大家认为泰国推动的克拉陆桥项目可行吗？对新加坡的影响会有多大？
正文翻译
Do you guys think this will be feasible? How badly will it affect SG?
你们认为这可行吗？对新加坡的影响有多大？
你们认为这可行吗？对新加坡的影响有多大？
评论翻译
montozkhairi
I used to be an officer on a tanker, so I think I can confidently say ship owners would still prefer calling the port of Singapore.
For one, it's the best place for crew changes. The flights out from Changi Airport caters to the crew daily, with most of them coming from India, Philippines and/or Europe.
Secondly, the cost of bunker. Singapore has consistently provide good quality bunker at a very good prices. Not to say there isn't any tampering of the flow meter occurring off the coast of Singapore, but generally, if you're diligent and cautious about the amount that's going in your bunker tank, it's probably the best place in the East to get it.
Also, Singapore has been a hub that connects the east and the west for so long, I personally think the owners will prefer a trusted route than a "shorter" route. From personal experience, Singapore port turnover can be done in less than 48 hours, whereas in other ports, it can be double the time, if we consider the same tonnage being moved.
Of course, I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg. There's many reasons as to why Thailand would be a more feasible option, but if you're looking at the next 10-15 years after completion, I think it wouldn't affect Singapore too much. Hell, until today some owners would still prefer to ships to spend an extra 10-14 days out at sea and sail past the cape of good hope than to pay to go through the suez canal.
我曾经是一艘油轮上的高级船员，因此我可以自信地说，船东们仍然更愿意停靠新加坡港。
首先，这里是更换船员的最佳地点。樟宜机场每天都有航班为船员提供服务，其中大部分来自印度、菲律宾和/或欧洲。
其次是燃料成本。新加坡一直以非常优惠的价格提供优质燃料。这并不是说新加坡沿海的流量计没有被篡改过，但一般来说，如果你勤奋谨慎地控制油舱中的油量，这里可能是东方最好的加油站。
此外，新加坡长期以来一直是连接东西方的枢纽，我个人认为船东们更愿意选择一条值得信赖的航线，而不是“更短”的航线。从个人经验来看，新加坡港口的周转可以在 48 小时内完成，而在其他港口，如果考虑到同样的运输吨位，周转时间可能要长一倍。
当然，我说的只是冰山一角。有很多原因可以解释为什么泰国会是一个更可行的选择，但如果你着眼于建成后的未来 10-15 年，我认为这不会对新加坡造成太大影响。该死的，直到今天，一些船东仍然宁愿船只在海上多花 10-14 天，驶过好望角，也不愿花钱通过苏伊士运河。
I used to be an officer on a tanker, so I think I can confidently say ship owners would still prefer calling the port of Singapore.
For one, it's the best place for crew changes. The flights out from Changi Airport caters to the crew daily, with most of them coming from India, Philippines and/or Europe.
Secondly, the cost of bunker. Singapore has consistently provide good quality bunker at a very good prices. Not to say there isn't any tampering of the flow meter occurring off the coast of Singapore, but generally, if you're diligent and cautious about the amount that's going in your bunker tank, it's probably the best place in the East to get it.
Also, Singapore has been a hub that connects the east and the west for so long, I personally think the owners will prefer a trusted route than a "shorter" route. From personal experience, Singapore port turnover can be done in less than 48 hours, whereas in other ports, it can be double the time, if we consider the same tonnage being moved.
Of course, I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg. There's many reasons as to why Thailand would be a more feasible option, but if you're looking at the next 10-15 years after completion, I think it wouldn't affect Singapore too much. Hell, until today some owners would still prefer to ships to spend an extra 10-14 days out at sea and sail past the cape of good hope than to pay to go through the suez canal.
我曾经是一艘油轮上的高级船员，因此我可以自信地说，船东们仍然更愿意停靠新加坡港。
首先，这里是更换船员的最佳地点。樟宜机场每天都有航班为船员提供服务，其中大部分来自印度、菲律宾和/或欧洲。
其次是燃料成本。新加坡一直以非常优惠的价格提供优质燃料。这并不是说新加坡沿海的流量计没有被篡改过，但一般来说，如果你勤奋谨慎地控制油舱中的油量，这里可能是东方最好的加油站。
此外，新加坡长期以来一直是连接东西方的枢纽，我个人认为船东们更愿意选择一条值得信赖的航线，而不是“更短”的航线。从个人经验来看，新加坡港口的周转可以在 48 小时内完成，而在其他港口，如果考虑到同样的运输吨位，周转时间可能要长一倍。
当然，我说的只是冰山一角。有很多原因可以解释为什么泰国会是一个更可行的选择，但如果你着眼于建成后的未来 10-15 年，我认为这不会对新加坡造成太大影响。该死的，直到今天，一些船东仍然宁愿船只在海上多花 10-14 天，驶过好望角，也不愿花钱通过苏伊士运河。
orroro1
Is Thailand really "shorter"? There is loading/ unloading time, time to get containers on a fleet of trucks and move them across the land bridge (which seems to be 2wks), and waiting for the new ship to leave, which might not be immediate. I really find it hard to belive that this isn't going to be considerably slower and more expensive than just sailing through sg.
