by seanie » 20 Sep 2012, 01:52
Building a 3-4 storey school,"conference, research, sport or a visitor centre or something" on 10m stilts over the Freightliner terminal and East Coast main line is not, in any sense a 'contingency plan'. Contingency plans have to be constrained by some sense of reality (financial, legal, regulatory, practical etc.) otherwise they're not contingency plans. They're fantasy.
For example, whilst the technology certainly exists to create a new PHS in geo-stationary orbit above the the earth, the costs involved in building such a facility, and the maintenance costs, would be prohibitive. I imagine the Travel Plan would be quite a challenge too. So a satellite PHS, whilst not technically impossible, is such a an unlikely option that it would not be a 'contingency plan' in any sensible reading of the term. It would be a 'fantasy Plan B'.
Can you begin to recognise the distinction?
If so we can begin to discuss 'contingency plans' on their actual merits , as opposed to simply letting utter nonsense pass without comment.