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.