泰国的真的“更短”吗？装货/卸货时间、将集装箱装上卡车并运过陆桥的时间（似乎需要 2 周），以及等待新船离开的时间，这可能不会立即完成。我真的很难相信，这样做不会比通过新加坡航运慢得多，也贵得多。
Is Thailand really "shorter"? There is loading/ unloading time, time to get containers on a fleet of trucks and move them across the land bridge (which seems to be 2wks), and waiting for the new ship to leave, which might not be immediate. I really find it hard to belive that this isn't going to be considerably slower and more expensive than just sailing through sg.
泰国的真的“更短”吗？装货/卸货时间、将集装箱装上卡车并运过陆桥的时间（似乎需要 2 周），以及等待新船离开的时间，这可能不会立即完成。我真的很难相信，这样做不会比通过新加坡航运慢得多，也贵得多。
kopisiutaidaily
I can attest to this. I do commercial operations of ships and for many trade routes, Singapore is the best stopover for all things shipping before proceeding to next destination.
I don’t think the land crossing will make impact to Singapore’s position. Mainly because it’s a land crossing, which means ships need to dock at a terminal. Discharge the cargo (this part will cost tens of thousands in USD). Put the cargo on either rail or trucks. Another cost here. And then bring another ship alongside to load those cargo. Another tens of thousand. It doesn’t make any commercial sense imo. When a ship coming down to Singapore only takes a couple days and less touch point is less cost.
My speculation is that the Chinese are pushing and funding this project. Reason is that the Chinese wants to have an alternative route aside from the malacca straits as pretty much every trade coming from Europe/arab/india are routed through malacca straits. Should there be a blockade during war. It would be a huge issue for the Chinese.
我可以证明这一点。我从事船舶商业运营，对于许多贸易航线而言，新加坡是前往下一个目的地之前的最佳中转站。
我不认为泰国陆桥会影响新加坡的地位。主要是因为陆路口岸意味着船舶需要停靠码头。卸货（这部分将花费数万美元）。将货物装上铁路或卡车。这又是一笔费用。然后把另一艘船靠过来装货。又是一笔数万美元的费用。在我看来，这没有任何商业意义。一艘船到新加坡只需要几天时间，接触点少，成本更低。
我的猜测是，中国正在推动和资助这个项目。原因是中国希望在马六甲海峡之外有另一条航线，因为来自欧洲/阿拉伯/印度的几乎所有贸易都要经过马六甲海峡。如果战争期间发生封锁。这对中国来说将是一个巨大的问题。
I can attest to this. I do commercial operations of ships and for many trade routes, Singapore is the best stopover for all things shipping before proceeding to next destination.
I don’t think the land crossing will make impact to Singapore’s position. Mainly because it’s a land crossing, which means ships need to dock at a terminal. Discharge the cargo (this part will cost tens of thousands in USD). Put the cargo on either rail or trucks. Another cost here. And then bring another ship alongside to load those cargo. Another tens of thousand. It doesn’t make any commercial sense imo. When a ship coming down to Singapore only takes a couple days and less touch point is less cost.
My speculation is that the Chinese are pushing and funding this project. Reason is that the Chinese wants to have an alternative route aside from the malacca straits as pretty much every trade coming from Europe/arab/india are routed through malacca straits. Should there be a blockade during war. It would be a huge issue for the Chinese.
