How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam? [Archive]

Kevin Brooks

June 20th 04, 03:41 AM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan either
> has
> > now
> > > or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam?
> > >
> > > http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> > >
> >
> > Crap. Went to the link and found...more rambling rants from Henry
himself!
> > Finally waded through the putrifying mass of illogical "analaysis"
> provided
> > by himself and found the DoD report *itself*--only to find no mention of
> > being able to breach Three Gorges, just a reference to a some Taiwanese
> > having expressed the *opinion* that they think Taiwan needs to develop a
> > capability to threaten high-value targets on the mainland, with Three
> Gorges
> > as an example. Let's see--taking down associated generators,
substations,
> HV
> > transmission lines, and/or damaging gates, etc., all constitute
"threats"
> to
> > Three Gorges, so this is apparently just another HJC "leaping to (wrong)
> > conclusions and supporting them with cites taken-out-of-context"
> exercise...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > > -HJC
> >
> Don't you guys read the newspapers? This story, about Taiwan holding high
> value targets on the mainland at risk to include breaching of said dam as
> primary, not just the associated infrasturcture, has been an AP piece in
the
> LA Times all week. I think there were at least a couple of stories about
it
> including the Sino response about "...blocking out the sky..." with their
> retaliation. The first question is meant to be rhetorical. Don't ride the
> "no I don't read the crap liberal media" horse.

No, my impression of the general media when it comes to things military is
not too complimentary. If your numerous references in the LA Times to this
come from the DoD report mentioned by Mr. Cobb, then it has been taken out
of context (just as Mr. Cobb has--and has repeatedly done in the past)--read
the actual verbage in the report. It does not credit Taiwan with this
capability, nor does it specify that in order to target said dam, one would
have to actually breach it--it only mentions that some Taiwanese have
ruminated over the possibility of their being able to hit HVT's, with Three
Gorges mentioned as an example, as being a good course of action for the
future. In other words, it is a non-story.

Brooks

>
> JB
>
>

Jim Baker

June 20th 04, 05:28 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan
either
> > has
> > > now
> > > > or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam?
> > > >
> > > > http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > Crap. Went to the link and found...more rambling rants from Henry
> himself!
> > > Finally waded through the putrifying mass of illogical "analaysis"
> > provided
> > > by himself and found the DoD report *itself*--only to find no mention
of
> > > being able to breach Three Gorges, just a reference to a some
Taiwanese
> > > having expressed the *opinion* that they think Taiwan needs to develop
a
> > > capability to threaten high-value targets on the mainland, with Three
> > Gorges
> > > as an example. Let's see--taking down associated generators,
> substations,
> > HV
> > > transmission lines, and/or damaging gates, etc., all constitute
> "threats"
> > to
> > > Three Gorges, so this is apparently just another HJC "leaping to
(wrong)
> > > conclusions and supporting them with cites taken-out-of-context"
> > exercise...
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > > -HJC
> > >
> > Don't you guys read the newspapers? This story, about Taiwan holding
high
> > value targets on the mainland at risk to include breaching of said dam
as
> > primary, not just the associated infrasturcture, has been an AP piece in
> the
> > LA Times all week. I think there were at least a couple of stories
about
> it
> > including the Sino response about "...blocking out the sky..." with
their
> > retaliation. The first question is meant to be rhetorical. Don't ride
the
> > "no I don't read the crap liberal media" horse.
>
> No, my impression of the general media when it comes to things military is
> not too complimentary. If your numerous references in the LA Times to this
> come from the DoD report mentioned by Mr. Cobb, then it has been taken out
> of context (just as Mr. Cobb has--and has repeatedly done in the
past)--read
> the actual verbage in the report. It does not credit Taiwan with this
> capability, nor does it specify that in order to target said dam, one
would
> have to actually breach it--it only mentions that some Taiwanese have
> ruminated over the possibility of their being able to hit HVT's, with
Three
> Gorges mentioned as an example, as being a good course of action for the
> future. In other words, it is a non-story.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
Well, I'd have to say you missed the whole point of the "story" Brooks.
It's a political story about politics taken to extremes and what that would
mean to the U.S. politically or, more problematically, militarily, vis-a-vis
GWB stated intention to defend Taiwan. WRT the rest of your response, it's
irrelevant to me that you have a problem with Mr. Cobb whom I don't recall
seeing here before, maybe just me not noticing or you noticing too much. I
read the report and your interpretation of it not mentioning Taiwanese
military capability is, IMHO, also irrelevant to the story. It's a
political piece by the DoD discusing the East Asian balance of power and
that regions huge influence on the world militarily and politically over the
coming decades. In other words, it's the antithesis of a non-story.

R/JB

Kevin Brooks

June 20th 04, 06:45 AM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan
> either
> > > has
> > > > now
> > > > > or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Crap. Went to the link and found...more rambling rants from Henry
> > himself!
> > > > Finally waded through the putrifying mass of illogical "analaysis"
> > > provided
> > > > by himself and found the DoD report *itself*--only to find no
mention
> of
> > > > being able to breach Three Gorges, just a reference to a some
> Taiwanese
> > > > having expressed the *opinion* that they think Taiwan needs to
develop
> a
> > > > capability to threaten high-value targets on the mainland, with
Three
> > > Gorges
> > > > as an example. Let's see--taking down associated generators,
> > substations,
> > > HV
> > > > transmission lines, and/or damaging gates, etc., all constitute
> > "threats"
> > > to
> > > > Three Gorges, so this is apparently just another HJC "leaping to
> (wrong)
> > > > conclusions and supporting them with cites taken-out-of-context"
> > > exercise...
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > > -HJC
> > > >
> > > Don't you guys read the newspapers? This story, about Taiwan holding
> high
> > > value targets on the mainland at risk to include breaching of said dam
> as
> > > primary, not just the associated infrasturcture, has been an AP piece
in
> > the
> > > LA Times all week. I think there were at least a couple of stories
> about
> > it
> > > including the Sino response about "...blocking out the sky..." with
> their
> > > retaliation. The first question is meant to be rhetorical. Don't ride
> the
> > > "no I don't read the crap liberal media" horse.
> >
> > No, my impression of the general media when it comes to things military
is
> > not too complimentary. If your numerous references in the LA Times to
this
> > come from the DoD report mentioned by Mr. Cobb, then it has been taken
out
> > of context (just as Mr. Cobb has--and has repeatedly done in the
> past)--read
> > the actual verbage in the report. It does not credit Taiwan with this
> > capability, nor does it specify that in order to target said dam, one
> would
> > have to actually breach it--it only mentions that some Taiwanese have
> > ruminated over the possibility of their being able to hit HVT's, with
> Three
> > Gorges mentioned as an example, as being a good course of action for the
> > future. In other words, it is a non-story.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> Well, I'd have to say you missed the whole point of the "story" Brooks.
> It's a political story about politics taken to extremes

Then why are you bantering about it in this forum? Now, did the articles in
question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario or
not? If not, then we are discussing completely different topics; if they
did, and as you have indicated the claim was for a breach of the dam, then
they have distorted what the actual DoD report said.

and what that would
> mean to the U.S. politically or, more problematically, militarily,
vis-a-vis
> GWB stated intention to defend Taiwan. WRT the rest of your response,
it's
> irrelevant to me that you have a problem with Mr. Cobb whom I don't recall
> seeing here before, maybe just me not noticing or you noticing too much.

