How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam?

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.

"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 ,
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.

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.

"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

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.

"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" 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