What Would be the death toll in China if Three Gorges Dam was destroyed?

[Unkotare]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

 

[Dayton3]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

 

[Unkotare]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

Your attitude is typical of democrats, historically.

 

[Dayton3]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

Your attitude is typical of democrats, historically.

Don't be ridiculous. The old "Democrats cause wars" and "Republicans start recessions/depressions" trope.

You know neither are true.

 

[Unkotare]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

Your attitude is typical of democrats, historically.

Don't be ridiculous. The old "Democrats cause wars" and "Republicans start recessions/depressions" trope.

You know neither are true.

The democrats have always been keen on slaughtering civilians, and you know it. Human life means nothing to leftists, ideology is all for them.

You sound just like them.

 

[Dayton3]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

Your attitude is typical of democrats, historically.

Don't be ridiculous. The old "Democrats cause wars" and "Republicans start recessions/depressions" trope.

You know neither are true.

The democrats have always been keen on slaughtering civilians, and you know it. Human life means nothing to leftists, ideology is all for them.

You sound just like them.

I have no interest in slaughtering anyone unnecessarily.

 

[Unkotare]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

Your attitude is typical of democrats, historically.

Don't be ridiculous. The old "Democrats cause wars" and "Republicans start recessions/depressions" trope.

You know neither are true.

The democrats have always been keen on slaughtering civilians, and you know it. Human life means nothing to leftists, ideology is all for them.

You sound just like them.

I have no interest in slaughtering anyone unnecessarily.

Quack

 

[Dayton3]

Why punish the unarmed people when it's the ChiCom LEADERSHIP that's responsible?

Things like that happen in war. It is an inevitability. Might as well accept it.

Now we know for sure you're a fucking democrat.

I would never be a Democrat. ...

You sure are quacking like a fucking duck...

What are you talking about?

Your attitude is typical of democrats, historically.

Don't be ridiculous. The old "Democrats cause wars" and "Republicans start recessions/depressions" trope.

You know neither are true.

The democrats have always been keen on slaughtering civilians, and you know it. Human life means nothing to leftists, ideology is all for them.

You sound just like them.

I have no interest in slaughtering anyone unnecessarily.

Quack

DIAF

 

[longly]

And? Are you suggesting this as a course of action or something? Not clear what the purpose of this thread is.

I thought his purpose was pretty clear enough; he is pointing out a potential target in case of war with communist China. But there might be a flaw in his thinking if he is implying we should target this site as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. Considering the “The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.” I think the communists care little about how many of their slaves die. Now I am not saying we shouldn’t hit this site if we have war with China; anything that weakens an enemy is good.

 

[Dayton3]

And? Are you suggesting this as a course of action or something? Not clear what the purpose of this thread is.

I thought his purpose was pretty clear enough; he is pointing out a potential target in case of war with communist China. But there might be a flaw in his thinking if he is implying we should target this site as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. Considering the “The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.” I think the communists care little about how many of their slaves die. Now I am not saying we shouldn’t hit this site if we have war with China; anything that weakens an enemy is good.

Actually I've been thinking of possible targets for the use of conventional weapons that would have a damage potential high enough to use as a response to a Chinese single nuclear strike against us.

 

[Dayton3]

And? Are you suggesting this as a course of action or something? Not clear what the purpose of this thread is.

I thought his purpose was pretty clear enough; he is pointing out a potential target in case of war with communist China. But there might be a flaw in his thinking if he is implying we should target this site as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. Considering the “The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.” I think the communists care little about how many of their slaves die. Now I am not saying we shouldn’t hit this site if we have war with China; anything that weakens an enemy is good.

Actually I've been thinking of possible targets for the use of conventional weapons that would have a damage potential high enough to use as a response to a Chinese single nuclear strike against us.

I've also been contemplating just what targets Taiwan (which has no nuclear weapons) could threaten in mainland China that would really hurt the PRC.

 

[harmonica]

I was reading an article in a science magazine about the danger to Three Gorges Dam in China. It said that as many as 400 million people could be at risk though that sounds excessive.

But it estimated that if Three Gorges Dam was breached that it would killed millions, contaminate a huge area with radioactivity as flood waters destroyed nuclear power plants downstream, and that many more would die of famine and disease.

It suggested that as little as a 20 lb. explosive device might be able to cause a breach. If a 20lb. demolition charge could do that then most certainly a 2,000 lb. general purpose bomb could do the same.

link?
....you'd have to place the 20 LBs and the 2000 LBer in the right spot
''suggested'' ''might''' = sounds like bullshit

 

[harmonica]

And? Are you suggesting this as a course of action or something? Not clear what the purpose of this thread is.

Of course.

Ok, why?

Very complicated to get into and I'm not sure the rules of this forum allow me to talk about it openly...

Don't be a chickenshit. Speak your 'mind,' such as it is.

The U.S. needs a major war to burn away the rot and decay in all levels of its culture. Not an Iraq type conflict. Not a "war" with terrorists. But a significant conflict with a major adversary that actually stresses the country and requires some level of sacrifice from our citizens.

Against a group of opponents that (at least on paper) appears formidable.

Now, I don't want some kind of global holocaust much less a holocaust that hits the United States. A global conflict that costs the U.S. no more than 500,000 people total, our allies no more than 1,500,000 and our enemies no more than 6-7 million.

The only combination of enemies I can think that would fill the bill so to speak would be an alliance of Russia, China, and possibly Iran. Against all our usual allies around the world of course. And the U.S. wins not only militarily but in the aftermath seizes major swaths of territory (mainly from Russia, I'm thinking everything East of the Yinisey River) and in the aftermath the nuclear arsenals of China, Russia, and hopefully Pakistan and India are eradicated completely.