LOL! The guy is somewhat infamous in both this NG and in one of the naval
groups (among others I suspect) for his ability to twist very strange
interpretations from various sources, apply what can only be described as
extremely skewed analysis to various and widespread military subjects, and
then repeatedly ignore honest-to-goodness facts as they are presented to him
(often from the same source he has just distorted). Either you have not been
about these parts for long, or your newsgroup provider has a serious problem
with message retention, because otherwise you'd have to know who he is. And
BTW, I believe a Google would show that quite a few other posters have tried
to disabuse Henry of some of his more outlandish claims, some rather
recently; his continual insistence that he is better at making military
decisions than the folks who actually wear the uniform are is a frequent
sore point.

I
> read the report and your interpretation of it not mentioning Taiwanese
> military capability is, IMHO, also irrelevant to the story.

My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some
Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike
mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that?

"Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring
weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a
cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a latent
capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the
need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot
match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes
against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats
to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges
Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD
report)

If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of
breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and
some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall,
and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than
*twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to
handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional
weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a
structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. The largest bomb the
ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is
explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old
Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some
concrete and kill oodles of fish. Which takes us back to hitting and
destroying/disrupting ancilliary aspects of the dam infrastructure. If your
vaunted LA Times piece is saying otherwise, shame on them.

It's a
> political piece by the DoD discusing the East Asian balance of power and
> that regions huge influence on the world militarily and politically over
the
> coming decades. In other words, it's the antithesis of a non-story.

So then you admit that it does not posit a realistic Taiwanese threat of
being able to breach Three Gorges?

Brooks

>
> R/JB
>
>

Eunometic

June 20th 04, 07:25 AM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan
either has now
> or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam?
>
> http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
>
> -HJC

I would pack a B747 or other wide bodied jet with a massive shaped
charge in the nose and then use precision guidance technology to
deliver it.

Alternatively a 40 ton double Grand Slam sized bomb with perhaps small
wings and a certainly a booster to extend speed and range slung from
beneath a wide bodied jet could do it.

A 20 ton hard casing bomb with an addition 20 ton propellant section
should achieve 0.66 exhaust velocity: about Mach 4. With proper
guidance it could be placed within a few meters, perhaps penetrating
the water behind the dam wall just as the WW2 bouncing bomb did.

Because of the hard casing only a direct hit with a penetrate 'hit to
could kill' SAM would stop this device because the weapon would in
effect be armored. Careful designee of the control surfaces, perhaps
the used of jet deflection with solid external fins would minimize
even the danger to control surfaces of a near miss.

The use of saturation attacks and decoys and perhaps a design with a
lithe extra speed should take care of the defenses.

I'm not saying this is a sensible approach but surely such a weapon
could be built?

Jim Baker

June 20th 04, 07:27 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan
> > either
> > > > has
> > > > > now
> > > > > > or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Crap. Went to the link and found...more rambling rants from Henry
> > > himself!
> > > > > Finally waded through the putrifying mass of illogical "analaysis"
> > > > provided
> > > > > by himself and found the DoD report *itself*--only to find no
> mention
> > of
> > > > > being able to breach Three Gorges, just a reference to a some
> > Taiwanese
> > > > > having expressed the *opinion* that they think Taiwan needs to
> develop
> > a
> > > > > capability to threaten high-value targets on the mainland, with
> Three
> > > > Gorges
> > > > > as an example. Let's see--taking down associated generators,
> > > substations,
> > > > HV
> > > > > transmission lines, and/or damaging gates, etc., all constitute
> > > "threats"
> > > > to
> > > > > Three Gorges, so this is apparently just another HJC "leaping to
> > (wrong)
> > > > > conclusions and supporting them with cites taken-out-of-context"
> > > > exercise...
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > >
> > > > > > -HJC
> > > > >
> > > > Don't you guys read the newspapers? This story, about Taiwan
holding
> > high
> > > > value targets on the mainland at risk to include breaching of said
dam
> > as
> > > > primary, not just the associated infrasturcture, has been an AP
piece
> in
> > > the
> > > > LA Times all week. I think there were at least a couple of stories
> > about
> > > it
> > > > including the Sino response about "...blocking out the sky..." with
> > their
> > > > retaliation. The first question is meant to be rhetorical. Don't
ride
> > the
> > > > "no I don't read the crap liberal media" horse.
> > >
> > > No, my impression of the general media when it comes to things
military
> is
> > > not too complimentary. If your numerous references in the LA Times to
> this
> > > come from the DoD report mentioned by Mr. Cobb, then it has been taken
> out
> > > of context (just as Mr. Cobb has--and has repeatedly done in the
> > past)--read
> > > the actual verbage in the report. It does not credit Taiwan with this
> > > capability, nor does it specify that in order to target said dam, one
> > would
> > > have to actually breach it--it only mentions that some Taiwanese have
> > > ruminated over the possibility of their being able to hit HVT's, with
> > Three
> > > Gorges mentioned as an example, as being a good course of action for
the
> > > future. In other words, it is a non-story.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > Well, I'd have to say you missed the whole point of the "story" Brooks.
> > It's a political story about politics taken to extremes
>
> Then why are you bantering about it in this forum? Now, did the articles
in
> question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario
or
> not? If not, then we are discussing completely different topics; if they
> did, and as you have indicated the claim was for a breach of the dam, then
> they have distorted what the actual DoD report said.
>
> and what that would
> > mean to the U.S. politically or, more problematically, militarily,
> vis-a-vis
> > GWB stated intention to defend Taiwan. WRT the rest of your response,
> it's
> > irrelevant to me that you have a problem with Mr. Cobb whom I don't
recall
> > seeing here before, maybe just me not noticing or you noticing too much.
>
> LOL! The guy is somewhat infamous in both this NG and in one of the naval
> groups (among others I suspect) for his ability to twist very strange
> interpretations from various sources, apply what can only be described as
> extremely skewed analysis to various and widespread military subjects, and
> then repeatedly ignore honest-to-goodness facts as they are presented to
him
> (often from the same source he has just distorted). Either you have not
been
> about these parts for long, or your newsgroup provider has a serious
problem
> with message retention, because otherwise you'd have to know who he is.
And
> BTW, I believe a Google would show that quite a few other posters have
tried
> to disabuse Henry of some of his more outlandish claims, some rather
> recently; his continual insistence that he is better at making military
> decisions than the folks who actually wear the uniform are is a frequent
> sore point.
>
> I
> > read the report and your interpretation of it not mentioning Taiwanese
> > military capability is, IMHO, also irrelevant to the story.
>
> My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some
> Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike
> mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that?
>
> "Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring
> weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as
a
> cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a
latent
> capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the
> need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot
> match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes
> against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible
threats
> to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three
Gorges
> Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD
> report)
>
> If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of
> breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check
and
> some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters
tall,
> and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than
> *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to
> handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional
> weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a
> structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. The largest bomb the
> ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is
> explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old
> Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some
> concrete and kill oodles of fish. Which takes us back to hitting and
> destroying/disrupting ancilliary aspects of the dam infrastructure. If
your
> vaunted LA Times piece is saying otherwise, shame on them.
>
> It's a
> > political piece by the DoD discusing the East Asian balance of power and
> > that regions huge influence on the world militarily and politically over
> the
> > coming decades. In other words, it's the antithesis of a non-story.
>
> So then you admit that it does not posit a realistic Taiwanese threat of
> being able to breach Three Gorges?
>
> Brooks

Brooks, all I was replying to was your assertion that this wasn't a, to
paraphrase, worthy story. Your question about why am I bantering about it
is perhaps the most important thing you've said lol. I thought bantering
was what the newsgroups were for. Perhaps I read you out of context when
you were vilifying Cobb with whom you, and others I suppose, obviously have
a problem. I've been visiting this site, daily, for nearly 7 years and
don't recall seeing his name. His opening post didn't seem outlandish and I
didn't read anything on his link other than the DoD report. If you'd take
the time to try to understand my posts, you'd see that I said it was
mentioned in the newpaper and on the news stations and I disputed your
claims about it being a non-story, that's all. I thought it was an important
story about the political climate in the far east and our, perhaps,
involvement. I never mentioned anything about actually taking out the dam
other than it was part of the story. Your posted replies "..then you need a
reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work.", "...your
vaunted LA Times piece..." and "So then you admit that it does not posit.."
are boorish and confrontational and don't help in the discussion.

