Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nordstream: An Accident?

thelawdogfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 176 posts

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#11

Post by Ekaros »

rfrey wrote: post #4
impostervt wrote: post #2

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#12

Post by MichaelCollins »

impostervt wrote: post #2

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Hanlon's razor is foolish; every who's up to no good knows the "pretend it was an accident" trick. Children figure it out.

Not assuming malice is a good policy in ordinary everyday situations, but the razor lacks that nuance and says to Never assume malice, which is going too far.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#13

Post by RajT88 »

namaria wrote: post #8

Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.

The old adage, "Opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one" comes to mind.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#15

Post by m000 »

> No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart.

This is only true if the operation was conducted in hostile waters. Just saying.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#16

Post by nix23 »

namaria wrote: post #8

Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.

The weight of the random-press aka "we don't know it, but the CIA already told us that could happen in the future, and therefore it must be true and it was russia" sound's like a big minus weight.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#17

Post by gonzo41 »

snarkconjecture wrote: post #14

Unless one of the leaks caused all the others, it seems like a hell of a coincidence for them to all happen on the same day by chance after sitting there for years.

The pipes are 4 inches of steel wrapped in 6 inches of concrete. It's hard to see that being something that would rupture easily by accident. Especially 4 at a time.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#18

Post by jcranmer »

There is at least one factual inaccuracy here--Nordstream 1 was not cut off after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was running at more or less usual capacity until early June, when the flow was cut by about 60%. It was then shut off in July for regular yearly maintenance window. It returned at 40% capacity for a while, before being slowed to 20% capacity in late July, and then shut off again at the end of August. So Nordstream 1 has only been not moving for a little less than a month at the time of the explosion.

While I think accidental failure of the Nordstream pipeline is an underrated explanation, such a glaring factual inaccuracy makes me skeptical of the viability of the specific theory espoused in this article.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#20

Post by cinntaile »

nix23 wrote: post #16
namaria wrote: post #8

Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.

The weight of the random-press aka "we don't know it, but the CIA already told us that could happen in the future, and therefore it must be true and it was russia" sound's like a big minus weight.

I think we are fairly certain it's not an accident?
Post reply on HN