Taiwanese Dam Strike Old News...

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.

"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.

"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