我可以证明这一点。我从事船舶商业运营，对于许多贸易航线而言，新加坡是前往下一个目的地之前的最佳中转站。
我不认为泰国陆桥会影响新加坡的地位。主要是因为陆路口岸意味着船舶需要停靠码头。卸货（这部分将花费数万美元）。将货物装上铁路或卡车。这又是一笔费用。然后把另一艘船靠过来装货。又是一笔数万美元的费用。在我看来，这没有任何商业意义。一艘船到新加坡只需要几天时间，接触点少，成本更低。
我的猜测是，中国正在推动和资助这个项目。原因是中国希望在马六甲海峡之外有另一条航线，因为来自欧洲/阿拉伯/印度的几乎所有贸易都要经过马六甲海峡。如果战争期间发生封锁。这对中国来说将是一个巨大的问题。
Administrator-Reddit
This land bridge is not feasible, at least not for most commercial purposes. The main reason China wants it built is to suit their own purposes of having an alternative to the Strait of Malacca if war breaks out. As for Thailand, their economic interest is less clear because there’s no way this land bridge will have enough business to sustain operations unless China routes all of their cargo to this land bridge instead, and even then it’s unclear if that would be enough.
Either way, it’s probably safe to say that this land bridge is being pushed through for political rather than economic purposes, so it wouldn’t make sense to try to look at it from a feasibility perspective.
这座陆桥是不可行的，至少对于大多数商业目的来说是不可行的。中国希望建造这座陆桥的主要原因是为了满足自己的目的，即在战争爆发时有一个替代马六甲海峡的通道。至于泰国，他们的经济利益就不那么明确了，因为这座陆桥不可能有足够的业务来维持运营，除非中国把所有的货物都运到这座陆桥上，即便如此，是否足够也是个未知数。
无论如何，可以肯定的是，这条陆桥是出于政治目的而非经济目的而推动的，因此从可行性的角度来考虑是没有意义的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
This land bridge is not feasible, at least not for most commercial purposes. The main reason China wants it built is to suit their own purposes of having an alternative to the Strait of Malacca if war breaks out. As for Thailand, their economic interest is less clear because there’s no way this land bridge will have enough business to sustain operations unless China routes all of their cargo to this land bridge instead, and even then it’s unclear if that would be enough.
Either way, it’s probably safe to say that this land bridge is being pushed through for political rather than economic purposes, so it wouldn’t make sense to try to look at it from a feasibility perspective.
这座陆桥是不可行的，至少对于大多数商业目的来说是不可行的。中国希望建造这座陆桥的主要原因是为了满足自己的目的，即在战争爆发时有一个替代马六甲海峡的通道。至于泰国，他们的经济利益就不那么明确了，因为这座陆桥不可能有足够的业务来维持运营，除非中国把所有的货物都运到这座陆桥上，即便如此，是否足够也是个未知数。
无论如何，可以肯定的是，这条陆桥是出于政治目的而非经济目的而推动的，因此从可行性的角度来考虑是没有意义的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
LucarioMagic
So this is another "China lending another country money to build empty infrastructure that only benefits China?"
那么这又是一个“中国借钱给别国建设空置的基础设施，只对中国有利”的故事？
So this is another "China lending another country money to build empty infrastructure that only benefits China?"
那么这又是一个“中国借钱给别国建设空置的基础设施，只对中国有利”的故事？
blorg
Except China has shown no interest in this project whatsoever and has made no mention of it. It's the Thai PM that has been trying to sell it to them, so far without success.
If China is interested in anything, it's a canal, not a land bridge... but they have shown little interest in that either.
但中国对这个项目没有表现出任何兴趣，也没有提及。是泰国总理一直在试图向他们推销这个项目，但至今未果。
如果说中国对什么感兴趣的话，那就是运河，而不是陆桥......但他们对此也兴趣不大。
Except China has shown no interest in this project whatsoever and has made no mention of it. It's the Thai PM that has been trying to sell it to them, so far without success.
If China is interested in anything, it's a canal, not a land bridge... but they have shown little interest in that either.
但中国对这个项目没有表现出任何兴趣，也没有提及。是泰国总理一直在试图向他们推销这个项目，但至今未果。
如果说中国对什么感兴趣的话，那就是运河，而不是陆桥......但他们对此也兴趣不大。
Wameo
Bro don't go bringing facts and common sense into this conversation, just let the good people of reddit irrationally hate on China!
兄弟，别把事实和常识带入这场对话，就让reddit的“好人”非理性地仇视中国吧！
Bro don't go bringing facts and common sense into this conversation, just let the good people of reddit irrationally hate on China!
兄弟，别把事实和常识带入这场对话，就让reddit的“好人”非理性地仇视中国吧！
factforfiction
Thai politicians want the bridge. May not be profitable for the country but large construction projects like this could be very profitable for certain individuals.
泰国政界人士想要这座桥。对于国家来说可能不会有利可图，但像这样的大型建设项目对于某些个人来说可能非常有利可图。
Thai politicians want the bridge. May not be profitable for the country but large construction projects like this could be very profitable for certain individuals.
