A nuclear attack on Egypt
bernardZ
thought that this would be an interesting article on such a topic.
http://tinyurl.com/3c8knj
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population
centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and
Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly
be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and
almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down
the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of
Egypt as a functioning society.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For the writers qualification Anthony Cordesman check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Cordesman
Allen W. McDonnell
"bernardZ" <Bern...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.21bbf6a53d6e2e3c9896b3@news...
> We had here awhile ago a discussion on a nuclear attack on Egypt. I
> thought that this would be an interesting article on such a topic.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3c8knj
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> An Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population
> centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and
> Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly
> be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and
> almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down
> the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of
> Egypt as a functioning society.
>
>
Thats just silly, taking out the Aswan high dam accomplishes a 90% casualty
rate with a single strike AND its a lot easier to pull off.
bernardZ
tan...@provide.net says...
Taking out the Aswan might cause a lot of problems in Egypt particularly
in agriculture but it is unlikely to cause many casualties unless
significant infrastructure is also destroyed.
Allen W. McDonnell
Look at a map again, the flooding down the nile valley would eliminate at a
minimum the agriculture for 90% of the population, and that is assuming it
doesn't happen at say 1 AM when everyone sleeping in the valley would be
washed out to sea. Dam collapse floods are fast and nasty, they take out
everything in reach of the flood waters which in the case of Aswan is
everything down the valley and through the Delta.
Carey Sublette
"Allen W. McDonnell" <tan...@provide.net> wrote in message
news:c5WdnbAWgs8jOs_a...@provide.net...
Guys, you might want to look up the structure of the Aswan High Dam and pull
out your calculators before offering up apocalyptic scenarios based on a
"single strike".
The dam is a man-made mountain (or maybe a plateau). It is a rock-filled
mound (faced with concrete) that is 3.8 km long and 111 m high, with a base
thickness of 1 km!
These dimensions mean a number of things: a single nuclear bomb such as
Israel may have (say, up to 100 kt) can do only very limited damage to the
structure if exploded on the surface or bunker-buster style; a breech in the
dam will not send a wall of water rushing down the Nile river; it can lead
to uncontrolled flooding with water rising quickly - but measured in hours,
even days, not seconds. It takes a long time to empty Lake Nasser through a
shallow 100 m gap.
To do a lot of damage to the structure with one or a few bombs, Israel would
need to use a commando or airborne assault to take temporary physical
control of the dam so that the bomb(s) could be placed in the engineering
tunnels used for inspections within the dam.
John Schilling
Except that,
A: The Aswan High Dam is an embankment dam, not an arch or even gravity
dam. It can't collapse, because it is built in a pre-collapsed state
with no slope greater than the angle of repose of the material, and
B: The Aswan High Dam is freaking huge, such that even an atomic bomb
would not be sure to breach it, and
C: While a large hydrogen bomb would breach the dam, the flooding from
a breached embankment dam is far less catastrophic than from the
collapsed arch dam you are (wrongly) envisioning, and
D: It's something like four hundred miles from Aswan to Cairo; if "it"
happens at say 1 AM, the Egyptians will be able to stick around for
lunch before commencing a leisurely evacuation, and still be clear
before the first flood waters arive.
In the event of a major countervalue attack on Egypt, the attackers
probably would target the dam, but you're seriously overestimating
the effect. The "need" to directly target cities would remain.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Derek Lyons
>The dam is a man-made mountain (or maybe a plateau). It is a rock-filled
>mound (faced with concrete) that is 3.8 km long and 111 m high, with a base
>thickness of 1 km!
The top thickness is also important Carey - a whopping 48 meters.
>It takes a long time to empty Lake Nasser through a
>shallow 100 m gap.
If the lake started emptying through it, it wouldn't long be a shallow
100m gap.
The flooding still would not be catastropic - but the economic
consequences of loosing the electric production and the loss of flood
control will not be insignificant.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
bernardZ
says...
> "Carey Sublette" <care...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The dam is a man-made mountain (or maybe a plateau). It is a rock-filled
> >mound (faced with concrete) that is 3.8 km long and 111 m high, with a base
> >thickness of 1 km!
>
> The top thickness is also important Carey - a whopping 48 meters.
>
> >It takes a long time to empty Lake Nasser through a
> >shallow 100 m gap.
>
> If the lake started emptying through it, it wouldn't long be a shallow
> 100m gap.
