How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam?

"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.co...rpedo-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

"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.co...rpedo-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?

"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.co...rpedo-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

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.

"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."

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.


Really, you don't have to knock a whole in it. All you have to do is weaken
it, the water behind it is relentless and will find it's own way
through......


T3

Kevin Brooks wrote:
http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-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

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.

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

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

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