泰国政界人士想要这座桥。对于国家来说可能不会有利可图，但像这样的大型建设项目对于某些个人来说可能非常有利可图。
Megalordrion
China doesn't trust Thailand after the stupid stunt they pull off shunning all Chinese tourists, now they want them back which is a stretch. In all likelihood China's trust in Singapore is greater than the Thais as we're seeing an increase in Chinese tourists nowadays.
在泰国做出了吓跑所有中国游客的愚蠢举动后，中国不再信任泰国，现在他们又想让中国游客回来，这有点难。中国对新加坡的信任度很可能高于泰国，因为如今中国游客越来越多。
China doesn't trust Thailand after the stupid stunt they pull off shunning all Chinese tourists, now they want them back which is a stretch. In all likelihood China's trust in Singapore is greater than the Thais as we're seeing an increase in Chinese tourists nowadays.
在泰国做出了吓跑所有中国游客的愚蠢举动后，中国不再信任泰国，现在他们又想让中国游客回来，这有点难。中国对新加坡的信任度很可能高于泰国，因为如今中国游客越来越多。
go_zarian
You have to unload at one port, transport to the other port, and reload on another ship at that port.
The infographic itself says it takes one to two weeks to do that. Though it claims overall time savings, does it really take more than two weeks to sail from southern Thailand down to Singapore and from then on to the South China Sea?
They should have gone big and dug the Kra Canal. That would have led to real time savings and would have seriously challenged us.
The land bridge idea is a compromise that is not feasible in the long run. Either you go big or you don't do anything. Halfway solutions simply don't work.
你必须在一个港口卸货，运输到另一个港口，然后在该港口的另一艘船上重新装货。
信息图表本身就说，这样做需要一到两周的时间。虽然它声称总体上节省了时间，但从泰国南部航行到新加坡，再从新加坡航行到中国南海，真的需要两周以上的时间吗？
他们应该大干一场，开凿克拉运河。这样就能真正节省时间，也会给我们带来严峻的挑战。
陆桥的想法是一种妥协，从长远来看是不可行的。要么你大干一场，要么你什么都不做。半桶水是行不通的。
You have to unload at one port, transport to the other port, and reload on another ship at that port.
The infographic itself says it takes one to two weeks to do that. Though it claims overall time savings, does it really take more than two weeks to sail from southern Thailand down to Singapore and from then on to the South China Sea?
They should have gone big and dug the Kra Canal. That would have led to real time savings and would have seriously challenged us.
The land bridge idea is a compromise that is not feasible in the long run. Either you go big or you don't do anything. Halfway solutions simply don't work.
你必须在一个港口卸货，运输到另一个港口，然后在该港口的另一艘船上重新装货。
信息图表本身就说，这样做需要一到两周的时间。虽然它声称总体上节省了时间，但从泰国南部航行到新加坡，再从新加坡航行到中国南海，真的需要两周以上的时间吗？
他们应该大干一场，开凿克拉运河。这样就能真正节省时间，也会给我们带来严峻的挑战。
陆桥的想法是一种妥协，从长远来看是不可行的。要么你大干一场，要么你什么都不做。半桶水是行不通的。
jollyseaman
Digging the canal might undermine their national security. Southern Thailand have some separatist issues.
挖掘运河可能会损害他们的国家安全。泰国南部存在一些分裂主义问题。
Digging the canal might undermine their national security. Southern Thailand have some separatist issues.
挖掘运河可能会损害他们的国家安全。泰国南部存在一些分裂主义问题。
Odd_Duty520
Not really, if you look at the map, the parts affected by the malay insurgency takes up less than half the land area below the isthmus and the population that does the insurgency is still a minority overall even with the split given how big hatyai is population-wise. It will be only slightly logistically harder to deal with the insurgency and of course the risk of terrorism would be high for such an important piece of infrastructure
其实不然，如果你看一下地图，受马来叛乱影响的地区只占地峡以下土地面积的不到一半，而且考虑到哈蒂亚伊的人口规模有多大，即使进行了分割，叛乱的人口总体上仍然是少数。要解决叛乱问题，在后勤方面只会稍微困难一些，当然，对于如此重要的基础设施来说，恐怖主义的风险也会很高。
Not really, if you look at the map, the parts affected by the malay insurgency takes up less than half the land area below the isthmus and the population that does the insurgency is still a minority overall even with the split given how big hatyai is population-wise. It will be only slightly logistically harder to deal with the insurgency and of course the risk of terrorism would be high for such an important piece of infrastructure
其实不然，如果你看一下地图，受马来叛乱影响的地区只占地峡以下土地面积的不到一半，而且考虑到哈蒂亚伊的人口规模有多大，即使进行了分割，叛乱的人口总体上仍然是少数。要解决叛乱问题，在后勤方面只会稍微困难一些，当然，对于如此重要的基础设施来说，恐怖主义的风险也会很高。
CmDrRaBb1983
I think it's easier for army already on land going to the south from north to continue the journey via land than to halfway at the kra canal, get up on a transport ship from one side and then to the other. Bridges connecting one side to the other can be destroyed. There can be strategic land crossings over the railway from north to south. The army can also easily put additional bridges for the vehicles to use if it's over rails. A canal makes defending attacks from the north easier and prolonging any war.
