So my dad asked me today, why don't they just rebuild all of what has been destroyed in the areas that are higher which are less likely to be affected by tsunamis later on. I gave a couple of points about the unsuitability of such a location, about what could possibly already be there which is vital, about the added cost of moving location but wasn't able to give a FULL answer. And so, Internet, I turn to you for some more reasons!
he's right. just completely rebuild the country in the places that are less suited for civilization. easy peazy.
A a region of a small Island in the Pacific Ring of Fire less likely to be hit by Tsunami's. Yes, the easy solution is to relocate the island of Japan to Iowa. Have you informed your father he hasn't thought this one through? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ring_of_Fire#Japan
The logistics of moving entire cities of millions of people to places without adequate ports when Japan is the third largest export economy in the world, would stop the Japanese economy, cost trillions of dollars to accomplish, and would remove Japan from being an economic power, to a struggling farming community, because there's nothing else to do in the mountains of Japan. I mean they're gorgeous.
It's not just that they decided to build a city there years ago-they built a city years ago because there was commerce there. It was the best (cheapest) place to build for commerce to happen. And in general that's where it still is. Parts of Southeast Asia flood every few years and kill a lot of people. But people move back because that is where commerce happens (fishing, farming, easy access to transportation and shipping (ports along the sea). What's the chance that a tsunami hits there again vs anywhere else? Come on-what are the chances that a tsunami would hit anywhere twice after the next one.
