If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: Neither "missile" would be capable of breaching TG. For gosh sakes, people, TG is a friggin' GRAVITY dam--its a large concrete monolith! Folks keep comparing this to the Ruhr dams--but weren't they *arch* dams? Nope. They were arch-*shaped*, but the Moehne and Eder were gravity dams. Oddly enough, the RAF officers who thought the mission wouldn't work in 1943 were saying pretty much the same things you're saying now. "The bombs aren't big enough, you can't put them in place, the risk isn't worth it..." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om... Taiwan is a nuclear stand-by nation capable of producing a nuclear weapon in one year. Since China is approx. 2-4 years away from invading the island according to the latest 2004 Intels then Taiwan should get the green light from the US and start making them in preparation for the inevitable attack. China keeps insisting on taking the island by force, even threatening neutron weapons now... so let Taiwan produce nukes. Doesn't make much difference though when a carrier battle group will likely be in the Taiwan Straight, right? What are the Chinese going to do, nuke it and face grave consequences like the DPRK? I'm willing to bet that as invasion approaches we park two carrier battle groups there and station B-2, F-117, and B-1 aircraft in neighboring friendly nations like the ROK and Japan. What a showdown that would be. It would make CNN worth watching again Rob I think you are right that Taiwan has the capacity, and I wonder why they haven't gone ahead and mimicked Israel's strategy of maintaining a "hidden" nuclear capacity just in case (I assume they have not since the nukes aren't very useful if nobody knows about them). If Taiwan did deploy nukes, I would think that China might stop wasting resources on creating the means to invade Taiwan. And although I know there are many Taiwanese who have no interest in reunification with China under any circumstances, still I wonder why Taiwan hasn't used it's status as a democracy to try to encourage reform in China, something along the lines of a policy stating reunification with China can only happen once the mainland is also a democracy, which I would think could strengthen the hand of the PRC reformers. Even if Taiwan isn't serious in wanting to reunite, this offer makes a lot of sense to me since I doubt a democratic PRC would been as keen on forced reunification The US vs. China scenario would be very interesting, though of course I hope it never comes to that. Current thinking seems to have the US eventually winning this one, though recent events make me wonder if America still has the will to fight wars involving significant casualties! Jarg. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message ... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Neither "missile" would be capable of breaching TG. For gosh sakes, people, TG is a friggin' GRAVITY dam--its a large concrete monolith! Folks keep comparing this to the Ruhr dams--but weren't they *arch* dams? Nope. They were arch-*shaped*, but the Moehne and Eder were gravity dams. Your inability to understand the basics of civil engineering continues to be in evidence. Why do you think they included the arch design in those dams? To reduce the required volume of material in their construction! Think load paths... Note that TG is a pure gravity design, on the other hand. Oh, and BTW, you keep using these Ruhr dams an example, but I believe they have another distinct difference exhibited in comparison to TG--they are *masonry* (or lesser) structures (Mohne listed as masonry only, Eder as masonry-rubble, and Sohne as *earthen* with a simple concrete core wall), not reinforced concrete structures like TG is. And... I found some references to the cross sectional depth of TG, and it appears my seat-of-the-pants estimate is a hell of a lot closer than you claimed (I believe you were indicating I was off by a factor of about 100%)--my estimate was 122 meters, and there are quite a few sources out there in Googleland that indicate it is indeed "over 100 meters". The Mohne had a base "thickness" (masonry) of some 34 meters, versus the "over 100 meters" (of rf concrete) of the TG. It looks like TG is about three times as massive as taiwansecurity.org/Reu/2004/Reuters-160604.htm Now, what exactly again is the basis for your comparison of the Ruhr dams and TG? None that I can see... Oddly enough, the RAF officers who thought the mission wouldn't work in 1943 were saying pretty much the same things you're saying now. "The bombs aren't big enough, you can't put them in place, the risk isn't worth it..." Since, as has been shown, you are talking about *much* smaller dams, of *much* smaller thickness, made of materials which exhibit *less* structural integrity than the RC used in TG, your point would be...? Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |
15 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 15th 03 10:01 PM |
27 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | November 30th 03 05:57 PM |
11 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 11th 03 11:58 PM |
18 Sep 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 03:47 AM |