>
> The flooding still would not be catastropic - but the economic
> consequences of loosing the electric production and the loss of flood
> control will not be insignificant.
>
> D.
>
Also tourism would be greatly affected.
But if the infrastructure is okay then emergency supplies of food and
medicine would be able to be sent down.
That is probably why this scenario included attacks on main population
centers like Cairo and port cities like Alexandria, Port Said and Suez.
Carey Sublette
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4753a112....@news.supernews.com...
> "Carey Sublette" <care...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The dam is a man-made mountain (or maybe a plateau). It is a rock-filled
>>mound (faced with concrete) that is 3.8 km long and 111 m high, with a
>>base
>>thickness of 1 km!
>
> The top thickness is also important Carey - a whopping 48 meters.
Love Google Maps.
Its useful to take a look at the dam. The narrowest section is the
hydroelectric part, which looks to be 175 meters across from lake water line
to where the steep drop off on the river side begins (200 meters to the
river water line), so all of this is at or above the waterline (the quoted
top thicknesswould be well above waterline). A 100 kt surface explosion can
make a 70 meter crater, so 2 probably should do it. The bottom "channel
depth" below water line might be 30-40 meters (guesstimating here).
>
>>It takes a long time to empty Lake Nasser through a
>>shallow 100 m gap.
>
> If the lake started emptying through it, it wouldn't long be a shallow
> 100m gap.
True. But unlike the breeching of the Huang He levee in 1938 by the
Nationalist Chinese army to delay the Japanese advance, which quickly washed
out a huge section of the clay bank (resulting in the most destructive act
of war in history), the cataract width here only looks like 250 meters, and
the dam core is rock-filled. Erosion won't be as catastrophic, more like a
super-sized Niagara Falls developing over days maybe? Still take a long time
to empty the lake.
> The flooding still would not be catastropic - but the economic
> consequences of loosing the electric production and the loss of flood
> control will not be insignificant.
I think it is 25% of Egypt's electricity, it would take quite awhile to make
that up.
The flooding would be an economic catstrophe - but massive international aid
can do a lot overcome an economic catastrophe if the attack garnered
sufficient sympathy (or Egypt, the 800 lb gorilla of the Arab world due to
its population and size, rattled enough sabers to make the oil-rich states
cough up the dough).
My estimate is that 100 kt bomb in central Cairo would kill about 750,000
people and injur
2.5 million and eliminate the central government.
Allen W. McDonnell
> hydroelectric part, which looks to be 175 meters across from lake water
> line to where the steep drop off on the river side begins (200 meters to
> the river water line), so all of this is at or above the waterline (the
> quoted top thicknesswould be well above waterline). A 100 kt surface
> explosion can make a 70 meter crater, so 2 probably should do it. The
> bottom "channel depth" below water line might be 30-40 meters
> (guesstimating here).
>>
> make that up.
>
> The flooding would be an economic catstrophe - but massive international
> aid can do a lot overcome an economic catastrophe if the attack garnered
> sufficient sympathy (or Egypt, the 800 lb gorilla of the Arab world due to
> its population and size, rattled enough sabers to make the oil-rich
> states cough up the dough).
>
> My estimate is that 100 kt bomb in central Cairo would kill about 750,000
> people and injur
> 2.5 million and eliminate the central government.
>
>
Why do several people keep going under the assumption that only one bomb,
and of only 100kt, would be used?
If you are having a nuclear war and want to destroy the Aswan dam quickly
there are at least two options, use multiple bombs in rapid succession, or
use one very large bomb. It's not as if the technology is absent! Bomb 1
of 100 kt hits low on the face of the dam and weakens the structure. 15
minutes later bomb 2 hits in the crater left by bomb 1 and weakens the
structure further. Bomb 3, again 15 minutes later extends the crater
further, breaches the dam and allows flood waters to tear open the resevoir.
Perhaps three would not be enough, if so bombs 4-X suceed where 1,2,3
failed.
Alternate 2, sneak attack, a very large multi MT device is dropped in the
water of the resevoir agains the inner face of the dam. Explosion breeches
the dam and sends shockwaves through the resevoir that reflect off the
surrounding land and breech the dam extreamly rapidly.
I think any attack would be horrific, but if there were an attack there is
no reason to beleive it would be incompetent.
care...@gmail.com
> > Its useful to take a look at the dam. The narrowest section is the
> > hydroelectric part, which looks to be 175 meters across from lake water
> > line to where the steep drop off on the river side begins (200 meters to
> > the river water line), so all of this is at or above the waterline (the
> > quoted top thicknesswould be well above waterline). A 100 kt surface
> > explosion can make a 70 meter crater, so 2 probably should do it. The
> > bottom "channel depth" below water line might be 30-40 meters
> > (guesstimating here).
