How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam?

"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?

"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

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.

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 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.

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" 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

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.

"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

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.