Cobb did start out the thread by asking what weapons could breach the dam,
and you go to great lengths in showing me, in your answer to my post, how
this is a ridiculous notion. I agree and never brought the subject up. I
was just, as I said in my opening sentence in this post, disputing your
dismissal of the story which probably has more to do with you dismissing
Cobb than anything else. I guess it wasn't worth the effort for me to banter
with you when it's just your opinion about story/nonstory versus mine. Sorry
I brought it up.

R/JB

Chad Irby

June 20th 04, 07:57 AM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable
> of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality
> check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over
> 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of
> concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record
> holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality
> check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even
> conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive
> dimensions? Answer--none.

Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd
think."

The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick
at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir,
you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since
it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the
point the Wallis bomb broke it. Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb
was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges
with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive, maybe with a
shaped charge. Do that at one-third of the way down from the crest
(deeper than the Mohne, you get a lot more boost from the water
pressure), and you could flood central China with a bigger flood than
any recorded in history.

There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80
fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it).

A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese
government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in
order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its
own.

> The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000
> pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy
> on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters"
> approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles
> of fish.

The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be
air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream
and place with divers.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

June 20th 04, 01:17 PM

Henry J Cobb

June 20th 04, 04:52 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>>>http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> Now, did the articles in
> question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario or
> not?

Yes.

> My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some
> Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike
> mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that?

If the DoD didn't think the treat was realistic why did they bring it up?

Do they know something that you don't or are they trying to spin a non-story to
the media and if so for what reason?

-HJC

Chad Irby

June 20th 04, 09:13 PM

In article >,
"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote:

> The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break
> through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were
> lost, most before they got to the dam.

....because they had to contend with AA guns at the dams, torpedo nets,
low-level flying at night, and some tough maneuvers over a couple of the
reservoirs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

M. J. Powell

June 20th 04, 09:30 PM

In message >, W. D. Allen Sr.
> writes
>The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break
>through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were
>lost, most before they got to the dam.

The Ruhr Dam? Where this? And when was the raid.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Henry J Cobb

June 20th 04, 10:31 PM

M. J. Powell wrote:
> In message >, W. D. Allen Sr.
> > writes
>> The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break
>> through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were
>> lost, most before they got to the dam.
>
> The Ruhr Dam? Where this? And when was the raid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

-HJC

M. J. Powell

June 20th 04, 11:26 PM

In message >, Henry J Cobb >
writes
>M. J. Powell wrote:
>> In message >, W. D. Allen Sr.
> writes
>>> The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break
>>> through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were
>>> lost, most before they got to the dam.
>> The Ruhr Dam? Where this? And when was the raid.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

Oh. The singular fooled me.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Krztalizer

June 21st 04, 02:19 AM

>>through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were
>>lost, most before they got to the dam.

The Taiwanese await the rise of their own Barnes Wallace, should they be so
lucky as to ever have one.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

Kevin Brooks

June 21st 04, 05:33 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable
> > of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality
> > check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over
> > 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of
> > concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record
> > holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality
> > check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even
> > conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive
> > dimensions? Answer--none.
>
> Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd
> think."

I believe your analysis is a bit faulty in this case; see below.

>
> The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick
> at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir,
> you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since
> it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the
> point the Wallis bomb broke it.

The Wallis bomb was apparently good against a target that did not exceed
about 50-feet thickness at the point of detonation (see:
www.arnsberger-heimatbund.de/moehneattack.html ). The Mohne and Eider dams
challenged the ability of the Walls bomb to do the job, and as you note the
Three Gorges is substantially more massive (and you may be a bit low on your
estimate--remember that the dam crest sits about ten meters above the flood
stage overflow water profile, from what I have read).

Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb
> was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges
> with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive,

Now we are getting into fantasy land (I know, that is a place where Henry
usually enjopys playing, but still...). The point here was a Taiwanese
capability of delivering a warhead to the target and doing the deed--I doubt
the PLA would stand idly by while a Taiwanese transport aircraft (and that
is what it would take to deliver a weapon of the size you are indicating)
idles in bound towards the dam. Neither can you reliably count on the
relationship between explosive size and depth of breach being a geometric
relationship, either. There is a *reason* we planned on taking dams out with
ADM's back in the bad ol' days--they, along with large suspension bridges,
are just plain nasty targets to try and take out with externally emplaced
explosives.

maybe with a
> shaped charge.

Nope. Shaped charges work lousy through water--the water disrupts the jet
formation. And shaped charge penetration has a couple of nasty
characteristics that further sink this option of your's--first, penetration
depth is based largely upon the diameter of the liner and acheiving the
optimal standoff distance (you'd need one tremendously large diameter liner,
and all of that water gets in the way of the jet formation, unless you are
arguing for hitting the "open" face, in which case congrats, you just
penetrated the concrete--to a max depth of maybe six or eight meters, that
is), and second, the jet actually creates a comparitively itty-bitty little
hole (maybe between one-tenth and one-fifth the diameter of the liner). A
shaped charge is a no-go, from the get-go.

Do that at one-third of the way down from the crest
> (deeper than the Mohne, you get a lot more boost from the water
> pressure), and you could flood central China with a bigger flood than
> any recorded in history.

I don't think so, based upon the comments above.

>
> There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80
> fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it).

OK, now you are arguing that the PRC themselves may have created a potential
future catastrophe in the making--plausible, but unlikely IMO (a 2 meter
depth crack is nothing if the thickness of the mass at that point is seventy
or eighty meters).

>
> A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese
> government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in
> order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its
> own.

But the source induicated for this discussion is not the PRC, but a DoD
report that included some musings accredited to Taiwanese, with TG merely
being offered as an example.

>
> > The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000
> > pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy
> > on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters"
> > approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles
> > of fish.
>
> The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be
> air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream
> and place with divers.

That is one big puppy you are talking about smuggling into the PRC,
assembling, and then getting into place. Not exactly what I'd call a
reliable military strike option.

Brooks
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

Kevin Brooks

June 21st 04, 05:50 AM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>>>>>http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> > Now, did the articles in
> > question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario
or
> > not?
>
> Yes.
>
> > My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that
some
> > Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to
strike
> > mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that?
>
> If the DoD didn't think the treat was realistic why did they bring it up?

Nice example of typical Cobbian doublespeak, Henry. Let's look again at the
*exact* wording of what you believe to be a claim that they can/should be
able to breach Three Gorges:

"Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring
weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a
cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a latent
capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the
need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot
match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes
against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats
to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges
Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD
report)

Now, does it say Taiwan has such a capability? Nope. Does it say that Taiwan
is planning to develop such a capability? Nope. All it says is that some
Taiwanese officials believe they should develop a capability of posing
"credible threats to China's urban population or high- value targets", with
TG being offered as an example. Now, if they instead had used an example
like "such as the PRC petroleum industry", would that by definition mean
they had to destroy outright every tankfarm in the PRC, or might it also
accept merely taking out some major pipelines and disrupting their refining
operations? YOU are the guy who leaped to the conclusions that (a) the
example of TG was some sort of sacrosanct pillar of this new strategy, and
(b) posing a "credible threat" to TG requires physically breaching the dam,
and would not be satisfied by merely cutting off its generating capacity, or
destroying its associated locks, etc. The DoD report did not reach those
conclusions--YOU did; and as usual, your analysis is sorely wanting for a
taste of reality, and your willingness to take a statement completely out of
context to suit your own strange views remains as strong as ever.