我认为，对于已经在陆地上的军队来说，从北方前往南方，通过陆路继续前进要比在克拉运河中途上船、从一侧上运输船再前往另一侧容易得多。连接一侧与另一侧的桥梁可能会被摧毁。从北到南的铁路会导致战略性的陆路交叉口出现。军队还可以很容易地在铁轨上架设额外的桥梁供车辆使用。有了运河，就能更容易地抵御来自北方的进攻，延长战争时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I think it's easier for army already on land going to the south from north to continue the journey via land than to halfway at the kra canal, get up on a transport ship from one side and then to the other. Bridges connecting one side to the other can be destroyed. There can be strategic land crossings over the railway from north to south. The army can also easily put additional bridges for the vehicles to use if it's over rails. A canal makes defending attacks from the north easier and prolonging any war.
我认为，对于已经在陆地上的军队来说，从北方前往南方，通过陆路继续前进要比在克拉运河中途上船、从一侧上运输船再前往另一侧容易得多。连接一侧与另一侧的桥梁可能会被摧毁。从北到南的铁路会导致战略性的陆路交叉口出现。军队还可以很容易地在铁轨上架设额外的桥梁供车辆使用。有了运河，就能更容易地抵御来自北方的进攻，延长战争时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
smile_politely
I bet my money Singapore is financing these separatists to keep the north Thailand unstable, just like how Singapore is sending war supplies and funding Myanmar junta
我敢打赌，新加坡正在资助这些分裂分子，以保持泰国北部的不稳定，就像新加坡运送战争物资和资助缅甸军政府一样
I bet my money Singapore is financing these separatists to keep the north Thailand unstable, just like how Singapore is sending war supplies and funding Myanmar junta
我敢打赌，新加坡正在资助这些分裂分子，以保持泰国北部的不稳定，就像新加坡运送战争物资和资助缅甸军政府一样
ahbengtothemax
based on what? Did Singapore fund Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia as well?
有何依据？新加坡也资助了印度尼西亚的伊斯兰祈祷团吗？
（伊斯兰祈祷团，又称回教祈祷团，简称伊斯兰团，是一个寻求在东南亚建立独立国家的伊斯兰原教旨主义的伊斯兰武装组织。其活动范围遍及印尼、新加坡、文莱、马来西亚、泰国南部及菲律宾。）
based on what? Did Singapore fund Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia as well?
有何依据？新加坡也资助了印度尼西亚的伊斯兰祈祷团吗？
（伊斯兰祈祷团，又称回教祈祷团，简称伊斯兰团，是一个寻求在东南亚建立独立国家的伊斯兰原教旨主义的伊斯兰武装组织。其活动范围遍及印尼、新加坡、文莱、马来西亚、泰国南部及菲律宾。）
bonkers05
Given the terrain, a canal would mean locks and therefore a convoy system and thereby lose any time savings gained by the shorter route.
Unless they wanna blast a line straight through as wide as the Strait of Johore and make Malaya an island.
考虑到地形，修建运河意味着要修建船闸，因此需要一个护航系统，从而失去了缩短路线所节省的时间。
除非他们想炸开一条和柔佛海峡一样宽的直线，把马来亚变成一个岛。
Given the terrain, a canal would mean locks and therefore a convoy system and thereby lose any time savings gained by the shorter route.
Unless they wanna blast a line straight through as wide as the Strait of Johore and make Malaya an island.
考虑到地形，修建运河意味着要修建船闸，因此需要一个护航系统，从而失去了缩短路线所节省的时间。
除非他们想炸开一条和柔佛海峡一样宽的直线，把马来亚变成一个岛。
wackocoal
also added costs to provide security for trucks moving cargo between the 2 ports.
that distance to travel is no joke.