>
> > I think it is 25% of Egypt's electricity, it would take quite awhile to
> > make that up.
>
> > The flooding would be an economic catstrophe - but massive international
> > aid can do a lot overcome an economic catastrophe if the attack garnered
> > sufficient sympathy (or Egypt, the 800 lb gorilla of the Arab world due to
> > its population and size, rattled enough sabers to make the oil-rich
> > states cough up the dough).
>
> > My estimate is that 100 kt bomb in central Cairo would kill about 750,000
> > people and injur
> > 2.5 million and eliminate the central government.
>
> Why do several people keep going under the assumption that only one bomb,
> and of only 100kt, would be used?
Well, for one thing, in your first post on this thread you specified
"taking out the Aswan high dam accomplishes a 90% casualty rate with a
single strike", so the notion of what could be accomplished with a
single strike was the very issue being addressed.
Why 100 kt?
Well, we are talking about the Israelis who have never conducted a
single unambiguous nuclear test. If any at all were ever conducted
they were of very low yield.
Pure fission weapons, and various versions of boosted fission weapons,
in weights to which Israeli delivery systems are adapted, can
plausibly be developed without overt testing, but the yields are
likely to be limited to something like 100 kt. Megaton class weapons
are right out.
> If you are having a nuclear war and want to destroy the Aswan dam quickly
> there are at least two options, use multiple bombs in rapid succession, or
> use one very large bomb. It's not as if the technology is absent! Bomb 1
> of 100 kt hits low on the face of the dam and weakens the structure. 15
> minutes later bomb 2 hits in the crater left by bomb 1 and weakens the
> structure further. Bomb 3, again 15 minutes later extends the crater
> further, breaches the dam and allows flood waters to tear open the resevoir.
> Perhaps three would not be enough, if so bombs 4-X suceed where 1,2,3
> failed.
> Alternate 2, sneak attack, a very large multi MT device is dropped in the
> water of the resevoir agains the inner face of the dam. Explosion breeches
> the dam and sends shockwaves through the resevoir that reflect off the
> surrounding land and breech the dam extreamly rapidly.
>
> I think any attack would be horrific, but if there were an attack there is
> no reason to beleive it would be incompetent.
It would have to be possible however.
Bombing attacks on the Aswan High Dam, even nuclear ones, are more
like conducting trench excavations, not 'weakening a structure'.
A limiting factor to the flooding that any demolition attack on the
dam could create is the width of the First Cataract itself, and the
fact that it has now been filled in with a huge pile of rocks.
The image of Niagara Falls is a useful one to consider. In that
location you have what amounts to one of the world's largest lakes
(Lake Erie) attempting to pour into the Niagara River. The spectacular
fall that exists today came into existence about 6000 years ago when
the flow from Erie broke through a barrier at St. David's Gorge, and
plowed into an ancient channel. The falls have retreated a few miles
upstream since then as the rock has eroded away, but the limits of
geology and hydrology prevent (so far) the release of anything like a
superflood. Similarly the (now filled in) cataract channel on the Nile
is a choke point that will drastically limit the peak flow rate.
Vance P. Frickey
news:cJidnTs4Pe-tcsza...@provide.net...
I honestly don't see the rationale for an Israeli attack of
any sort on Egypt. Apart from the Egyptians not being as
conscientious as they could be in stemming the flow of arms
to terrorists in the "Palestinian Authority," no casus belli
exists between Egypt and Israel. The two countries are
technically at peace and have been since the signing of the
Camp David Accords.
Worse, an Israeli attack on Egypt creates a war on more
fronts than is necessary, given that Iran and Syria won't
let up pressure on the Israeli northern flank and the
threats from the West Bank and Gaza Strip don't show any
sign of abating (the Saudis having no intent to stop paying
Hamas and Fatah suicide terrorists to kill Israelis).
The Israelis could do much worse to the Arabs across the
board than a military attack by developing a cheap and
universally available source of energy.
Let's say that (to bruit a real-world possibility) the
Farnsworth Fusor was modified so that instead of running on
hydrogen or deuterium and creating radiation and heat, it
ran on boron and its control grids used to pull energy from
the Fusor as electrical power. I mention this example
because Dr. Bussard (of ramscoop fame) has proposed that the
guy who owns Google build a pilot power plant along these
lines to provide the energy for Google headquarters.
