f you go to ground zero in Nagasaki (yes, I’ve been there), there are the remains of a church, with much of the structure still standing
Er.... a bit of a wall stayed up. Probably more through luck. But either way i think we can class the cathedral as destroyed.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles slamming into the side of a dam wouldn’t destroy it because they would need to “bury themselves underground”? I am genuinely surprised!
I am pretty sure if a nuke had been used it would have been noticed. So bit pointless strawman.
I am pretty sure if a nuke had been used it would have been noticed.
😂🤣 Yeah I would have thought so! You obviously haven't been following the thread or the link to today's Guardian article. Here it is again:
You obviously haven’t been following the thread or the link to today’s Guardian article. Here it is again:
Yes I have. So the relevance to a nuke is?
You do realise a nuke would spread lots of evidence around.
Many years back an explosion nearish me registered on seismographs but that didnt mean a nuke was involved.
So help me out here what exactly are you trying to argue beyond some weird crap that some fruitcake dictator wouldnt do this?
So the relevance to a nuke is?
A comment made by someone in that article.
Seismology reports. sounds like clutching at straws. ITS A WAR ZONE, front line in fact. An explosion could be anything.
Yeah I would have thought so! You obviously haven’t been following the thread or the link to today’s Guardian article. Here it is again:
150 tonnes of high explosives would trigger seismic instruments, which are sensitive enough to register tremors a fraction of something like that explosion. A nuclear device, would not only cause seismic activity, but, and I’m sure you know this, but I’ll point it out just in case nobody’s ever brought it to your attention, it would give off significant amounts of radiation, you know, the stuff that makes Geiger counters click, and which satellites designed to detect it would immediately respond to. As no such thing happened, then it’s safe to say that Russia’s specialists mined the dam, but with their usual attention to detail, did far more damage than was intended.
I’ll point this out again for the hard of thinking - this event is of absolutely no benefit to Ukraine, it absolutely wrecks months of planning for their campaign against Russia, because the road across the dam is the most direct route into Crimea.
So, with Ukraine having made it perfectly clear that they are determined to have Crimea back and to drive Russia out of it, and with the Nova Kakhovka dam being the best route into Crimea, able to carry heavy artillery and armoured vehicles, and with presumably Russia also being perfectly aware of that fact, maybe someone could perhaps explain why, exactly, Ukraine would destroy their best possible route, and also flood their own infrastructure making their well-laid strategic planning almost impossible to carry out?
People here do seem to have rather forgotten which Russian government organisation Putin was part of, indeed was head of for most of his life, and who practically wrote the books about propaganda and false-flag operations.
As I’ve pointed out previously, he has personally written and passed laws giving him the right to murder anyone who he sees as working against him and his government, wherever they are, wherever in the world, and he will deny it, because his laws say he can. As two particular examples in this country have shown clearly that he will do so.
This is just one more example of a fascist dictator who sees himself as justified in taking anything he wants, with no repercussions.
There is no benefit of the doubt that can be made on the part of Putin and his regime. That should be perfectly clear to anyone with even a moderate grasp of right and wrong.
ITS A WAR ZONE, front line in fact. An explosion could be anything.
What, like an explosion, perhaps? You’re obviously unaware of the fact that seismologists can, and have pinpointed the explosion to the affected section of the dam, their instruments can estimate the magnitude and intensity of the explosion so what, precisely, are you trying to claim? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks loudly, are you trying to suggest it was someone’s party balloon instead?
Also, the seismic signatures of different events are apparently easily distinguishable. A nuclear weapons explosion or a large conventional explosion create a different pattern of shockwaves than an earthquake. The seismic evidence points to an explosion at the location of the dam right at the time the dam was destroyed. The only people who had access to the dam to plant explosives within the structure were Russians. It didn't just happen to fail through natural processes and Ukraine didn't blow it up.
A couple of points:
AIUI seismologists aren't pin-pointing anything. They picked up weak signals from a seismic event that coincided in time and direction with the Kakhovka dam collapse https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine
Cruise is a misnomer and the missiles don't necessarily fly low and slow. The sub-sonic will manage mach 0.7, supersonic are typically mach 3
FWIW the balance of evidence is an internal explosion, had Russia not rigged the dam then it wouldn't have happened
Yeah I would have thought so! You obviously haven’t been following the thread or the link to today’s Guardian article. Here it is again
A nuclear device, would not only cause seismic activity, but, and I’m sure you know this, but I’ll point it out just in case nobody’s ever brought it to your attention, it would give off significant amounts of radiation, you know, the stuff that makes Geiger counters click, and which satellites designed to detect it would immediately respond to.
