Here is a link to the article.

Interesting to see that, even in a mountain climbing article, a good majority of the writing was about political tension and personal danger off of the mountain.

Nicely written,very informative.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/travel/17K2.html

Great article, thanks for sharing.

I saw it. Pretty cool article.

Thanks for the sharing. I'm reading Mr. Viesturs (and Roberts) book right now too.

Toomsdpt wrote:good article. Just finished Viesturs book. Never read much on K2 and its history. I agree with Viesturs in his book when he says he believes that as more time passes, more attention will be brought to k2 and more and more people will attempt to reach its summit. He thinks it will lose some of its lure as a result and will become a tourist destination much like Everest has.

I don't think it will become a tourist destination. Everest is really not that technical of a climb. There are two main spots that are difficult but the majority of what kicks your ass on Everest is Altitude. And relatively speaking, the weather windows are far more plentiful than K2. Because of coordinates of K2 it's weather is brutal and can change on a dime.

Then you add the technical difficulty of it compared to Everest. There is a reason why only a few hundred have attempted to summit it compared to a few thousand for Everest.

It may get more popular, but I don't think it'll get the business Everest gets.

Awesome article BTW. I would love, love the chance to make the trip to base camp so I can say I saw it and take some pictures.

Good information.Thanks for sharing.

thanks for sharing..
Great Article...much information..
hope inSaAllah coming no 1 Mountaineering and Rock climbing Destination in the world.

VegasCane wrote:I don't think it will become a tourist destination. Everest is really not that technical of a climb. There are two main spots that are difficult but the majority of what kicks your ass on Everest is Altitude. And relatively speaking, the weather windows are far more plentiful than K2. Because of coordinates of K2 it's weather is brutal and can change on a dime.

Then you add the technical difficulty of it compared to Everest. There is a reason why only a few hundred have attempted to summit it compared to a few thousand for Everest.

It may get more popular, but I don't think it'll get the business Everest gets.

If we look back to the 1960s, 70s and 80s relatively few people attempted Everest which would still have been considered technically difficult for most climbers back then (perhaps not the physical climbing but the cost, access and equipment as well). It wasn't until the late 80s and 90s when the boomers got in to climbing did a better infrastructure and equipment develop allowing even more people access. I could see the same thing happening on K2 over time. Many climbers today appear to be getting more cynical about the value of ascending the tallest mountain. I think their focus will switch to coveting a more technical mountain which will, in and of itself, lead to more access and interest in the climb.