I was a Marine in Iraq from 06-09. We constantly built plans for the inevitable demise of this dam. Mostly just estimates of how screwed people would be. I'm surprised it's not blown yet, I was constantly worried someone would bomb it somehow, but 7 years later, it's still standing, so I'm unsure about any estimates given now - the Iraqis were fairly liberal in their estimates in 2006 (it'll fall by 2007) and the sam…
Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
231–240 of 255 posts
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#232Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#233I was a Marine in Iraq from 06-09. We constantly built plans for the inevitable demise of this dam. Mostly just estimates of how screwed people would be. I'm surprised it's not blown yet, I was constantly worried someone would bomb it somehow, but 7 years later, it's still standing, so I'm unsure about any estimates given now - the Iraqis were fairly liberal in their estimates in 2006 (it'll fall by 2007) and the sam…
Why didn't the failsafe dam get built? It's a perfect big infrastructure project for IMF types to fund?
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crux of your argument seems to rest on what "seriously considered" means. Not saying the US is the "good guys" here, but they're doing their due diligence, not trying to inflict the most damage purely out of rage or spite.
In my opinion, that's the point. Acknowledging that there is a dam whose collapse is capable of killing a million people is very different from actively assigning military personnel to study how to compromise the dam and flood the population for strategic gain. As the GP said, the statement "war is hell" is only made true by our own behavior during wartime, not by any universal law of the universe. This is very murky…
That dam generates a lot of electricity. In war, power plants are strategic targets. It would be an obvious potential target to weaken the Iraqi military and war machine.
So, the U.S. military studies the potential effects of destroying the dam. In the end, it does not destroy the dam.
Fast forward a few years, and people like you are condemning the U.S. military for...what? Figuring out that doing so would have resulted in many deaths, and not doing so?
You're saying that they shouldn't have even studied the issue? What if the enemy starts using it as a base of operations because they don't think it will be attacked? Like people have said, war is hell, it's unpredictable. Something unexpected could happen, something undesirable could become necessary. Without having information like this already available, sound strategic decisions can't be made. Then people like you would be complaining that they acted rashly without studying the issue first.
If you're saying that the very act of studying the issue is wrong, that's simply thoughtcrime, as well as incredibly naive.
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#235Interesting that Hoover Dam mentioned elsewhere in the thread also had problems with geology of the rocks under it and had to be fixed in a hacky way by additional grouting for 12 years after completion http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/hoover_dam/Grout%20Curtain%20Fa...
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
dang, where is he being uncivil or unsubstantive in the parent post? I simply don't see it. I don't see that he's 'blaming a million people for their own prospective drowning,' but rather blaming a million people for their current government, which is something very different. I don't particularly agree with either his argument or his style of expression, but I believe that he's very much within the norms of HN, and…
> dang, where is he being uncivil or unsubstantive in the parent post? I simply don't see it. That's because the comment has been edited.
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice that you don't allow different opinions around here. Maybe you should make a FAQ listing which opinions are OK and which aren't. And "religious flamewars"? All I did was point out the reality of religion. My post was civil enough, I called his comment stupid because I misunderstood it. Another poster, far more helpful than yourself, pointed out my error to me.
You don't get to be rude because you misunderstand someone—if that were the rule, we might as well not have it. > Nice that you don't allow different opinions Half the people who break the rules here resort to that self-flattering defense (the other half simply correct their behavior), and one needn't read much of HN to see how false it is. > All I did was point out the reality of religion. That's what every religiou…
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#238Has/could someone at least set up some cameras recording 24/7 to document the inevitable collapse in detail?
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
"To understand his tantrum one must understand the kinship he feels with the great men of history, with history itself. Lack of reverence for an image of Copernicus might suggest a lack of reverence for Saddam." From : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/tales-of... Dictators are violent, not stupid. They understand risks, and make decisions like any other leader.
Most dictators tend to behave in ways that doesn't exactly encourage their minions to be open and honest with them - the unhappy outcome of the 1937 Census in the Soviet Union being a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_%281937%29 I think it would have been a foolishly courageous engineer who told Saddam that his dam project wasn't going to work...
Certainly the census you're referring to is a sad example of political denial, but it doesn't say anyone was killed (just imprisoned, and while prison isn't a lot of fun, it's a far cry from execution) and my guess would be that the article glosses over a lot of detail, like meetings with Stalin where he said "Hmm, I don't think these results are gonna work, they're very politically inconvenient and must not represent reality. Fix it. Let me know if you can't, and I'll find someone who can." The statisticians failed to "fix" it and failed to inform Stalin that he needed to find someone else to conduct the manipulation he sought.
I understand that statisticians with integrity would decline the responsibility to change the numbers (though statisticians with a sense of self-preservation would resign rather than release accurate details), but numbers on paper are a much different ballgame than "this structure will literally fall apart and kill millions of people when it does".
Reports and studies are manipulated to fit an agenda constantly because they're so easy to manipulate. This happens all the time now and surely it happened all the time in the past. The nice thing about construction is that you can't manipulate the outcome. Something either stands or it doesn't, regardless of human opinion, threats, or insistence.
Re: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1M people
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just don't understand why you assume that the risks were not disclosed to the government. In my eyes, it's way more likely that the government decided to go ahead anyway. This was one of Saddam Hussein's prestige projects - telling him that it couldn't be done could've been fatal.
If those firms knew if the extreme risks then they should have decided not to accept the work! I think it's pretty much a given that Sadaam Hussein, even back then, was a dictator who wouldn't necessarily put the safety of his people first.