What are you on about?!? 😂
There is a spectacular amount of commenting after skim reading going on on this thread!
Let me explain......an official is quoted in the Guardian article as claiming that the Nova Kakhovka Dam was designed to withstand a nuclear strike, I expressed my "surprise" by that comment.
I am however fully aware that nuclear devices "give off significant amounts of radiation", as you rightly guessed someone has previously brought that to my attention! 🤣
My tip for today would be don't assume that you have understood what someone is saying by quickly skim reading a few words 😉
From timba's link :
UPDATE:
Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam.
I make that 12 hours earlier. It would be interesting to know what the explanation for that could be and whether it was connected.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles slamming into the side of a dam wouldn’t destroy it because they would need to “bury themselves underground”? I am genuinely surprised!
Blasts take the path of least resistance. If you set a banger off on your hand you might get a bit burnt. But if you close you hand over it you're losing bits. Concrete is superb at resisting shocks if it's well supported. And concrete dams are well supported by alot of nice shock absorbing water. They also tend to be built so that the are in compression (arched towards to wet side)
You only have to watch failed demolition videos to see even focussed efforts aren't easy.
alot of nice shock absorbing water. They also tend to be built so that the are in compression (arched towards to wet side)
Yeah I can appreciate those points. If a dam can withstand a direct nuclear strike then I guess that I might have overestimated the power of nuclear weapons.
It seems strange that a dam artificially holding one of the largest bodies of water in the world could withstand a nuclear attack, and yet the Ruhr Dams collapsed when attacked by bombs resembling bouncing footballs!
The Soviets knew how to build stuff!
yet the Ruhr Dams collapsed when attacked by bombs resembling bouncing footballs!
But they were specifically designed with a single purpose - to deliver their payload at weaker points in the constructions.
I might have overestimated the power of nuclear weapons.
I think most people do. Don't get me wrong, the world's nuclear arsenal would destroy civilization if it was unleashed in full, but most of the harm would be from radioactive fallout and soot from fires. AFAIK, modern nuclear bombs are typically in the 200 kiloton range (so about 10 times the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs), but there are megaton range weapons. The USSR tested a 50 megaton weapon, the Tsar Bomba, and there is no upper limit to how large they can be made, but those very large weapons don't really have much practical use - they'll just spread nuclear fallout all over the place.
So, the Tsar Bomba was about 100 times as powerful as the typical operational bomb, and about 2,500 times as powerful as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Supervolcanoes like Yellowstone, Aso in Japan, and Taupo in New Zealand have the power of thousands of Tsar Bombas, so millions of Hiroshima bombs. In other words, one decent sized volcano releases the power of all the nuclear weapons on earth in one eruption.
When nuclear weapons are exploded in the atmosphere, the blast will destroy wooden buildings for miles around, but reinforced concrete structures are much more resilient and hardened bunkers would take a direct hit to be destroyed - that's why bunker busting bombs were developed.
Also, the reason the bouncing bombs worked was because they were detonated underwater close to the wall which has the effect of amplifying the shock wave, again back to the banger in your hand analogy.
There are plenty of surface nuclear bunkers our there too, there's not much point building a regional command centre like that if it wasn't likely to work.
Back to the dam! So anyone produce any credible evidence that Ukraine did it?
the reason the bouncing bombs worked was because they were detonated underwater close to the wall
I had assumed that a nuclear bomb could sink to the bottom before detonating.
But it turns out that nuclear weapons don't create such a big splash as I had thought!
Edit: Just to add, the Kakhovka Dam was presumably designed in the late 1940s, I am surprised that the Soviets had the foresight to design it to withstand a nuclear attack. Especially as you have to assume that it will had added massively to its cost and materials used, at a time when the Soviet Union was desperately engaged in reconstruction following the devastation caused by World War Two.
Don’t get me wrong, the world’s nuclear arsenal would destroy civilization if it was unleashed in full
It would only take one or two bombs unleashed on a strategic city such as London or New York for western society as we know it today to collapse. Social order, critical infrastructure, supply chains, banking systems, the electricity grid etc would all be destroyed or severely damaged. With one bomb we'd be cast into a world of martial law and an economy run directly by central government (what's left of it). It's not the full arsenal we need to be worried about, it's just one bomb.
I am surprised that the Soviets had the foresight to design it to withstand a nuclear attack. Especially as you have to assume that it will had added massively to its cost and materials used, at a time when the Soviet Union was desperately engaged in reconstruction following the devastation caused by World War Two.
