intotherain wrote:First post edited.. some msitakes
Oh yeah, I'm just having an argument with another guy in my photoshop class.
He assures me that I am wrong and all highways in the US meets "national threat advisory" and at any moment the highways can be used for a transportation system for heavy war such as 200 tanks, and stuff.
I have no idea what he is talking about but does anybody know what he is talking about?
The Interstate system (not "all highways in the U.S.") has a backup role as a military transport system. Nothing special was done to accomodate that secondary role other than to make sure that the road dimensions would handle the largest military vehicles. If you run enough tanks on the Interstate, it will get damaged. Especially the asphalt parts. It is assumed that they would have to be fixed once the emergency is over.
As for landing a fully loaded DC-10, I'd say there would be an excellent chance of damaging the roadway. Runways and taxiways all across America had to be rebuilt and strengthened when widebody jets like the 747 and DC-10 entered service.
Highways commonly have a 6 to 8 inch top layer of concrete. Runways used to be the same. In the 1940s, large WWII aircraft increased that requirement to nearly 1 ft. of concrete. When the widebody jets were introduced, major airports needed 16 to 18 inches, plus a foundation of several feet.
As an example, back in 2004, the president decided to make a campaign stop in Las Cruces, NM. The main runway has enough depth to handle Air Force 1, but the other runways and taxiways have WWII standard concrete, topped by asphalt. After being informed of this, the pilot still decided to taxi the 747 onto the thinner pavement for some reason. The pavement buckled everywhere that 747 went. The runway and taxiway are still out of service to this day. Imagine what would happen if they'd landed on that pavement (which is much thicker than a highway).
