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

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#451

Post by 0xDEF »

MilaM wrote: post #399
rsync wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most eco…

As a German citizen let me tell you, hardly anyone here is angry that the pipelines are gone. No one is even talking about Nord Stream anymore. When Gazprom stopped the gas flows in July 2022, it was abundandly clear, that the deliveries would not resume in the foreseable future. In a way, blowing up the pipelines made things easier, because the government and the industry could fully focus on reorganizing energy pro…

I am Danish. Half the country was making fart jokes about the leak. Nobody is missing the Nord Stream pipelines.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#452

Post by mzs »

vintermann wrote: post #376
threeseed wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. b) There is a lack of evidence in the article. I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. c) His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on th…

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. No, it wouldn't. The narrative provided by Hersh's source, whether it's true or not, explains many of the facts that demand an explanation. It provides plausible answers to the questions "How were the explosives placed", "How were the explosives triggered" and "how weren't they detected". Not necessarily true ones! But plaus…

>This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims.

It really isn't:

>What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines …

>… Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”

>… Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included—by chance—someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City."

That's exactly the sorts of things from his other recent articles that people who know how things actually work would immediately know is BS.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#453

Post by foxyv »

oezi wrote: post #382
weatherlight wrote: post #261

Not a few hours later, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. 17 hours to find the second floating sonar device. 17 hours to get caught with your pants down. I'm saying this as former US military here. the Idea that in the middle of a OPORD, of any kind, POTUS would come in last minute and change a detail, like an explosive on a timer (fa…

Since it was established that the destruction was caused by explosives, what is your argument? The US is too competent to do such a bad job (17 hours apart and only 3 of 4 pipes destroyed)? Does this imply we have a rogue actor or insufficiently equipped one to blame? Who?

I think his argument is that the explanation offered by the author is implausible. When someone comes forward with such claims, the main means of determining it's veracity is to verify the details provided. Typically fabrications will contain small inconsistencies that don't match facts known only to investigators, verified witnesses, or experts in the subject matter.

I think their implication is that none of us really know what happened, much less the author of this article.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#454

Post by hef19898 »

letrowekwel wrote: post #347
rsync wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most eco…

As an EU citizen living next to Russia I can assure you, I'm DELIGHTED that people can no longer buy gas from a mass murderer like Putin. Anyone who buys gas from Russia is essentially supporting genocide of Ukrainian civilians, if suffering is what we're talking about. Besides, things are going on pretty okay. Electricity prices are stabilizing and Europe will eventually become greener as well. No matter who did it,…

Not sure MBS is actually any better, when we ignore the bigger, geopolitical angle for a second and just look at the people leading certain countries.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#455

Post by Reason077 »

VincentEvans wrote: post #176

Gazprom, Russian gas monopoly, has on Kremlin’s orders first threatened to, and then suspended gas supplies to Europe in an attempt to blackmail it to stop supporting Ukraine under a threat of, as they put it, “freezing Europe”. In the process unilaterally breaking existing delivery contracts. There were no Western sanctions targeting Russian gas - it was entirely a political operation initiated by Russian government…

It doesn't make sense that Russia would blow up their own pipeline. They can't blackmail Europe with gas if there's no pipeline to supply the gas.

And force majeure? That's pretty far-fetched. Why would Russia care about financial penalties? This is the country that effectively stole over 400 airliners by refusing to return them when the leases were terminated.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#456

Post by dragonwriter »

rank0 wrote: post #60
dragonwriter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.

You think Russia tried to send a message by……destroying its own infrastructure?! It was their biggest leverage over the EU. Now it’s gone and there’s no possibility of restoring Russian gas flows to the EU. If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?

> If they were gonna destroy critical international infrastructure wouldn’t it make more sense to blow up something else?

No, if they were going to make a threat and capacity demonstration against other, active natural gas pipelines in the region, destroying an idle natural gas pipeline makes a lot more sense than “something else”.

(There’s a certain extent to which it doesn’t make sense to make idle threats without the will to carry them out, but that clearly hasn’t factored into Russian action related to pressuring European countries over Ukraine policy.)

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#457

Post by chowells »

lubesGordi wrote: post #370
dang wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think it would be. Hersh is inevitably part of the story because of his historical significance and the network of government sources that he's cultivated for decades. It doesn't follow that his claims are true (even if he's accurately reporting, his sources must have their own agendas). That's why I added the question mark to the title above. The story being on HN doesn't imply anything about that—only t…

It is astonishing how so many people think that others can't read something like this and make their own judgements about it. I guess that they're worried that too many people will just accept this as True, and that will make the world a worse place? I just find it an incredibly arrogant position to take. If there's some other way of justifying that opinion, I'd love to hear it.

As a very quick overview, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

No, it's not harmless to repeatedly claim things without evidence. No, people do not make their own judgments.

When reality and your expectations are out of sync, it's probably best not to call it arrogance.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#458

Post by anigbrowl »

benmmurphy wrote: post #436
anigbrowl wrote: post #330

It might be true. But the story rests on the following premise: *Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”…

I'm not sure how courts are interpreting section d) but using a plain reading of the three points: 1) a lethal operation or capture operation... 2) an operation conducted by the armed forces in self-defense or in defense of foreign partners, including during a cooperative operation; or 3) an operation conducted by the armed forces to free an individual from the control of hostile foreign forces. blowing up infrastruc…

I would argue that it easily falls under section 2, just like blowing up a bridge with nobody on it for strategic purposes. But you raise an interesting argument and I don't know what current jurisprudence or guidance is on the topic.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#459

Post by zelias »

dang wrote: post #34

All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…

I want to defend this decision from the naysayers here. The geopolitical implications are fascinating, and the technical aspects of how the operation was (may have?) been carried out are an interesting topic of discussion. There are increasingly fewer alternative communities of intelligent people on the internet where these things can be discussed. Why take that away?

If the comments turn into a flame war, blame the commenters, not the article.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#460

Post by Octokiddie »

> The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds—much like those emitted by a flute or a piano—that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”)

This is the hardest part to believe in the piece. Making this kind of very technical change (timer to remote detonation) at essentially the last minute seems very hard to pull off. I think the piece could have benefitted from more than one view (besides Postal) on how difficult such a change would be.

That said, that last quote by Postal offers an alternative explanation. Namely, that the explosives were rigged for remote detonation but exploded accidentally.

Post reply on HN