Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmiller2 | Hacker News Reader

You know, having a lot of a critical resource the US needs is not exactly an enviable position to be in.

Water is a highly local resource.

The US as a whole has plenty of water, forever -- you could divert 10% of the Mississippi to the West and solve the water crisis. But you can't, because there's a mountain range in the way. Pumping and canals are VERY expensive.

Canada is even further away.

Is it trillion$$ expensive tho? Or maybe 10 trillion $$ ? Because that is still not that expensive

Canada is close enough for the army to get to.

Not relevant. The US Army Corp & DNR studied this in the 50s and 60s. It’s not feasible to get water from the Columbia, eel, or Klamath rivers to central or Southern California. As parent mentioned there are too many mountain ranges in the way and nuclear tunneling didn’t even pass muster then. Why would the US go to BC when it already flows in to WA & OR, and is still too isolated from CA populations?

Don't tell Suncor or Alberta. They'll be happy to build you a pipeline anywhere.

You miss the point. Take over Canada and make it part of the US. Move the people, not the water.

People could already move to wetter parts of the U.S. if that's what they want. Vermont and Maine are plenty wet and have small populations.

So does Canada, and there's a lot more room there than in Vermont.

The point is Canada's water is not close enough to the places in the USA that would need that water for it be compelling to invade Canada for their water.

Sure it is, when Canada becomes part of the US and people who live where the water isn't just get to move there.

If this line of comments is a sarcastic joke then you need to make it a bit more obvious.

Not sarcasm: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l...

Everywhere that's not green is where humans won't be able to live by the end of the century.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com