此外，在两个港口之间为运送货物的卡车提供安全保障也增加了成本。
这段路程可不太平。
also added costs to provide security for trucks moving cargo between the 2 ports.
that distance to travel is no joke.
此外，在两个港口之间为运送货物的卡车提供安全保障也增加了成本。
这段路程可不太平。
midasp
They're not building a canal. They're building two ports, one on each coast, and a railway line between them to transport goods.
他们不是在修建运河。他们正在建设两个港口，两边海岸各一个，并在两个港口之间建设一条铁路线以运输货物。
They're not building a canal. They're building two ports, one on each coast, and a railway line between them to transport goods.
他们不是在修建运河。他们正在建设两个港口，两边海岸各一个，并在两个港口之间建设一条铁路线以运输货物。
bonkers05
I was making the point that even building a canal would not generate the needed time savings to make building the canal viable unless they are willing to accept an enviromental and geopolitical disaster.
我的意思是，除非他们愿意接受环境和地缘政治灾难，否则即使修建运河也无法节省所需的时间，从而使修建运河变得可行。
I was making the point that even building a canal would not generate the needed time savings to make building the canal viable unless they are willing to accept an enviromental and geopolitical disaster.
我的意思是，除非他们愿意接受环境和地缘政治灾难，否则即使修建运河也无法节省所需的时间，从而使修建运河变得可行。
ziddyzoo
Panama and Suez cut off a continent sized chunk of travel; Kra could only reduce a Malaysian peninsula sized amount of travel. Only if the Straits and ports of Singapore become too congested can a Kra canal hope to be commercially viable.
But of course commercial viability is not always the point; it’s certainly not why the US built the Panama. The commerce was just icing on the geostrategic cake. It’s hard to see what Thailand gets out of building a Kra canal in that dimension except a target painted on its back, probably a debt load to China, and a reinvigoration of separatism in the deep south.
巴拿马运河和苏伊士运河切断了整个大陆的交通；克拉运河只能减少马来西亚半岛的交通。只有当新加坡海峡和港口变得过于拥挤时，克拉运河才有希望在商业上可行。
当然，商业可行性并不总是问题的关键；这当然也不是美国建造巴拿马运河的原因。商业只是地缘战略蛋糕上的糖衣。除了背上的靶子、可能欠下的中国债务以及南部深处分离主义的重新抬头之外，我们很难看到泰国在这个层面上修建克拉运河能得到什么好处。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Panama and Suez cut off a continent sized chunk of travel; Kra could only reduce a Malaysian peninsula sized amount of travel. Only if the Straits and ports of Singapore become too congested can a Kra canal hope to be commercially viable.
But of course commercial viability is not always the point; it’s certainly not why the US built the Panama. The commerce was just icing on the geostrategic cake. It’s hard to see what Thailand gets out of building a Kra canal in that dimension except a target painted on its back, probably a debt load to China, and a reinvigoration of separatism in the deep south.
巴拿马运河和苏伊士运河切断了整个大陆的交通；克拉运河只能减少马来西亚半岛的交通。只有当新加坡海峡和港口变得过于拥挤时，克拉运河才有希望在商业上可行。
当然，商业可行性并不总是问题的关键；这当然也不是美国建造巴拿马运河的原因。商业只是地缘战略蛋糕上的糖衣。除了背上的靶子、可能欠下的中国债务以及南部深处分离主义的重新抬头之外，我们很难看到泰国在这个层面上修建克拉运河能得到什么好处。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Anomaly_101
I think you’re right on the commercial viability front, that’s not the main reason. However, once you project this map onto the existing “string of pearls” China has built the picture becomes quite clear.
Right now the biggest break in the string of pearls going to India (one of china’s main competitors today) is the straits of Singapore, which also is a US navy port.
So I think it makes total sense why China, for a while now, has been pushing to circumvent the straight of Singapore.
我认为你在商业可行性方面的观点是正确的，但这并不是主要原因。然而，一旦你把这幅地图投射到中国现有的“珍珠链”上，意图就会变得非常清晰。
目前，通往印度（中国目前的主要竞争对手之一）的珍珠链的最大断裂点是新加坡海峡，而新加坡也是美国海军的港口。
因此，我认为这就完全说得通为什么一段时间以来，中国一直在推动绕过新加坡海峡。
I think you’re right on the commercial viability front, that’s not the main reason. However, once you project this map onto the existing “string of pearls” China has built the picture becomes quite clear.
Right now the biggest break in the string of pearls going to India (one of china’s main competitors today) is the straits of Singapore, which also is a US navy port.
So I think it makes total sense why China, for a while now, has been pushing to circumvent the straight of Singapore.
