Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (21597)	3/17/2002 7:48:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

are not easily attacked by explosives...dams, In general, Sir Barnes Wallis would disagree with you Unclewest... :0) freespace.virgin.net computing.dundee.ac.uk However, I just found a link where he made a statement about the Sorpe dam, one of the Ruhr dams they tried to destroy. It was an earthen bank dam with a concrete core, and Barnes Wallis stated his bomb would be relatively ineffective against it. dambusters.org.uk Could that be that the material involved in its construction, being relatively "plastic" and flexible, might absorb and diffuse much of the underwater concussion?? My logic followed more of where Condor's coming from... namely liquefication and displacement even to a limited extent, that would lead the way to water permeating the dam and eroding it inch by inch until final collapse. If not, that's makes me feel more comfortable about the amount of effort required to take on a dam the size of the Ft. Peck dam. Btw, I found the argument that creating such a major flood along the Mississippi would effectively cut the nation in two, the most disturbing. Hawk