Does that answer your question? And don't start babbling about me being some kind of socio or psychopath.

.....your are some kind of psycho if you want a war...obviously you have NO idea what wars are
''the US wins''' ---you are playing a board game like kids do

 

[Dayton3]

And? Are you suggesting this as a course of action or something? Not clear what the purpose of this thread is.

Of course.

Ok, why?

Very complicated to get into and I'm not sure the rules of this forum allow me to talk about it openly...

Don't be a chickenshit. Speak your 'mind,' such as it is.

The U.S. needs a major war to burn away the rot and decay in all levels of its culture. Not an Iraq type conflict. Not a "war" with terrorists. But a significant conflict with a major adversary that actually stresses the country and requires some level of sacrifice from our citizens.

Against a group of opponents that (at least on paper) appears formidable.

Now, I don't want some kind of global holocaust much less a holocaust that hits the United States. A global conflict that costs the U.S. no more than 500,000 people total, our allies no more than 1,500,000 and our enemies no more than 6-7 million.

The only combination of enemies I can think that would fill the bill so to speak would be an alliance of Russia, China, and possibly Iran. Against all our usual allies around the world of course. And the U.S. wins not only militarily but in the aftermath seizes major swaths of territory (mainly from Russia, I'm thinking everything East of the Yinisey River) and in the aftermath the nuclear arsenals of China, Russia, and hopefully Pakistan and India are eradicated completely.

Does that answer your question? And don't start babbling about me being some kind of socio or psychopath.

.....your are some kind of psycho if you want a war...obviously you have NO idea what wars are
''the US wins''' ---you are playing a board game like kids do

Why would I want a war? No one does.

But what I "want" and what I see as a necessary evil are two different things.

 

[Dayton3]

I was reading an article in a science magazine about the danger to Three Gorges Dam in China. It said that as many as 400 million people could be at risk though that sounds excessive.

But it estimated that if Three Gorges Dam was breached that it would killed millions, contaminate a huge area with radioactivity as flood waters destroyed nuclear power plants downstream, and that many more would die of famine and disease.

It suggested that as little as a 20 lb. explosive device might be able to cause a breach. If a 20lb. demolition charge could do that then most certainly a 2,000 lb. general purpose bomb could do the same.

link?

It was mentioned in a recent science magazine "Ideas" and something else was in the title. It was talking about the possibility of Three Gorges collapsing due to flooding and poor construction and design.

 

[harmonica]

I was reading an article in a science magazine about the danger to Three Gorges Dam in China. It said that as many as 400 million people could be at risk though that sounds excessive.

But it estimated that if Three Gorges Dam was breached that it would killed millions, contaminate a huge area with radioactivity as flood waters destroyed nuclear power plants downstream, and that many more would die of famine and disease.

It suggested that as little as a 20 lb. explosive device might be able to cause a breach. If a 20lb. demolition charge could do that then most certainly a 2,000 lb. general purpose bomb could do the same.

link?

It was mentioned in a recent science magazine "Ideas" and something else was in the title. It was talking about the possibility of Three Gorges collapsing due to flooding and poor construction and design.

I was reading an article in a science magazine about the danger to Three Gorges Dam in China. It said that as many as 400 million people could be at risk though that sounds excessive.

But it estimated that if Three Gorges Dam was breached that it would killed millions, contaminate a huge area with radioactivity as flood waters destroyed nuclear power plants downstream, and that many more would die of famine and disease.

It suggested that as little as a 20 lb. explosive device might be able to cause a breach. If a 20lb. demolition charge could do that then most certainly a 2,000 lb. general purpose bomb could do the same.

link?

It was mentioned in a recent science magazine "Ideas" and something else was in the title. It was talking about the possibility of Three Gorges collapsing due to flooding and poor construction and design.

..so, nothing about 20lbs? what was the exact quote?

 

[Dayton3]

I was reading an article in a science magazine about the danger to Three Gorges Dam in China. It said that as many as 400 million people could be at risk though that sounds excessive.

But it estimated that if Three Gorges Dam was breached that it would killed millions, contaminate a huge area with radioactivity as flood waters destroyed nuclear power plants downstream, and that many more would die of famine and disease.

It suggested that as little as a 20 lb. explosive device might be able to cause a breach. If a 20lb. demolition charge could do that then most certainly a 2,000 lb. general purpose bomb could do the same.

link?

It was mentioned in a recent science magazine "Ideas" and something else was in the title. It was talking about the possibility of Three Gorges collapsing due to flooding and poor construction and design.

I was reading an article in a science magazine about the danger to Three Gorges Dam in China. It said that as many as 400 million people could be at risk though that sounds excessive.

But it estimated that if Three Gorges Dam was breached that it would killed millions, contaminate a huge area with radioactivity as flood waters destroyed nuclear power plants downstream, and that many more would die of famine and disease.

It suggested that as little as a 20 lb. explosive device might be able to cause a breach. If a 20lb. demolition charge could do that then most certainly a 2,000 lb. general purpose bomb could do the same.

link?

It was mentioned in a recent science magazine "Ideas" and something else was in the title. It was talking about the possibility of Three Gorges collapsing due to flooding and poor construction and design.

..so, nothing about 20lbs? what was the exact quote?

IIRC it was "....or a terrorist attack. As little as 20 lbs. of explosive could possibly cause a catastrophic breach"

I don't think it said precisely where those explosive would have to be placed though.