MovieChat Forums > The Tunnel (1935) Discussion > World peace?

World peace?

posted 13 years ago by hobnob53
8 replies | jump to latest

One of the major reasons they keep giving for building the transatlantic tunnel is that it will promote and safeguard world peace.

What?

How would a tunnel promote world peace? Because now you can drive under the Atlantic from Britain to America in, what, six days? I suppose the Channel Tunnel Richard Dix is said to have built in 1940 would have led to peace between Britain and Nazi Germany? Certainly Hitler would never have even thought of using it as an invasion route into England. Why, he would have laid down his arms and danced off into the sunset with Neville Chamberlain.

I guess the idea is that making travel "easier" (ha!) via the tunnel would promote peace by bringing a few Brits and Yanks together. But since we're already allies, it seems there's little to be gained there. It all sounds a bit of a reach to me.

Besides, I would've built a bridge instead. Then that long-overdue escalator to the moon, you know, to promote intergalactic brotherhood.

[–] escalera-2 13 years ago

Very funny, hob, and you're only right.

Maybe a re-make is in order. Instead of a tunnel, a wall.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

...transatlantic tunnel!

[–] parkpunk 13 years ago

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

[–] Randy-144 8 years ago

Before world peace can be achieved, enough people must first visualize whirled peas. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8e/86/bd/8e86bdf7a6f91726c3e6049438d3e808.jpg

[–] snagletooth 8 years ago

It makes large-scale resupply easier and quicker. Invading thru a tunnel isn't feasible (after all, it can just be filled with water).

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

It makes large-scale resupply easier and quicker.

Highly debatable. Certainly not faster than by air, and probably not faster even than by water. Anyway, that's commerce. What has that to do with world peace?

Invading thru a tunnel isn't feasible (after all, it can just be filled with water).

That's true. My remark about the 1940 Channel Tunnel was a joke, of course, though it's claimed that the real-life "Chunnel" of today is laden with explosives to destroy it should there be some threat from the Continent (or maybe from England!). And the North Koreans are always digging tunnels to invade the South, though obviously they're not underwater. Maybe the South should construct a giant hydrant to open up when the northerners tunnel out on their end.

Of course, tunnels were used as an invasion route for the Chinese to attack America in Battle Beneath the Earth (1967).

And in Captive Women (1952), set in a post-atomic New York in the year 3000, a tribe of good-guy mutants living across the Hudson River uses one of the tunnels to raid an evil tribe in Manhattan to steal their women. Ultimately they do cave that tunnel in and drown their adversaries. Very Biblical!

[–] snagletooth 8 years ago

In the worldscape of 1935 there aren't C5 Galaxies and Antonov 225s.

Even now, the US expects to ship most of its equipment thru naval transport.

So, for capacity : air-(re)supply < maritime < rail.

A continuous stream of rail traffic running 24/7 would be faster and of higher capacity than a merchant fleet and largely uninterceptable until the enemy find a way to attack through 2 miles of ocean depth, probably a few hundred feet of abyssal plain ooze, and however much rock the tunnel was beneath all that.

What it has to do with peace is that an enemy that's convinced they can't win, certainly not by having overwhelming numbers, won't attack. Again, this is before megaton nuclear weapons and MAD.

The British version of the movie really placed a lot of emphasis on the welding-together of the anglophone world against whatever possible enemy was envisioned - the Eastern hordes (probably Germany, and maybe the Soviet Union?). I wonder how the German version of the movie went.

it's claimed that the real-life "Chunnel" of today is laden with explosives to destroy it should there be some threat from the Continent

And you don't even have to fill the whole tunnel, at first at least. Place a waterproof seal after the first mile or so, and open the land-facing end to the Ocean. The enemy can go thru most of the tunnel if they want, but they don't dare break the seal and you don't damage thousands of miles of tunnel fixings.

Battle Beneath the Earth (1967)

My god, that was one awful movie......

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

In the worldscape of 1935 there aren't C5 Galaxies and Antonov 225s.

True, though remember this movie takes place some time in the post-1940 future (since Richard Dix had completed the channel tunnel in 1940, and that's a few years in the past). Presumably air transport would be more advanced than in 1935.

But transport undersea would still take several days, not much different than shipping. As to vulnerability, ships have to be located on the sea, often a matter of chance. The tunnel is always in the same place. If an enemy wants to sabotage it, they know where to go. Besides which, an enemy wouldn't have to go down several miles to destroy it. They could wreck it much as you described:

And you don't even have to fill the whole tunnel, at first at least. Place a waterproof seal after the first mile or so, and open the land-facing end to the Ocean. The enemy can go thru most of the tunnel if they want, but they don't dare break the seal and you don't damage thousands of miles of tunnel fixings

Or they could just detonate a concealed bomb midway across the Atlantic. The tunnel would be put out of commission for many years, if not permanently. The point is, a transatlantic tunnel could be easily wrecked. Unlike ships, which can be defended by other ships or planes, the tunnel is nearly impossible to truly defend. Besides, you can always build more ships to replace those that have been sunk. You can't readily rebuild a 3000-mile-long tunnel, and an underwater one to boot. And the loss of cargo, men and supplies in the destruction of the tunnel would be vastly greater and more of a setback than would sinking a couple of supply ships.

Anyway, all this speaks to defense matters. I still don't see how that helps create world peace. It may make the British-American alliance stronger but militarily it's a highly vulnerable target and aside from the six-day movement of men and materiél between the two countries it's of little intrinsic value. The tunnel is not a weapon nor is it a deterrent to aggression. From a military point of view it's useless and probably costs more to defend and maintain than any benefit it would yield. At best, it's just a big, dopey structure that's an engineering marvel but changes nothing in the great big world above.

Oh yes, Battle Beneath the Earth was awful. The kind of film that gives comic books a bad name. Captive Women, on the other hand, was very cool, albeit cheap. Interesting concept, anyway.