>
> Do they know something that you don't or are they trying to spin a
non-story to
> the media and if so for what reason?

No, you are doing all of the spinning in this case--they said what they
said, and it does not have any resemblance to what you have concocted it as
saying.

Brooks

>
> -HJC

Chad Irby

June 21st 04, 08:19 AM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > > If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon
> > > capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you
> > > need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension
> > > work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus
> > > *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of
> > > the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a
> > > 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional
> > > weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could
> > > *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none.
> >
> > Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd
> > think."
>
> I believe your analysis is a bit faulty in this case; see below.

While I'm *sure* yours is, from the assumptions you made about
thickness. Height and overall mass is all well and good, but stress,
construction and *thickness* are the important issues for a Wallis-type
bomb. The Three Gorges, while very tall and very long, isn't as thick
as you seem to think.

> > The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite
> > thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full
> > reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive
> > package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the
> > Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it.
>
> The Wallis bomb was apparently good against a target that did not
> exceed about 50-feet thickness at the point of detonation (see:
> www.arnsberger-heimatbund.de/moehneattack.html ). The Mohne and
> Eider dams challenged the ability of the Walls bomb to do the job,

Actually, it was the *placement* of the bombs that caused the issues.
One bomb, well-placed, was more than enough in each case. Their aiming
system was a couple of spotlights and a piece of wood with nails in it...

> and as you note the Three Gorges is substantially more massive (and
> you may be a bit low on your estimate--remember that the dam crest
> sits about ten meters above the flood stage overflow water profile,
> from what I have read).

"Substantially" being about twice, at about the halfway point. Which is
why I mentioned a much larger weapon with a much more powerful
explosive. Fired off at a deeper location, double the water depth,
double the tamping effect, placed directly against the surface, you
should be able to get at least a factor of four more destruction, which
would do a lot to the twice-as-thick wall of the Three Gorges at about
halfway down.

> > Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could
> > probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve
> > ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive,
>
> Now we are getting into fantasy land (I know, that is a place where Henry
> usually enjopys playing, but still...).

Nope. As I mentioned, it's certainly a feasible thing to do. Not
airdropped (as I mentioned further into my post), but it's not hard at
all to place large items by hand, if suitably ballasted. A modern high
explosive would do a *lot* more damage than anything they'd try to use
in WWII. A higher propagation velocity would *magnify* the effects
versus WWII high explosives.

> > There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had
> > 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started
> > filling it).
>
> OK, now you are arguing that the PRC themselves may have created a
> potential future catastrophe in the making--plausible, but unlikely
> IMO (a 2 meter depth crack is nothing if the thickness of the mass at
> that point is seventy or eighty meters).

....except that the thickness you're talking about is only at the
*bottom* of the dam. It slopes in a *lot* on the downstream side to
about the halfway point, where it's less than 100 feet thick (the
upstream side is a vertical wall from top to bottom). A two meter depth
*surface* crack in concrete is almost certainly not the only crack
you've got in a structure that size (besides the 80 surface cracks they
know of, how many are there deeper in?).

China isn't famous for good construction practices, and average over a
hundred dam collapses per *year*.

> > A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese
> > government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories
> > in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets
> > go on its own.
>
> But the source induicated for this discussion is not the PRC, but a DoD
> report that included some musings accredited to Taiwanese, with TG merely
> being offered as an example.

The original DoD report only mentioned that Taiwan might hold the option
to attack various high-value targets (like 3 Gorges) in China if the
Chinese invaded Taiwan (as possible strategies), but the PRC has already
made some very strong comments. There are other sources than the one
minor one that started this thread.

"It will provoke retaliation that will 'blot out the sky and cover up
the earth,'" according to one general in the PRC, quoted in a lot of
places (Reuters story, June 16).

Note that the Pentagon report on this was from last year. Why the
strong comments *now*?

> > The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be
> > air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble
> > upstream and place with divers.
>
> That is one big puppy you are talking about smuggling into the PRC,
> assembling, and then getting into place. Not exactly what I'd call a
> reliable military strike option.

Actually, it's not really that large. A good-sized truck would hold it.
Or a few bribes to one or more PRC officers to get some stuff that's
already handy. Not to mention that there was probably a few thousand
tons of TNT used during the construction of 3G, and diverting a fraction
of a percent of that wouldn't be too tough.

Hell, unless the PRC has some *extreme* measures in place, it wouldn't
be that hard to put a *hundred* ton bomb of some sort in a boat, steer
it to the dam, and sink it with a depth sensor for detonation...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

June 21st 04, 08:29 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon
> > > > capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you
> > > > need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension
> > > > work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus
> > > > *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of
> > > > the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a
> > > > 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional
> > > > weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could
> > > > *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none.
> > >
> > > Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd
> > > think."
> >
> > I believe your analysis is a bit faulty in this case; see below.
>
> While I'm *sure* yours is, from the assumptions you made about
> thickness. Height and overall mass is all well and good, but stress,
> construction and *thickness* are the important issues for a Wallis-type
> bomb. The Three Gorges, while very tall and very long, isn't as thick
> as you seem to think.

Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the
structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams
mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise
that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist
the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could
get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the
structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you
have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters
and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in
the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross
section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it
will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides
the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built).
>
> > > The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite
> > > thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full
> > > reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive
> > > package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the
> > > Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it.
> >
> > The Wallis bomb was apparently good against a target that did not
> > exceed about 50-feet thickness at the point of detonation (see:
> > www.arnsberger-heimatbund.de/moehneattack.html ). The Mohne and
> > Eider dams challenged the ability of the Walls bomb to do the job,
>
> Actually, it was the *placement* of the bombs that caused the issues.
> One bomb, well-placed, was more than enough in each case. Their aiming
> system was a couple of spotlights and a piece of wood with nails in it...
>
> > and as you note the Three Gorges is substantially more massive (and
> > you may be a bit low on your estimate--remember that the dam crest
> > sits about ten meters above the flood stage overflow water profile,
> > from what I have read).
>
> "Substantially" being about twice, at about the halfway point. Which is
> why I mentioned a much larger weapon with a much more powerful
> explosive. Fired off at a deeper location, double the water depth,
> double the tamping effect, placed directly against the surface, you
> should be able to get at least a factor of four more destruction, which
> would do a lot to the twice-as-thick wall of the Three Gorges at about
> halfway down.

Let's see. Since the max ordinate for the dam in terms of upstream fill is
supposed to be only about 175 meters, from what I have read, you halfway
dimension would apparently be, based upon that 122 meter estimate above,
something like 57 meters--let's be generous and assume a more favorable
number for you, of maybe 40 meters (reflecting a more realistic actual cross
section). Which last I knew was quite a bit more than 100 feet--more like
125 feet?

Not sure that your everything-increases-linearly-as-you go-down concept is
the most accurate way of describing this situation. By that reasoning one
could kill submarines at great depth with mere handgrenades, right?

> > > Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could
> > > probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve
> > > ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive,
> >
> > Now we are getting into fantasy land (I know, that is a place where
Henry
> > usually enjopys playing, but still...).
>
> Nope. As I mentioned, it's certainly a feasible thing to do. Not
> airdropped (as I mentioned further into my post),

Then you just made it infeasible in terms of being strike weapon, which is
what this thread is all about. We are not discussing the possibility of
driving a trainload of HE to the dam and carefully assembling and placing a
massive charge in the reservoir--we are talking about military strike
options.

but it's not hard at
> all to place large items by hand, if suitably ballasted. A modern high
> explosive would do a *lot* more damage than anything they'd try to use
> in WWII. A higher propagation velocity would *magnify* the effects
> versus WWII high explosives.

What you are referring to is the Relative Effectiveness factor (RE), which
uses TNT, a WWII explosive if there ever was one, as the basis of
measurement (with a value of 1.00); C-4 had an RE of 1.34. But you have to
be careful here; C-4 does indeed exhibit significantly faster propogation,
and hence "brisance" (or "shattering effect") when compared to TNT, but if
you instead want to start looking at its other qualities, such as its
"heave" effect, you will find very little difference.

>
> > > There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had
> > > 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started
> > > filling it).
> >
> > OK, now you are arguing that the PRC themselves may have created a
> > potential future catastrophe in the making--plausible, but unlikely
> > IMO (a 2 meter depth crack is nothing if the thickness of the mass at
> > that point is seventy or eighty meters).
>
> ...except that the thickness you're talking about is only at the
> *bottom* of the dam. It slopes in a *lot* on the downstream side to
> about the halfway point, where it's less than 100 feet thick (the
> upstream side is a vertical wall from top to bottom). A two meter depth
> *surface* crack in concrete is almost certainly not the only crack
> you've got in a structure that size (besides the 80 surface cracks they
> know of, how many are there deeper in?).

Newsflash--concrete cracks. It is quite a common occurence. The real issue
is the roientation of said cracks; running vertically, no big deal.
Horizontally, you may have something to start worrying about.

>
> China isn't famous for good construction practices, and average over a
> hundred dam collapses per *year*.
>
> > > A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese
> > > government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories
> > > in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets
> > > go on its own.
> >
> > But the source induicated for this discussion is not the PRC, but a DoD
> > report that included some musings accredited to Taiwanese, with TG
merely
> > being offered as an example.
>
> The original DoD report only mentioned that Taiwan might hold the option
> to attack various high-value targets (like 3 Gorges) in China if the
> Chinese invaded Taiwan (as possible strategies), but the PRC has already
> made some very strong comments. There are other sources than the one
> minor one that started this thread.
>
> "It will provoke retaliation that will 'blot out the sky and cover up
> the earth,'" according to one general in the PRC, quoted in a lot of
> places (Reuters story, June 16).
>
> Note that the Pentagon report on this was from last year. Why the
> strong comments *now*?

Who knows? Who really cares, given that the Taiwanese don't have, and won't
be getting, any capbility of breaching said dam. Now, can they hit the
ancilliary structures and do a temendous amoundt of damage? You betcha--and
I'd be willing to bet that is the kind of thing that the PRC would be more
worried about.

>
> > > The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be
> > > air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble
> > > upstream and place with divers.
> >
> > That is one big puppy you are talking about smuggling into the PRC,
> > assembling, and then getting into place. Not exactly what I'd call a
> > reliable military strike option.
>
> Actually, it's not really that large. A good-sized truck would hold it.
> Or a few bribes to one or more PRC officers to get some stuff that's
> already handy. Not to mention that there was probably a few thousand
> tons of TNT used during the construction of 3G, and diverting a fraction
> of a percent of that wouldn't be too tough.
>
> Hell, unless the PRC has some *extreme* measures in place, it wouldn't
> be that hard to put a *hundred* ton bomb of some sort in a boat, steer
> it to the dam, and sink it with a depth sensor for detonation...

OK, now we are getting into true fantasy land. This discussion started out
about military strike operations, not John Wayne/Errol Flynn/Rambo
Supercommando operations. The psited case is for Taiwan to do this in order
to retaliate against a PRC invasion--and you see commandos, and boats, etc.,
running willy nilly about all over and around the dam, on land and water?
Come on, now...

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

June 21st 04, 08:52 PM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the
> structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams
> mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise
> that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist
> the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could
> get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the
> structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you
> have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters
> and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in
> the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross
> section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it
> will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides
> the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built).

You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is
the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.

Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam
itself by at *least* a factor of two.

That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

June 22nd 04, 03:39 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that
the
> > structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams
> > mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to
surmise
> > that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to
resist
> > the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we
could
> > get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the
> > structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe
you
> > have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185
meters
> > and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement
in
> > the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross
> > section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it
> > will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually
provides
> > the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built).
>
> You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
> cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is
> the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
> structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.

I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in
terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear
relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be
completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in the
absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at
various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide them.

>
> Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam
> itself by at *least* a factor of two.

Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came
across in a quick search.

>
> That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window.

LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge
(giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork" is a
real hoot...

Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic
retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that
puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

June 22nd 04, 04:00 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made
that
> the
> > > structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams
> > > mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to
> surmise
> > > that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to
> resist
> > > the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we
> could
> > > get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the
> > > structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I
believe
> you
> > > have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185
> meters
> > > and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom
measurement
> in
> > > the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross
> > > section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but
it
> > > will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually
> provides
> > > the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built).
> >
> > You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
> > cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is
> > the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
> > structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.
>
> I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in
> terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear
> relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be
> completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in
the
> absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at
> various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide them.
>
> >
> > Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam
> > itself by at *least* a factor of two.
>
> Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came
> across in a quick search.
>
> >
> > That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window.
>
> LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge
> (giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork" is
a
> real hoot...
>
> Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic
> retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that
> puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
Kevin, they don't even have to come close to breaching it. Weaken it, water
is relentless, it'll find a way through....
T3

Chad Irby

June 22nd 04, 04:11 AM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...

> > You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
> > cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is
> > the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
> > structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.
>
> I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in
> terms of actual numbers.

I did mention that the dam didn't have as big a cross-section as you
think, with approximate thicknesses. You chose to ignore that, so it's
your problem, not mine.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

June 22nd 04, 05:10 AM

"T3" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made
> that
> > the
> > > > structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine
dams
> > > > mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to
> > surmise
> > > > that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to
> > resist
> > > > the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course,
we
> > could
> > > > get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of
the
> > > > structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I
> believe
> > you
> > > > have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185
> > meters
> > > > and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom
> measurement
> > in
> > > > the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing
cross
> > > > section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case,
but
> it
> > > > will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually
> > provides
> > > > the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built).
> > >
> > > You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
> > > cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project*
is
> > > the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
> > > structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.
> >
> > I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip
in
> > terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear
> > relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be
> > completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in
> the
> > absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at
> > various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide
them.
> >
> > >
> > > Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam
> > > itself by at *least* a factor of two.
> >
> > Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came
> > across in a quick search.
> >
> > >
> > > That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window.
> >
> > LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge
> > (giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork"
is
> a
> > real hoot...
> >
> > Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic
> > retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that
> > puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> Kevin, they don't even have to come close to breaching it. Weaken it,
water
> is relentless, it'll find a way through....
> T3

This is all about posing a credible military threat. You are right in saying
they don't have to breach it--much easier to take out the generating
station, or substations, powerlines, locks, etc. Those things are all
conceivable. Breaching it, as a military reponse to a PRC invasion/attack,
is not.