我认为你在商业可行性方面的观点是正确的，但这并不是主要原因。然而，一旦你把这幅地图投射到中国现有的“珍珠链”上，意图就会变得非常清晰。
目前，通往印度（中国目前的主要竞争对手之一）的珍珠链的最大断裂点是新加坡海峡，而新加坡也是美国海军的港口。
因此，我认为这就完全说得通为什么一段时间以来，中国一直在推动绕过新加坡海峡。
ziddyzoo
Agreed - the strategic logic is there for China. I just don’t get why Thailand would open itself up to that. Especially the ancient crusty Thai generals who at times have been some of the most ardent supporters. The lessons of history from Panama and Suez are pretty mixed for the host nation of such strategically vital infrastructure. I guess they think this time will be different…
同意——对中国来说，战略逻辑是存在的。我只是不明白为什么泰国要向中国敞开大门。尤其是泰国的那些老将军们，他们有时也是最热心的支持者之一。巴拿马和苏伊士运河的历史教训对于拥有如此重要战略基础设施的东道国来说是喜忧参半的。我猜他们认为这次会有所不同......
Agreed - the strategic logic is there for China. I just don’t get why Thailand would open itself up to that. Especially the ancient crusty Thai generals who at times have been some of the most ardent supporters. The lessons of history from Panama and Suez are pretty mixed for the host nation of such strategically vital infrastructure. I guess they think this time will be different…
同意——对中国来说，战略逻辑是存在的。我只是不明白为什么泰国要向中国敞开大门。尤其是泰国的那些老将军们，他们有时也是最热心的支持者之一。巴拿马和苏伊士运河的历史教训对于拥有如此重要战略基础设施的东道国来说是喜忧参半的。我猜他们认为这次会有所不同......
midasp
I've been on a cruise from Singapore to Penang and back. It takes half a day to do that. Lets be generous and say it takes a full day to sail from south Thailand to Singapore.
If it truly takes a week to transfer goods between ports, then its more time-efficient to just go to Singapore.
我坐过新加坡和槟城之间的游轮。这件事只需要半天时间。因此慷慨地说，从泰国南部航行到新加坡最多只需要一整天的时间。
如果在港口之间转运货物真的需要一周时间，那么直接去新加坡更省时。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I've been on a cruise from Singapore to Penang and back. It takes half a day to do that. Lets be generous and say it takes a full day to sail from south Thailand to Singapore.
If it truly takes a week to transfer goods between ports, then its more time-efficient to just go to Singapore.
我坐过新加坡和槟城之间的游轮。这件事只需要半天时间。因此慷慨地说，从泰国南部航行到新加坡最多只需要一整天的时间。
如果在港口之间转运货物真的需要一周时间，那么直接去新加坡更省时。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
kuang89
When I studied shipping in poly more than 15 years ago they already say they want to build this already.
15 年多前，当我在保利学习航运时，他们就已经说要建造这个项目了。
When I studied shipping in poly more than 15 years ago they already say they want to build this already.
15 年多前，当我在保利学习航运时，他们就已经说要建造这个项目了。
ziddyzoo
In Thailand they’ve been talking about the Kra canal for about a century…
在泰国，人们谈论克拉运河已经有大约一个世纪了……
In Thailand they’ve been talking about the Kra canal for about a century…
在泰国，人们谈论克拉运河已经有大约一个世纪了……
Separate-Ad9638
they ask investors to take the risks, if its so profitable, this thai govt wouldnt invite them to take part.
他们要求投资者承担风险，如果真的这么赚钱，泰国政府就不会邀请他们参与了。
they ask investors to take the risks, if its so profitable, this thai govt wouldnt invite them to take part.
他们要求投资者承担风险，如果真的这么赚钱，泰国政府就不会邀请他们参与了。
Nightowl11111
lol Because it has risks, that is why the Thai government wants others to die for it, it really does not want to touch such a white elephant.
哈哈，因为它有风险，所以泰国政府才要别人为它送死，它实在不想碰这样的大白象。
lol Because it has risks, that is why the Thai government wants others to die for it, it really does not want to touch such a white elephant.
哈哈，因为它有风险，所以泰国政府才要别人为它送死，它实在不想碰这样的大白象。
Blueberry8899
Thailand was never and ever capable of doing this alone. The realization becomes clearer with the rising of China.
泰国从来都没有能力独自做到这一点。随着中国的崛起，这一认知变得更加清晰。
Thailand was never and ever capable of doing this alone. The realization becomes clearer with the rising of China.
