How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam?

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.

"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

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
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?

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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

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.

"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