Brooks
>
>

Kevin Brooks

June 22nd 04, 05:15 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
>
> > > You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
> > > cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project*
is
> > > the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
> > > structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.
> >
> > I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip
in
> > terms of actual numbers.
>
> I did mention that the dam didn't have as big a cross-section as you
> think, with approximate thicknesses. You chose to ignore that, so it's
> your problem, not mine.

You have not provided any specific numbers, period. You carped that it was,
"...being about twice..." the cross sectional depth of the Rhine dams--OK,
where did you get that from? I told you that I thought you were a bit shy in
that estimate, and gave you the reasoning behind why I thought so. You did
not respond with any actual measurement--you just carped again.What are the
exact measurements at that point, since you seem to be so offended by the
use of the rough calcs I gave you? In other words, where is the beef, Chad?

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

John Keeney

June 22nd 04, 07:56 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's see. Since the max ordinate for the dam in terms of upstream fill is
> supposed to be only about 175 meters, from what I have read, you halfway
> dimension would apparently be, based upon that 122 meter estimate above,
> something like 57 meters--let's be generous and assume a more favorable
> number for you, of maybe 40 meters (reflecting a more realistic actual
cross
> section). Which last I knew was quite a bit more than 100 feet--more like
> 125 feet?

125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of GBU-28s
should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out that
big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I expect
that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could well
be an issue.

David E. Powell

June 22nd 04, 08:40 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

SNIP

dam, and sink it with a depth sensor for detonation...
>
> OK, now we are getting into true fantasy land. This discussion started out
> about military strike operations, not John Wayne/Errol Flynn/Rambo
> Supercommando operations. The psited case is for Taiwan to do this in
order
> to retaliate against a PRC invasion--and you see commandos, and boats,
etc.,
> running willy nilly about all over and around the dam, on land and water?
> Come on, now...
>
> Brooks

Then there are two options which come to mind.

The first requires more in the way of aircraft and weapons, number wise, and
if Taiwan is being threatened by superior forces or heavily bombarded would
be much more difficult to pull off. It would involve those carbon filament
"grid buster" bombs or missile warheads shot all over the dam's power lines,
as well as damage to whatever generators or transformers could be hit with
conventional bombs. Plus ships or other things in the area.

The second requires a nuclear bomb, perhaps encased in a penetrator case. I
suppose this one would be right out, however.

If it were go for broke and it were me, I would encase a small but powerful
implosion device, maybe with a depleted uranium casing and tip in front of
the guidance unit, in an old cannon barrel. Smash it through five to ten
meters if possible then blow the crap out of it. The U-238 will add
significant radiation to the site, though fallout would be limited by
detonation in concrete and under water, depending on how much is ejected
upwards, of course.

Of course, at this point the PRC nukes Taiwan, so the second method is
rather pointless to consider, no?

> > --
> > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> >
> > Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> > Slam on brakes accordingly.

David E. Powell

June 22nd 04, 08:41 AM

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:42:35 -0700,
> Henry J Cobb attempted to say .....
>
> > What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan either
has now
> > or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam?
> >
> > http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/torpedo-dam.html
> >
>
> Instant Sunshine

Yep.

> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Kevin Brooks

June 22nd 04, 02:32 PM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Let's see. Since the max ordinate for the dam in terms of upstream fill
is
> > supposed to be only about 175 meters, from what I have read, you halfway
> > dimension would apparently be, based upon that 122 meter estimate above,
> > something like 57 meters--let's be generous and assume a more favorable
> > number for you, of maybe 40 meters (reflecting a more realistic actual
> cross
> > section). Which last I knew was quite a bit more than 100 feet--more
like
> > 125 feet?
>
> 125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of GBU-28s
> should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out that
> big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I expect
> that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
> Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could well
> be an issue.

First, Taiwan has no -28 delivery capability; the USAF limits such weapons
to deployment on B-2's and F-15E's, IIRC. Secondly, GBU-28 penetration in
concrete is about 20 feet from what I have read (the over 100 feet number is
an earthen penetration. So don't be expectin' to punch many neat little
holes with it in such a structure.

Brooks
>
>

WaltBJ

June 22nd 04, 07:19 PM

Think 100 tons of C4 would do it? I know how to get it there. As for
LZs, I made a bunch of them but never wanted to land there.
Walt BJ

John Keeney

June 23rd 04, 06:36 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> >
> > 125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of GBU-28s
> > should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out
that
> > big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I
expect
> > that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
> > Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could well
> > be an issue.
>
> First, Taiwan has no -28 delivery capability; the USAF limits such weapons
> to deployment on B-2's and F-15E's, IIRC. Secondly, GBU-28 penetration in
> concrete is about 20 feet from what I have read (the over 100 feet number
is
> an earthen penetration. So don't be expectin' to punch many neat little
> holes with it in such a structure.

I was thinking along the lines of multiple hits in the same location.
If the first bomb penetrates 20 feet it will also crater x more feet
and fracture y more feet softening the remaining concrete. I
would be kind of surprised if three well placed GBU-28s couldn't
penetrate a hundred feet of reinforced concrete damn, four I would
think a near certainty.
I doubt we've provided GBU-28s to too many folks around the world
but it's not exactly a design concept cloaked in secrecy and mystery.
Taiwan should be able produce a comparable design scaled for their
delivery capability; assuming of course they HAVE a system capable
of making it that far inland. Uh, how far exactly would that be?

Kevin Brooks

June 23rd 04, 06:25 PM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > 125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of
GBU-28s
> > > should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out
> that
> > > big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I
> expect
> > > that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
> > > Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could
well
> > > be an issue.
> >
> > First, Taiwan has no -28 delivery capability; the USAF limits such
weapons
> > to deployment on B-2's and F-15E's, IIRC. Secondly, GBU-28 penetration
in
> > concrete is about 20 feet from what I have read (the over 100 feet
number
> is
> > an earthen penetration. So don't be expectin' to punch many neat little
> > holes with it in such a structure.
>
> I was thinking along the lines of multiple hits in the same location.
> If the first bomb penetrates 20 feet it will also crater x more feet
> and fracture y more feet softening the remaining concrete. I
> would be kind of surprised if three well placed GBU-28s couldn't
> penetrate a hundred feet of reinforced concrete damn, four I would
> think a near certainty.
> I doubt we've provided GBU-28s to too many folks around the world
> but it's not exactly a design concept cloaked in secrecy and mystery.
> Taiwan should be able produce a comparable design scaled for their
> delivery capability; assuming of course they HAVE a system capable
> of making it that far inland. Uh, how far exactly would that be?

Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles from
Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent potential
ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging weapons heavier than
anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000 mile round trip, with aerial
refueling being a bit of a problem (both because the Taiwanese have no
current refueling capability, and because setting up a tanker track over the
PRC proper might not be the most advisable course of action...). Requiring
successive, multiple hits against the same exact point of impact...yeah,
that's a real doable option! :-)

Are you beginning to see why the idea of actually breaching the dam is sort
of a non-starter in terms of realistic options?

Brooks
>
>

Chad Irby

June 23rd 04, 08:16 PM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
> from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
> potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
> weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
> mile round trip,

....because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
infrastructure, right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Peter Kemp

June 23rd 04, 08:32 PM

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:32 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
>> Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
>> from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
>> potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
>> weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
>> mile round trip,
>
>...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
>mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
>infrastructure, right?

Would you send a large number of your best planes on a one way
mission, knowng that teh air disparity would be even worse? And
incidentally, ensuring that your own island would be attacked by every
means possible. If the 3 gorges goes, I'm fairly sure the PRC would be
less hesitant about turning Formosa into a floating heap of ash.