Instantly, a form of nuclear power would exist that did not
create neutrons - thus did not create significant amounts of
radioactive waste. Boron is abundant in soil almose
everywhere and is also universally present in sea water.
The boron isotope Dr. Bussard proposes to use in his
modification of the Farnsworth Fusor is something like 80
percent of naturally-occurring boron, so no shortage of
nuclear fuel would apply, ever.
If Israel took the initiative in make this happen, it would
eventually be the most effective economic warfare attack
possible, because it would strike at the economic basis for
the Arabs' war machine. Deprive the Arabs of their large
surpluses of money from sales of oil to the industrialized
world and they return to the obscure status they enjoyed
before the advent of the internal combustion engine. Egypt
and the other Arab states can spend their remaining energy
on harassing each other over vagaries of Muslim theology and
deciding where the caliphate will be and who will be the
Caliph.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
remove safety from Email address to use
Bill Baker
> Pure fission weapons, and various versions of boosted fission weapons,
> in weights to which Israeli delivery systems are adapted, can
> plausibly be developed without overt testing, but the yields are
> likely to be limited to something like 100 kt.
Really? I would have thought that the Israelis, of all the second-tier
nuclear powers, could get the most oomph out of their plutonium
stockpile without testing. Assuming generous use of supergrade
plutonium, boosting, reflectors, neutron generators, etc., couldn't
they design a bomb that could be carried by an F-15 with a plausible
expected yield over 100kt?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John Schilling
<tan...@provide.net> wrote:
>> Its useful to take a look at the dam. The narrowest section is the
>> hydroelectric part, which looks to be 175 meters across from lake water
>> line to where the steep drop off on the river side begins (200 meters to
>> the river water line), so all of this is at or above the waterline (the
>> quoted top thicknesswould be well above waterline). A 100 kt surface
>> explosion can make a 70 meter crater, so 2 probably should do it. The
>> bottom "channel depth" below water line might be 30-40 meters
>> (guesstimating here).
>> I think it is 25% of Egypt's electricity, it would take quite awhile to
>> make that up.
>> The flooding would be an economic catstrophe - but massive international
>> aid can do a lot overcome an economic catastrophe if the attack garnered
>> sufficient sympathy (or Egypt, the 800 lb gorilla of the Arab world due to
>> its population and size, rattled enough sabers to make the oil-rich
>> states cough up the dough).
>> My estimate is that 100 kt bomb in central Cairo would kill about 750,000
>> people and injure 2.5 million and eliminate the central government.
>Why do several people keep going under the assumption that only one bomb,
>and of only 100kt, would be used?
>If you are having a nuclear war and want to destroy the Aswan dam quickly
>there are at least two options, use multiple bombs in rapid succession, or
>use one very large bomb. It's not as if the technology is absent!
The technology almost certainly is absent in Israel, which is the usual
culprit in the "Nuke Egypt Into Oblivion!" fantasies. In particular, it
is likely that making a Teller-Ulam fusion device that works in the real
world, as opposed to just on paper, requires test data from the proposed
primary device. Israel has either zero or one nuclear tests under its
belt; the "one" was of no more than five kilotons, and the Teller-Ulam
configuration is good for no more than a factor of twenty in yield per
stage.
The only other ways of producing >>100 kiloton yields are very large
pure-fission devices, or "Alarm Clock" devices. The former tend to
be wasteful of HEU/plutonium, of which Israel has a very limited
supply, and the latter quickly run to weights well in excess of what
Israel's major delivery systems can carry.
100 kilotons is a reasonable estimate for the yield of the larger class
of Israeli nuclear weapon, the one which fits in the nose of a Jericho II
missile. And
>Bomb 1 of 100 kt hits low on the face of the dam and weakens the structure.
And, if properly aimed, destroys the hydroelectric powerplants, the flood
control machinery, and causes enough damage that Lake Nasser will at least
partially drain and flood the downstream regions. That's probably worth
doing, if you are trying to destroy Egypt as an economically viable
nation-state.
>15 minutes later bomb 2 hits in the crater left by bomb 1 and weakens the
>structure further. Bomb 3, again 15 minutes later extends the crater
>further, breaches the dam and allows flood waters to tear open the resevoir.
>Perhaps three would not be enough, if so bombs 4-X suceed where 1,2,3
>failed.