My guess is that the buildings were hardened rather than the dam structure itself. The dam structure would already have been able to withstand a nearby nuclear explosion (rather than one right up against the structure), but the buildings containing the generating plant would not unless they were built of heavily reinforced concrete. The increase in cost probably would not have been as huge as you assume if it was just a matter of hardening the critical buildings rather than the entire structure. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the last few decades that it was possible to hit targets with accuracy of a few meters so they wouldn't have been hardening against a direct hit from a megaton range bomb. Back in the 1940s and 50s, they were generally lucky to get a bomb within half a mile of a target. I think the Nagasaki bomb was a mile or more off target.
The question is why would the United States even target a dam in a nuclear strike? Surely in the event of a nuclear exchange cities would be the only targets?
Whoever pressed the nuclear button first wouldn't be targeting electricity power plants - no need for electricity supplies to nonexisting cities. And whoever pressed the nuclear button in retaliation would hardly be interested in hitting power stations.
In the late 1940s nuclear weapons would have been a very rare and precious asset not to be squandered on anything that didn't absolutely guarantee the destruction of your enemy. Using them to turn off your enemies lights sounds a tad wasteful.
I am not disputing that the Kakhovka Dam was designed to withstand a nuclear strike - I wasn't a member of the Politburo at the time! Just rather surprised.
The question is why would the United States even target a dam in a nuclear strike? Surely in the event of a nuclear exchange cities would be the only targets?
It's critical infrastructure. The USSR didn't know what the U.S. would target, they had to assume that any critical infrastructure would be a target, including large military targets - airfields, naval bases, large army bases, etc. On top of that, delivering nuclear weapons in the 1940s and 50s was much more difficult than once ICBMs became the standard delivery system. Pilots had to navigate large, relatively slow bombers deep into enemy airspace, locate a target, and try to deliver a bomb somewhere close to it. If they couldn't find their primary target, they would probably just bomb any large thing they could see from the air. In those early days, there weren't as many bombs in existence, they weren't as powerful, and delivering them was extremely difficult. It was still possible to believe that a nuclear exchange would be survivable for most people.
Once ICBMs became mature, the opponent's missile silos became primary targets for a first strike, basically in the hope that they could knock out enough to make the war survivable for their own country. Submarine launched missiles meant that a second strike targeting cities was unavoidable so any fantasies about surviving a nuclear war were ended.
It’s critical infrastructure
As hard as it is for me eto accept this, I'm having to side with the above quoted member.
Just look at how Russia is conducting this war. They arent carpet bombing cities, they are targeting electrical power grids
Back to the dam! So anyone produce any credible evidence that Ukraine did it?
It was done with a single blast, to do that with the artillery that Ukraine has available would mean a long sustained barrage.
A single blast indicates a one very large detonation, therefore, pre-placed charges.
It’s critical infrastructure. The USSR didn’t know what the U.S. would target, they had to assume that any critical infrastructure would be a target
Nah, they would have assumed cities, not critical infrastructure. In fact they would have known it.
The whole 'deterrent' thing in, "the nuclear deterrent", is Mutually Assured Destruction....MAD.
The deterrent wasn't, and still isn't, "we will knock out your critical infrastructure if you launch a nuclear attack". It's "your country and cities will be totally destroyed".
It was done with a single blast
Not necessarily according to the Norwegian station which picked up the seismic signals
UPDATE:
Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam.
So there were two explosions ?.
Nah, they would have assumed cities, not critical infrastructure. In fact they would have known it.
A good book on this subject is Command and Control. Most targets would have multiple warheads aimed at them (redundancy), and dams, power-plants railways and even motorway junctions certainly were targets [of nuclear weapons] by the US, and the Russians assumed everything that they would target would be a target for the US and they most certainly targeted dams in the US.
the Russians assumed everything that they would target would be a target for the US
Exactly. Same with the U.S. Both sides would have targeted anything of strategic importance. Power generation would have been high on that list.
As for the why, both sides expected to be able to carry on more or less as normal assuming they carried out the first strike. You only have to look at Soviet civil defence to see they wanted as many of their people to survive as possible (in stark contrast to our "duck and cover" nonsense).
Anyway, at risk of actually staying on topic:
So there were two explosions ?.
There were two seismic events, important distinction.
The first could well be a trigger event for the second which was the collapse of the dam, the big question being what the first event was.
If that is the case then it suggests that the United States and other NATO governments for decades lied to their own people with regards to the purpose of the nuclear "deterrent".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
Proponents of MAD as part of the US and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state.