Peter Kemp

Peter G

June 23rd 04, 10:05 PM

Peter Kemp wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:32 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
>>>from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
>>>potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
>>>weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
>>>mile round trip,
>>
>>...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
>>mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
>>infrastructure, right?
>
>
> Would you send a large number of your best planes on a one way
> mission, knowng that teh air disparity would be even worse? And
> incidentally, ensuring that your own island would be attacked by every
> means possible. If the 3 gorges goes, I'm fairly sure the PRC would be
> less hesitant about turning Formosa into a floating heap of ash.
>
> Peter Kemp

Perhaps a credible threat to the dam could be an argument AGAINST
war,for the chinese.If both sides risk losing to much,war is a less
attractive alternative to diplomacy and peaceful co-existance.It has
worked before.

Kevin Brooks

June 23rd 04, 11:06 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
> > from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
> > potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
> > weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
> > mile round trip,
>
> ...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
> mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
> infrastructure, right?

The above is about what one would expect from the guy who earlier postulated
that maybe a *really* big shaped charge would do the trick, before
meandering off into the world of Supercommando underwater demolition attacks
1400 miles up the Yangtze with a few *tons* of explosives toted along for
the purpose...or were you going to just have these Rambos mix their own demo
on site? (Gawd, you'll probably argue they should submerge a few tons of
ammonium nitrate... LOL!)

No, the idea of Taiwan sacrificing a goodly portion of its best fighters,
when faced with a growing PLAAF threat themselves, does not make much sense.
Face it, *if* Taiwan were to embark on this strange Three Gorges strategy
(strange because there are a heck of a lot of other high-value targets
located a whale of a lot closer than TG, and a lot easier to neutralize),
and even that has not been conclusively demonstrated yet, then they would be
looking at ways of removing TG's value without gunning for a full breach of
the dam itself. Cruise missiles can take down the supported power grid and
generating stations, and it is even conceivable that the Taiwanese could
develop some capability to knock the associated locks out of operation;
anything beyond that is fantasy, short of them using a nuclear wepon of
their own (a generally *bad* idea).

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

Chad Irby

June 23rd 04, 11:22 PM

In article >,
Peter Kemp > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:32 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500
> >> miles from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the
> >> most potent potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess),
> >> lugging weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on
> >> a 3000 mile round trip,
> >
> >...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
> >mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
> >infrastructure, right?
>
> Would you send a large number of your best planes on a one way
> mission, knowng that teh air disparity would be even worse?

No, but who says that's what's needed? A handful of very accurate
weapons that could damage the 3GD enough so it would fall apart on its
own, versus sitting on the ground and getting pounded by missiles for a
few weeks?

Having a big, high-value mission like a 3GD takeout would be a *great*
deterrent for the folks in the area of the PRC, since the only other
option seems to be nukes. The PRC is starting to look more like a
threat to the little guys in the area, due to their recent arms
expansions.

> And incidentally, ensuring that your own island would be attacked by
> every means possible.

....as if Taiwan would be untouched if the PRC decided to remove them
from the area, right?

> If the 3 gorges goes, I'm fairly sure the PRC would be
> less hesitant about turning Formosa into a floating heap of ash.

If Formosa is in the situation where they feel the need to do such
damage to the mainland, you can pretty much bet that the worst would
already be on the way.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

June 23rd 04, 11:25 PM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
> > > from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
> > > potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
> > > weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
> > > mile round trip,
> >
> > ...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
> > mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
> > infrastructure, right?
>
> The above is about what one would expect

....from the United States. In WWII. Like when the US "threw away' a
handful of medium bombers in a *symbolic* attack on the Japanese home
islands.

> No, the idea of Taiwan sacrificing a goodly portion of its best fighters,
> when faced with a growing PLAAF threat themselves, does not make much sense.

....to someone who thinks the attack would never work, since he doesn't
have any idea of the size of the target, the effects and accuracy of
modern weapons, or what people will do when pushed by a big threat.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

June 23rd 04, 11:38 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
> > > > from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most
potent
> > > > potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
> > > > weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
> > > > mile round trip,
> > >
> > > ...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
> > > mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
> > > infrastructure, right?
> >
> > The above is about what one would expect
>
> ...from the United States. In WWII. Like when the US "threw away' a
> handful of medium bombers in a *symbolic* attack on the Japanese home
> islands.

No, you must have mistakenly snipped ('cause you sure as hell did not note
the snippage) the little bit about your predilection for proposing
outlandish and unworkable "options"; here it is again for you:

....from the guy who earlier postulated
that maybe a *really* big shaped charge would do the trick, before
meandering off into the world of Supercommando underwater demolition attacks
1400 miles up the Yangtze with a few *tons* of explosives toted along for
the purpose...or were you going to just have these Rambos mix their own demo
on site? (Gawd, you'll probably argue they should submerge a few tons of
ammonium nitrate... LOL!)

>
> > No, the idea of Taiwan sacrificing a goodly portion of its best
fighters,
> > when faced with a growing PLAAF threat themselves, does not make much
sense.
>
> ...to someone who thinks the attack would never work, since he doesn't
> have any idea of the size of the target, the effects and accuracy of
> modern weapons, or what people will do when pushed by a big threat.

The burden of proof lies with you--thus far you have claimed it could be
done with one honking BIG commando raid toting a few tons of explosives in
and placing it upstream of the dam, which is located as we have seen *well*
within the confines of the PRC, or maybe bombs that can't be hauled by
anything in Taiwanese service (and only by MC-130's in *US* service), or
perhaps with a truly gargantuan shaped charge (ignoring that whole
water-screws-up-shaped-charges bit). Excuse me for recognizing that none of
these are workable military solutions, and one of them (that Mongo Shaped
Charge theory of your's) is even a physical impossibility (congrats--you
have now joined the ranks of Henry in the "clueless yet limitlessly
hardheaded" category). And BTW, where are those precise dam measurements you
keep alluding to but never produce when repeatedly asked for them, huh?

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

Chad Irby

June 24th 04, 01:38 AM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

<snip>

Basically, everything you've said so far has been "it's not possible to
do with a bigger dam because, well, technology hasn't advanced enough
over the last *60 years*, and nobody would do a one-way mission even
though it would be a really major hit on the Chinese, and enough of a
deterrent to keep them from attacking Taiwan."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

June 24th 04, 03:31 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Basically, everything you've said so far has been "it's not possible to
> do with a bigger dam because, well, technology hasn't advanced enough
> over the last *60 years*, and nobody would do a one-way mission even
> though it would be a really major hit on the Chinese, and enough of a
> deterrent to keep them from attacking Taiwan."

One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to
have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the only
rough estimates so far concocted)? Keep on designing that nifty shaped
charge warhead of your's, Chad... you have proven to be about as full of hot
air, and afraid to present your supposed 'real' data, as the Tarvernaut.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

Chad Irby

June 24th 04, 05:38 AM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to
> have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the only
> rough estimates so far concocted)?

I gave up on trying to argue anything like numbers with you when you
went off into the insults, using your "estimates" that were pretty much
just guesswork tailored to your point of view. The only thing you're
interested in is in proving that *nobody* can blow up a big stationary
concrete thing with bombs or explosives.

But since you're interested in numbers, the *maximum* thickness of the
base of the 3GD is under a hundred meters (less than your *average* base
guess), and the slope, as I've described, does not continue all the way
to the top, but is about a hundred feet thick about halfway up (from the
photos that are all over the Web, but which you don't seem to be
interested in looking at, relying on your guesswork on how you think the
dam *should* be constructed).

