military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/17/89)
From: texbell!swbatl!weitek!gungnir!sci!daver (Dave Rickel) gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > Modern structures and infrastructure are in general insanely vulnerable >to terrorist attack. A bakcpack of explosives is enough to bring down many if >not most major bridges, tunnels can be taken out... consider knocking a >skyscraper over (colateral damage, anyone? ). Gee, my copy of THE ANARCHISTS COOKBOOK says that bridges are notoriously difficult to blow up--that they are supposed to be fairly tolerant of single- point failures, and that you generally need to set lots of charges and use lots of tamping. Now, there are several sections where i know the info in the COOKBOOK is wrong, but this makes some sense to me. It seems to me that a backpack of materials would be sufficient, but it would require more than abandoning your backpack by a bridge support--you'd have to spend some time tamping and setting charges, which would be a bit more blatant. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver [mod.note: Does "Remagen" ring a bell ? 8-) - Bill ]
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (11/22/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <11497@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >> Modern structures and infrastructure are in general insanely vulnerable >>to terrorist attack. A bakcpack of explosives is enough to bring down many if >>not most major bridges, tunnels can be taken out... consider knocking a >>skyscraper over (colateral damage, anyone? ). > >Gee, my copy of THE ANARCHISTS COOKBOOK says that bridges are notoriously >difficult to blow up--that they are supposed to be fairly tolerant of single- >point failures, and that you generally need to set lots of charges and use >lots of tamping. Now, there are several sections where i know the info in >the COOKBOOK is wrong, but this makes some sense to me. It seems to me >that a backpack of materials would be sufficient, but it would require more >than abandoning your backpack by a bridge support--you'd have to spend some >time tamping and setting charges, which would be a bit more blatant. > >[mod.note: Does "Remagen" ring a bell ? 8-) - Bill ] There are several types of bridges. The one i had in mind was the suspension bridge, where all the wieght is held up by a pair of long cables, often as much as a meter in diameter or more. Quick look at various tables gives that a meter cable with a (somewhat) tamped 50lb charge of C-4 is likely to equal a structural failure. Different bridge types are more resistant to this type of attack. But given time they can be taken out with equivalent amounts of carefully placed explosives. Fifty pounds and some tamping (pre-confugured) can fit in a big hiking backpack. On the Golden Gate bridge, you can climb up onto the cables from the pedestrian avenues on the sides. Most other suspension bridges are equally set up. ***************************************************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture [On schedule? at UCB? Yes!] gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu gwh@soda.berk... maniac@garnet.berk... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And what if I Don't?" "Then, You will die, the Girl dies, everybody dies..." -Heavy Metal |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||