It was claimed by Western governments that in the event of a nuclear exchange there would be no winners, only losers.
The claim that critical infrastructures were possible targets suggests that they actually believed that one side could end up with an advantage over the other. Which of course makes war far more likely and adds strength to the nuclear disarmament argument.
Ernie, how is this relevant? If you want to discuss the how's and whys of cold war MAD doctrine start a new topic. It was hardened against nuclear attack, that's a fact, end of, move on and please stop derailing this. It's getting really old.
The claim that critical infrastructures were possible targets suggests that they actually believed that one side could end up with an advantage over the other
That is what they believed until about 1960. You would understand more about history if you read some history books. For example, look up "Sputnik moment". Sputnik was the first artificial satellite. The technology to put satellites into orbit utterly changed nuclear deterrence because it meant that unstoppable nuclear bombs could rain down with only a few minutes warning. The technology difference between 1950 and 1960 is orders of magnitude. In 1950, a nuclear exchange would have been deadly, but survivable. Ten years later, it was mutually assured destruction.
Mentioned it earlier but I'm pretty sure the original sources said "building" not "dam", so presumably were referring to the power station rather than the dam. Though, that could be subject to translation.
They also tend to be built so that the are in compression (arched towards to wet side)
If it's an arch dam. Typically the ones you se in narrow tall valleys (e.g. in the Alps). This one is a gravity dam and as far as I can see it hasn't been destroyed. The top bit with the control gates has been removed but I'm pretty sure there is still a substantial structure below that.
Most targets would have multiple warheads aimed at them (redundancy), and dams, power-plants railways and even motorway junctions certainly were targets
Mustn't laugh, at the people who have bought redundant missile silos they turned into homes, survivalist bases. Somewhere ,someone has a nuclear missile aimed directly at their location 😆
It was claimed by Western governments that in the event of a nuclear exchange there would be no winners, only losers.
I saw an interview with a retired Soviet general from the cold war era talking about nuclear exchanges. He was saying that Russia were to hit the US, there would be 200 million dead in the first hour, the US retaliation would lead to the same number of casualties in Russia, and from there most likely a nuclear winter killing off everything else on earth as the winds spread the fallout all around the planet.
He went on to say the Earth would be a dead barren wasteland, much like one of the other billion of planets in our galaxy.
The tabloids can talk their WW3 bollocks, but the people in the US,China,Russia and anywhere else capable of a major nuclear exchange know it would kill them too, so whatever tabloids say, its not going to happen.
Dyna, who are you arguing with and what does any of that have to do with the ****ing dam? Seriously, is it really that hard to just discuss the topic?
Right, the pair of you can take your gaslighting pish elsewhere, I'm out.
Enjoy another ruined discussion.
Jeezus you are an angry person SK.
Enjoy another ruined discussion.
He says after posting stuff unrelated to the topic, throwing a stropp, and then flouncing, after of course informing everyone.
Anyway back on topic. I don't know if there has been any developments on this but I am surprised that the United States hasn't fully backed Ukraine's claims. I find it unexpected and strange:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/world/europe/ukraine-dam-collapse-explosion.html
U.S. spy agencies still do not have any solid evidence to determine who caused the destruction, the senior administration official said.
I also find it very strange that the New York Times should be reporting this:
The Ukrainians did not provide basic details that would allow independent verification of the tape, including who the participants were, why the speaker might have known what happened and why anyone might have been listening to this particular call.
Presumably there is at least some doubt on the part of the US administration that Russia was responsible but why?
Edit: No idea why the link isn't working
Edit 2 : It appears to only work if you download the link (by clicking on the pic) and then open it
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/world/europe/ukraine-dam-collapse-explosion.html
AT Ernie
Looking at it logically, and with a Ukrainian counter attack on the cards, the dam is a crossing point that could be used by the Ukrainians. So blowing it up make sense. It would also make sense to make downstream more difficult for the Ukrainians to move at any rate of knots, because the area is now flooded. Difficult for infantry, difficult for armour, or any vehicles.
So to arrest any serious advance in that area its done the job well.
As such it is reasonable to conclude the Russians did it deliberately. And Im more than sure if we were to replace the Russians with any other military( in the same scenario), they probably would have done the same.
Okay. So why has the US administration been hesitant to fully back Ukraine's claims of Russia guilt over the issue? Saying that Russia probably did it doesn't sound very supportive. Zelenskyy certainly doesn't seem very impressed.
Enjoy another ruined discussion.
😂
Classic STW. Anyone expressing a different opinion is ‘ruining’ the discussion.
