I like parts of FactaNV's idea. Spending $25b/yr on a dedicated military that hasn't defended
its own borders from invasion in 200yrs+ is crazy. Dedicated militaries should be used more for economic means, and fighting domestic "non-human" threats like fire, floods, ice, even infrastructure construction. Iceland doesn't even have a dedicated military, so it can be done.
But the ice dilemma still exists. Icebreakers can break ice at 3knots max. Open water cargo ships are ~20knots. So breaking 2000km of eastward ice just to hit open water is now a 15 day voyage ONE WAY, vs 2 days in open water. Economics spiral fast.
And then we start getting into wild engineering like:
-
Ice road, road trains. Tens of semi trails hooked in a row to transfer the ice portion, transloading to a ship by the ice edge. Never been tried on ice. Transloading is pricey.
-
Ice breaking cargo carriers. Likely the most viable option, especially in shoulder seasons. But again, icebreaker speed.
-
Submarine LNG carriers? Go under the ice? Theoretically it's possible, LNG has buoyancy. But jeez, we're getting into wild territory all for a port. Do the ends justify the means?
-
Giant tracked boat hoists. Like this, but on an absolutely colossal scale. Hoists the boat up onto the ice to traverse the frozen section at hopefully closer to 20 knots. LNG is light, might work for that, but likely not heavy cargo. Again, absolutely crazy crazy engineering. I'm trying here, but I just don't know...