Bridge could count toward NATO spending target
The project could provide a boost to Italy’s commitment to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP targeted by NATO, as the government has indicated it would classify the bridge as defense-related, helping it to meet a 1.5% security component. Italy argues that the bridge would form a strategic corridor for rapid troop movements and equipment deployment to NATO’s southern flanks, qualifying it as a “security-enhancing infrastructure.”
A group of more than 600 professors and researchers signed a letter earlier this summer opposing the military classification, noting that such a move would require additional assessments to see if it could withstand military use.
Wouldn't all logistics infrastructure apply here because as Ukraine showed defensive war is very much logistics based
Honestly if it works economically, I think this kind of infrastructure project should at least partially count towards NATO targets. Not all of war is moving troops, some of it is logistics, keeping your citizenry relatively happy, and an accumulated history of economic investment. If they can manage to get a lot of that money into workers' hands, that alone is a huge benefit when combined with the transferrable skills you're reinforcing in your workforce.
Not that we should have to justify infrastructure as military expenses. But I do think it kinda works.
This was the reason for the "increased spending" targets, to include basic infrastructure.
As for withstand military use, it can either take the weight or it can't. However there is a can it take a missile factor. But honestly that would be there anyway.
Not the joke bridge, ai yi yi
Meanwhile trump blows $200 million in tax payers’ money for a fucking golden ballroom at the WH. “Just more ways to spend my money.”
Don't forget about the 75 billion for ICE. I cannot for the life of me imagine why this agency needs such an astronomical budget, unless it is to turn it into a secret police force – which seems highly likely in the case of this US government.
Talk about a non sequitur
It isn't. You apparently don't know what that phrase means. It is related because the discussion about how tax money is being allocated for infrastructure projects. In one case, to benefit the people of the country's commerce and the other case, money being wasted on tasteless "upgrades."
So every public infrastructure project in every country is cause for a reminder of the dumbassery going on here? Both projects are coming out of taxpayer money, and that's where the similarity ends and the non sequitur-ness begins. As you say, one is actually being used for something useful.
If you want to talk about wasted money, how about that bridge in India with a 90° turn? At least that one is, you know, a bridge.
He's turning it into his palace. I don't think he's going to give up the WH.

all 2 comments