泰国从来都没有能力独自做到这一点。随着中国的崛起，这一认知变得更加清晰。
Nightowl11111
Even with the power to do it, it does not make any sense. Even the Suez, the busiest canal in the world, only handles enough shipping in a whole year to match what the Straits of Singapore handle in one DAY. That is the difference in scale we are talking about. The canal is only 0.3% as effective as the natural route.
即使有能力做到这一点，也没有任何意义。即使是世界上最繁忙的运河苏伊士运河，全年的航运量也仅相当于新加坡海峡一天的航运量。这就是我们所说的规模差异。运河的效率只有自然航道的 0.3%。
Even with the power to do it, it does not make any sense. Even the Suez, the busiest canal in the world, only handles enough shipping in a whole year to match what the Straits of Singapore handle in one DAY. That is the difference in scale we are talking about. The canal is only 0.3% as effective as the natural route.
即使有能力做到这一点，也没有任何意义。即使是世界上最繁忙的运河苏伊士运河，全年的航运量也仅相当于新加坡海峡一天的航运量。这就是我们所说的规模差异。运河的效率只有自然航道的 0.3%。
pestoster0ne
This is a "land bridge", which is just marketing for two ports and a highway between them. It's a lot more hassle and much slower than an actual canal that ships could just sail through.
这是一座“陆桥”，只是两个港口之间的一条公路。与船只可以通过的实际运河相比，这要麻烦得多，速度也慢得多。
This is a "land bridge", which is just marketing for two ports and a highway between them. It's a lot more hassle and much slower than an actual canal that ships could just sail through.
这是一座“陆桥”，只是两个港口之间的一条公路。与船只可以通过的实际运河相比，这要麻烦得多，速度也慢得多。
Praimfayaa
Sounds like a logistical nightmare to transit an entire vessel of cargo inland from one port to another, for sure it will be less efficient and less green, so many things can go wrong too. Geographically, it does not save much distance for most shipping routes either.
Quite a foolish idea if you think about it.
把整船货物从一个港口转运到另一个港口，听起来像是一场物流噩梦，肯定会降低效率和绿色环保程度，也会出很多问题。从地理上看，这也不会为大多数航运路线节省多少距离。
仔细想想，这是个相当愚蠢的想法。
Sounds like a logistical nightmare to transit an entire vessel of cargo inland from one port to another, for sure it will be less efficient and less green, so many things can go wrong too. Geographically, it does not save much distance for most shipping routes either.
Quite a foolish idea if you think about it.
把整船货物从一个港口转运到另一个港口，听起来像是一场物流噩梦，肯定会降低效率和绿色环保程度，也会出很多问题。从地理上看，这也不会为大多数航运路线节省多少距离。
仔细想想，这是个相当愚蠢的想法。
borisslovechild
It would take decades to construct assuming the Thais manage to pull it off. There are very few huge construction projects that have not gone over budget or not blown past deadlines. Factor in corruption, local resistance (there will be a huge amount of dislocation), battles with environmental activists, etc. etc. etc. It can be done but I would always aim to triple the budget and double the time required. If I had to pluck a number out of the air, I would say it would take 50 years to complete. By which time global warming might well make the whole thing redundant.
假定泰国人能够完成这项工程，也需要几十年的时间。很少有大型建设项目不超出预算或不超过最后期限的。还要考虑到腐败、当地人的抵制（会造成巨大的混乱）、与环保人士的斗争等等等等。这是可以做到的，但我的目标始终是将预算增加两倍，所需时间增加一倍。如果让我凭空捏造一个数字，我会说需要 50 年才能完成。到那时，全球变暖可能会使整个工程变得多余。
It would take decades to construct assuming the Thais manage to pull it off. There are very few huge construction projects that have not gone over budget or not blown past deadlines. Factor in corruption, local resistance (there will be a huge amount of dislocation), battles with environmental activists, etc. etc. etc. It can be done but I would always aim to triple the budget and double the time required. If I had to pluck a number out of the air, I would say it would take 50 years to complete. By which time global warming might well make the whole thing redundant.
假定泰国人能够完成这项工程，也需要几十年的时间。很少有大型建设项目不超出预算或不超过最后期限的。还要考虑到腐败、当地人的抵制（会造成巨大的混乱）、与环保人士的斗争等等等等。这是可以做到的，但我的目标始终是将预算增加两倍，所需时间增加一倍。如果让我凭空捏造一个数字，我会说需要 50 年才能完成。到那时，全球变暖可能会使整个工程变得多余。
很赞 5
收藏