Apparently not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
OK.
It’s a bit like Kissinger getting credited with this.
Or LBJ getting credited with this.
Ultranomad wrote:
One geotechnical engineer familiar with the design of this dam has already estimated it at 8-10 tons of high explosive if it were attached at certain critical points situated underwater.
In former Yugoslavia the majority of such objects (dams, bridges) had pre-defined spaces for deploying explosive charges sufficient to bring them down. I guess the Soviet approach was the same, so they probably used construction points to blow it with least quantity of explosive (times 2 just in case).
Ultranomad wrote:
One geotechnical engineer familiar with the design of this dam has already estimated it at 8-10 tons of high explosive if it were attached at certain critical points situated underwater. Detonating a fixed charge on top of the dam would require at least an order of magnitude more, and bombing/shelling would require a nuclear warhead.
Perhaps the dams were of a different size or design, but to get one in the rough ballpark the bouncing bombs dropped by RAF 617 Squadron to attack the damns of the Ruhr valley contained ~ 3 tons of HE. It generally required multiple hits to breach, but that may have been due to the difficulty of placing them.
Certainly the research that preceded that operation determined that the only way to bring them down without needing an unimaginable amount of HE was to place the charge hard against the dam and underwater. Thus, it definitely wasn’t caused by Ukrainian shelling.
Ultranomad wrote:
One geotechnical engineer familiar with the design of this dam has already estimated it at 8-10 tons of high explosive if it were attached at certain critical points situated underwater. Detonating a fixed charge on top of the dam would require at least an order of magnitude more, and bombing/shelling would require a nuclear warhead.
Military experts interviewed by Swedish radio rule out bombings or charges on top of the dam. They say this must have been inside the power station. It is known that the Russians had put explosives in the dam and power station and if we are charitable it could have been an “accident”.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Where are the “last generation” sticky finger gluers? Where is “Greenpeace” and all of those?Darn silent.
What do you expect them to do!? Glue themselves to the Red Square? What would be the point? Climate actions are intended to raise awareness in order to change future policy.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What do you expect them to do!?
Perhaps try to demonstrate for peace in Moscow? Oh wait, that might get them arrested and transported to a nice penal colony, so better do it in western Europe. Wankers.
172driver wrote:
Perhaps try to demonstrate for peace in Moscow?
Why should they?
Airborne_Again wrote:
What do you expect them to do!? Glue themselves to the Red Square? What would be the point? Climate actions are intended to raise awareness in order to change future policy.
Do what everyone else does? Express their outrage at a crime which creates quite a ecological catastrophe in addition to everything else it does? Or are they afraid that for once they would have to agree with people they usually disagree with?
Peter wrote:
This and this and this not to mention thisRussia invaded Ukraine, so they should start in Russia and talk to Putin about it.
You don’t make any sense. Why don’t you yourself go to Russia and protest the war? Why should environmentalists have an obligation to protest the war that you and I do not?