And what, exactly, does this do that Bomb 1 alone does not?
Note in particular that even if you somehow instantly and totally vaporize
the entire dam, you do *not* get a Huge Wall Of Water wiping Greater Cairo
off the face of the earth. Cairo is four hundred miles from Aswan, and
the intervening terrain is far from being a neatly-confined channel.
The actual effect would be more akin to Hurricane Katrina vs. New Orleans,
minus the winds. Water levels rising over the course of a few hours to
flood low-lying areas, then receeding over the next few days. Something
rather less than the annihilation of a city and its population.
>Alternate 2, sneak attack, a very large multi MT device is dropped in the
>water of the resevoir agains the inner face of the dam. Explosion breeches
>the dam and sends shockwaves through the resevoir that reflect off the
>surrounding land and breech the dam extreamly rapidly.
See above. And note that the only people on Earth who have multi-megaton
weapons are the Russians and the Chinese. Why do you imagine either of
them are going to be attacking Egypt?
>I think any attack would be horrific, but if there were an attack there is
>no reason to beleive it would be incompetent.
See above. A *competent* attack would recognize that, if you want to
destroy Cairo, Alexandria, etc, you have to actually deliver nuclear
weapons against those cities. That destroying the Aswan dam might have
synergistic effects, e.g. complicating post-attack recovery, that may
be worth exploiting. And that these secondary effects can be achieved
with a single mid-yield nuclear weapon.
No competent attacker is going to believe that nuking the Aswan High Dam
is a one-shot-one-kill attack against Egypt. And no competent attacker
with limited resources (Israel only has ~150 nuclear weapons, has more
enemies than just Egypt, and needs to hit more than Aswan to destroy
just Egypt) is going to engage in wasteful overkill overkill just so
they can say, "We blew up the Aswan Dam, We Bad, Yay Us, Die Egyptian
Scum!"
One bomb's worth of damage will suffice, for whatever actual purposes
can be achieved by such an attack.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Sc...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
bern...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Allen W. McDonnell" <tan...@provide.net> wrote in messagenews:cJidnTs4Pe-tcsza...@provide.net...
>
>
>
>
>
It started off as a thought experiment. Let me add that to all
Egyptain leaders in the early 1970s, it was a real scenario.
Unfortunately it remains today a real scenario to Egyptian
fundamentalist leaders who I hope never get a chance to investigate
this further and so I am sure to Israeli leaders.
Derek Lyons
>> The flooding still would not be catastropic - but the economic
>> consequences of loosing the electric production and the loss of flood
>> control will not be insignificant.
>
>I think it is 25% of Egypt's electricity, it would take quite awhile to make
>that up.
10% is, AIUI, the current figure. Not as bad as 25%, but still pretty
serious.
>The flooding would be an economic catstrophe - but massive international aid
>can do a lot overcome an economic catastrophe if the attack garnered
>sufficient sympathy (or Egypt, the 800 lb gorilla of the Arab world due to
>its population and size, rattled enough sabers to make the oil-rich states
>cough up the dough).
It's not just the immediate effects of the flooding in this case, but
the after effects as well. The loss of irrigation and drinking water,
plus the return of the annual [spring] floods.
International aid will be hard pressed in this instance, and cannot
aid the social disruption.
>My estimate is that 100 kt bomb in central Cairo would kill about 750,000
>people and injur 2.5 million and eliminate the central government.
Which is why one might choose a countervalue target like the dam
rather than a counterforce target like the central goverment.
Derek Lyons
>The image of Niagara Falls is a useful one to consider. In that
>location you have what amounts to one of the world's largest lakes
>(Lake Erie) attempting to pour into the Niagara River. The spectacular
>fall that exists today came into existence about 6000 years ago when
>the flow from Erie broke through a barrier at St. David's Gorge, and
>plowed into an ancient channel. The falls have retreated a few miles
>upstream since then as the rock has eroded away, but the limits of
>geology and hydrology prevent (so far) the release of anything like a
>superflood. Similarly the (now filled in) cataract channel on the Nile
>is a choke point that will drastically limit the peak flow rate.
The rock of Niagra falls is solid - the rock filling the channel of
the Nile is loose. I suspect this difference renders your comparison
apples to oranges.
At any rate, the idea of such an attack (regardless of the intent of
the OP) would be long term economic damage to Egypt, not a superflood.