Your criticisms of some of the scenarios I've suggested mostly rely on
"nobody could or would do that," while not noticing that people *have*
done similar unusual attacks over the course of the last hundred years.
Or the last *year*, for that matter.

Even doing without the "exotic" scenarios, a flight of F-16s could make
a one-way run into China carrying up to two 2,000 pound bombs each, and
even the standard-issue JDAMs would crack the 3GD if you hit in about
the same spot a dozen times with one ton bombs. The loss of a
half-dozen F-16s would inconvenience the Taiwanese, while hitting the
3GD with even a moderately effective attack would *cripple* China.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

June 24th 04, 04:48 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to
> > have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the
only
> > rough estimates so far concocted)?
>
> I gave up on trying to argue anything like numbers with you when you
> went off into the insults, using your "estimates" that were pretty much
> just guesswork tailored to your point of view. The only thing you're
> interested in is in proving that *nobody* can blow up a big stationary
> concrete thing with bombs or explosives.
>
> But since you're interested in numbers, the *maximum* thickness of the
> base of the 3GD is under a hundred meters (less than your *average* base
> guess), and the slope, as I've described, does not continue all the way
> to the top, but is about a hundred feet thick about halfway up (from the
> photos that are all over the Web, but which you don't seem to be
> interested in looking at, relying on your guesswork on how you think the
> dam *should* be constructed).

Source please? That does not compute with the photos I have seen of the
structure under construction, which show a typical gravity dam structure
with a footprint that appears to excced the one-half height value by some
degree.

>
> Your criticisms of some of the scenarios I've suggested mostly rely on
> "nobody could or would do that," while not noticing that people *have*
> done similar unusual attacks over the course of the last hundred years.
> Or the last *year*, for that matter.

My criticism of your scenarios is based upon the utter stupidity they
exhibit--a freaking *shaped charge* that can penetrate TG??! You have got to
be smoking some wild weed...

And those similar attacks you refer to seem to have been directed against
arch dam structures--do you know the difference between that design and a
gravity structure? What is the difference in the lao9d paths between the
two? And BTW, where did you get *your* civil engineering degree?

>
> Even doing without the "exotic" scenarios, a flight of F-16s could make
> a one-way run into China carrying up to two 2,000 pound bombs each, and
> even the standard-issue JDAMs would crack the 3GD if you hit in about
> the same spot a dozen times with one ton bombs. The loss of a
> half-dozen F-16s would inconvenience the Taiwanese, while hitting the
> 3GD with even a moderately effective attack would *cripple* China.

Being as you can't seem to grasp the difference between an arch and gravity
structure, have postulated that maybe a *really* big shaped charge could do
the trick (howl!), and *still* have not provided any reputable exact figures
for the dam's dimensions, despite repeated pleas for you to do so, I can
conclude that you are utterly and completely clueless as to what is involved
here; that you now think that the ROCAF would be willing to decimate its
fighter force (12 delivery aircraft plus how many support aircraft to ensure
they get there?) in a wild attempt to place twelve successive hits against
the same precise aimpoint, just provides further evidence that you have lost
all touch with reality in terms of this scenario. And what happened to those
other theories of your's--the uberCommandos toting a twelve or more odd tons
of demo in and placing it 1400 miles upstream, or the massive shaped charge
(snort!)?

Chad, you need to sit back and take a few deep breaths and try to regain
contact with reality--you have lost the bubble here.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

Kevin Brooks

June 24th 04, 05:07 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > > One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming
to
> > > have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the
> only
> > > rough estimates so far concocted)?
> >
> > I gave up on trying to argue anything like numbers with you when you
> > went off into the insults, using your "estimates" that were pretty much
> > just guesswork tailored to your point of view. The only thing you're
> > interested in is in proving that *nobody* can blow up a big stationary
> > concrete thing with bombs or explosives.
> >
> > But since you're interested in numbers, the *maximum* thickness of the
> > base of the 3GD is under a hundred meters (less than your *average* base
> > guess), and the slope, as I've described, does not continue all the way
> > to the top, but is about a hundred feet thick about halfway up (from the
> > photos that are all over the Web, but which you don't seem to be
> > interested in looking at, relying on your guesswork on how you think the
> > dam *should* be constructed).
>
> Source please? That does not compute with the photos I have seen of the
> structure under construction, which show a typical gravity dam structure
> with a footprint that appears to excced the one-half height value by some
> degree.
>
> >
> > Your criticisms of some of the scenarios I've suggested mostly rely on
> > "nobody could or would do that," while not noticing that people *have*
> > done similar unusual attacks over the course of the last hundred years.
> > Or the last *year*, for that matter.
>
> My criticism of your scenarios is based upon the utter stupidity they
> exhibit--a freaking *shaped charge* that can penetrate TG??! You have got
to
> be smoking some wild weed...
>
> And those similar attacks you refer to seem to have been directed against
> arch dam structures--do you know the difference between that design and a
> gravity structure? What is the difference in the lao9d paths between the
> two? And BTW, where did you get *your* civil engineering degree?
>
> >
> > Even doing without the "exotic" scenarios, a flight of F-16s could make
> > a one-way run into China carrying up to two 2,000 pound bombs each, and
> > even the standard-issue JDAMs would crack the 3GD if you hit in about
> > the same spot a dozen times with one ton bombs. The loss of a
> > half-dozen F-16s would inconvenience the Taiwanese, while hitting the
> > 3GD with even a moderately effective attack would *cripple* China.

Man, I just reread what you wrote, and noticed that I missed the bit about
limiting it to six aircraft with two weapons each...sorry. Gee, I guess that
means you intend to have them each make two attack runs on the target (after
they have just transited some 1400-1500 miles of PLAAF airspace, that is) so
that they can get those successive strikes against the same aimpoint, right?
I don't know...that sounds a bit overly optimistic to me. Of course, I am
sure you have each aircraft moving off into a holding pattern to allow the
dust/smoke from the previous strike to clear sufficiently for the next
aircraft to acheive the necessary laser lock on the aimpoint, too, and have
included a number of spare airframes in your plan to accomodate the
inevitable losses to PLAAF air defense fighters and ADA/SAM's,
right?...yeah, this is sounding more and more like a REALLY great plan you
have here! Why, you might even discard that whole WBSC (Whomping Big Shaped
Charge) proposal, not to mention the ROCA Commando Group (RHT) (REALLY Heavy
Transport) with its sneak-in-and-do-the-dirty-deed idea, you put forth
earlier and concentrate solely upon this ROCAF Special Strike Squadron
(Kamikaze) idea exclusively...

Brooks

>
> Being as you can't seem to grasp the difference between an arch and
gravity
> structure, have postulated that maybe a *really* big shaped charge could
do
> the trick (howl!), and *still* have not provided any reputable exact
figures
> for the dam's dimensions, despite repeated pleas for you to do so, I can
> conclude that you are utterly and completely clueless as to what is
involved
> here; that you now think that the ROCAF would be willing to decimate its
> fighter force (12 delivery aircraft plus how many support aircraft to
ensure
> they get there?) in a wild attempt to place twelve successive hits against
> the same precise aimpoint, just provides further evidence that you have
lost
> all touch with reality in terms of this scenario. And what happened to
those
> other theories of your's--the uberCommandos toting a twelve or more odd
tons
> of demo in and placing it 1400 miles upstream, or the massive shaped
charge
> (snort!)?
>
> Chad, you need to sit back and take a few deep breaths and try to regain
> contact with reality--you have lost the bubble here.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > --
> > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> >
>
>