Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re^2: The Channel Tunnel
Message-ID: <11497@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 89 06:56:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.11497
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



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 ]