Carey Sublette
> "care...@gmail.com" <care...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The image of Niagara Falls is a useful one to consider. In that
>>location you have what amounts to one of the world's largest lakes
>>(Lake Erie) attempting to pour into the Niagara River. The spectacular
>>fall that exists today came into existence about 6000 years ago when
>>the flow from Erie broke through a barrier at St. David's Gorge, and
>>plowed into an ancient channel. The falls have retreated a few miles
>>upstream since then as the rock has eroded away, but the limits of
>>geology and hydrology prevent (so far) the release of anything like a
>>superflood. Similarly the (now filled in) cataract channel on the Nile
>>is a choke point that will drastically limit the peak flow rate.
>
> The rock of Niagra falls is solid - the rock filling the channel of
> the Nile is loose. I suspect this difference renders your comparison
> apples to oranges.
Ah, but we are also talking about some 5 orders of magnitude in time
difference - 6000 years (2 million days, give or take) vs , say, 20 days.
The basic point is that the First Cataract is a geological choke point that
can't quickly washout in a dramatic way. Not like a levee in China (or New
Orleans).
> At any rate, the idea of such an attack (regardless of the intent of
> the OP) would be long term economic damage to Egypt, not a superflood.
Well, yes. As economic catastrophes go, it would be huge and few nations
have single fixed assets that are so valuable which aren't also major
cities.. I was just pointing out the limits to the "apocalyptic scenario"
that was being offered.
Derek Lyons
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4759629b....@news.supernews.com...
>> "care...@gmail.com" <care...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The image of Niagara Falls is a useful one to consider. In that
>>>location you have what amounts to one of the world's largest lakes
>>>(Lake Erie) attempting to pour into the Niagara River. The spectacular
>>>fall that exists today came into existence about 6000 years ago when
>>>the flow from Erie broke through a barrier at St. David's Gorge, and
>>>plowed into an ancient channel. The falls have retreated a few miles
>>>upstream since then as the rock has eroded away, but the limits of
>>>geology and hydrology prevent (so far) the release of anything like a
>>>superflood. Similarly the (now filled in) cataract channel on the Nile
>>>is a choke point that will drastically limit the peak flow rate.
>>
>> The rock of Niagra falls is solid - the rock filling the channel of
>> the Nile is loose. I suspect this difference renders your comparison
>> apples to oranges.
>
>Ah, but we are also talking about some 5 orders of magnitude in time
>difference - 6000 years (2 million days, give or take) vs , say, 20 days.
>The basic point is that the First Cataract is a geological choke point that
>can't quickly washout in a dramatic way. Not like a levee in China (or New
>Orleans).
I was speaking of the dam debris Carey, I may have misunderstood that
you meant by "(now filled in)" above.
Vance P. Frickey
news:MPG.21bbf6a53d6e2e3c9896b3@news...
Sorry I hadn't read that Cordesman article earlier. Thanks
for posting it. It's a very good short analysis of what
could very well happen and which no one in power seems
interested in acknowledging.
It's about time that someone with Cordesman's qualifications
and credibility spoke out on the potential for global
catastrophe that would ensue even in the "optimistic case"
which assumes that nuclear exchanges will be confined to the
Middle East. (No, I don't consider that a truly optimistic
case; more probable than I'd like, perhaps, but not
optimistic.)
However, if Putin is sincere with his assurances to the
Iranians of political and military backing (which would gain
the Russians that warm water port access which has been a
major objective of their foreign policy since Victorian
times), this has the potential to make a nuclear attack on
Iran the spark that sets off a worldwide nuclear war.
This, of course, assumes that Putin isn't playing a very
deep game in which a nuclear war in the ME makes Russia that
much more important as a source of oil to the world market.
Perhaps he simply covets the role of arbiter in the Gulf.
Derek Lyons
>Sorry I hadn't read that Cordesman article earlier. Thanks
>for posting it. It's a very good short analysis of what
>could very well happen and which no one in power seems
>interested in acknowledging.
No need to 'acknowledge' it, (whatever that means). The report
contains nothing not already widely known by anyone with more than a
passing knowledge of the issues.
>It's about time that someone with Cordesman's qualifications
>and credibility spoke out on the potential for global
>catastrophe that would ensue even in the "optimistic case"
>which assumes that nuclear exchanges will be confined to the
>Middle East.
ROTFLMAO. Mr Cordesman is at _least_ a decade too late - or have you
not realized that there are reasons why the US has made ongoing
efforts to prevent the rise of additional nuclear states in Middle
East?