Could a dam be used as a weapon? Suppose you were invading the

>>34392497
Yes, this is how the planar kikes destroyed the empire of Atlantis

Do you know how hard it is to build a dam? How much time and money? It would be cheaper to crash planes into a valley to try and kill everyone and might be more effective.

>>34392522
You laugh, but China displaced more than a million people with the Three Gorges Dam. Why not do it maliciously?

>>34392572
So just nuke them instead?

>>34392497
Consider

>the time it takes to build the dam
>you have to secure the build site and keep it secure while army corps of engineers gets to work
>the energy involved in getting enough material to the dam to build it. Dams need a fuckton of sheer mass to work
>one well-placed bomb would duck up months of hard work
>or the people you're trying to flood could just find some other way to avoid being flooded

It might work if you're sieging some stronghold, but no stronghold would be flanked on both sides by a valley, it just doesn't make sense. The easiest way to flood out your opponent would be to duck up the storm drains and wait for rain. If none of LA's storm drains functioned during a modest rain storm the city would be swamped literally.

>>34392497
Sounds like fun to pick off your skilled laborers and equipment operators, bonus points if their shirt is tucked in and they have blueprints and are yelling at people.

It'd be much smarter to use the dam as a weapon by blowing it up and flash flooding everything down stream

>>34392602
>>34392639
I'm talking about in a modern form of siege warfare, where you have lots of time on your hands and you are out of range of small arms fire.

>>34392652
Why not both? Build a dam downstream of the city, and right as you shut the floodgates, blow up a dam upstream of the city. They'll drown within minutes.

>>34392602
what about counter insurgeacy, like when saddamn drained the marshes in southern iraq

File: Saddam.jpg (10KB, 420x444px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 420x444px

>>34392696
Drain the Arabs! Marsh war now!

>>34392661
>>34392696
You still have a giant, immobile, and hard-to-defend build site. Like I said, it only takes one bomb to destroy your work, which has minimal gain in and of itself. Flooding the area is unlikely to kill everyone off, and it will destroy anything of value in that area. There's a reason that we don't just turn the desert to glass with mk82 jdams, and that's because no-man's land is worthless.

>>34392497
It is only a weapon of opportunity, by necessity employed largely as a last resort for area defense (I.E. the Dutch as best example).

Dams are absolutely weapons, and the destruction of most, has the capability to inflict mass-casualties (civilians and military).

File: idi.png (110KB, 217x247px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 217x247px

>>34392771
what if i'm crazy?

>>34392771
>Like I said, it only takes one bomb to destroy your work
Appalachian hillbillies could probably make bombs, but they don't have an air force to deliver them. They depend of flatlanders for that.
>>34392771
>Flooding the area is unlikely to kill everyone off
In mountainous terrain, there are only a few easy escape routes. Block them off, and you can mow down the survivors as they scramble to flee. Survivors in the woods will likely starve to death as there are only so many deer in the mountains.
>>34392771
>because no-man's land is worthless.
So is Appalachia. The coal and logging industries are mostly gone, so most of the people there are welfare recipients.

File: polpot.png (94KB, 369x296px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 369x296px

>>34392829
really crazy

File: 1496833959637.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>>34392834
>Implying the Moonshine Raiders wouldn't co-opt a Learjet to loft-bomb your dam with propane tank iron bombs

>>34392979
>implying hillbillies could afford a private jet
>implying it wouldn't be easy to shoot down even if they could get their hands on it..

>>34393038
>Afford
>Not liberate

Hillbillies are ingenious folk when it comes to fucking things up for others

>>34392497
The Dutch flooded the Netherlands to thwart a French invasion in the Franco-Dutch war. They had a whole system of defensive works based on opening floodgates in the dikes. Sort of the oposite of what you're talking about considering the dikes were designed to keep the water out, but the principle of using flooding to create a barrier is the same.

>>34392979
i wouldn't even be mad, if the jury rigged an airforce out of lear jet , to bomb me, than i would
just leave this would obviously mean that these people deserve freedom, who would i deny those people liberty?

>>34392576
do you know how long it took to build that fucking thing? and its still having work done

>>34392497
>Could a dam be used as a weapon? Suppose you were invading the Appalachians or Switzerland or some other mountainous region. Most of the cities sit in the valleys. Why not build dams to submerge them like a modern day Noah's flood?

Go watch a movie called dambusters. It really happened.

Operation Chastise was an attack on German dams carried out on 16–17 May 1943 by Royal Air Force No. 617 Squadron, subsequently publicised as the "Dam Busters", using a specially developed "bouncing bomb" invented and developed by Barnes Wallis. The Möhne and Edersee Dams were breached, causing catastrophic flooding of the Ruhr valley and of villages in the Eder valley; the Sorpe Dam sustained only minor damage. Two hydroelectric power stations were destroyed and several more were damaged. Factories and mines were also either damaged or destroyed. An estimated 1,600 civilians drowned: about 600 Germans and 1,000 mainly Soviet forced-labourers. The damage was mitigated by rapid repairs by the Germans, but production did not completely return to normal until September.

>>34392497
yes...its been done even, look up the dambusters raid during ww2.

>>34393067
>Hillbillies are thieving meathheads who start forest fires with angle grinders

ft4u

>>34392497
>Could a dam be used as a weapon?
Only if air dropped from a Cessna

>>34393908
>>34393927
derp...ya that

>>34392497
WW1 the king of the Netherlands broke the levies and flooded thousands of acres to stop the German advance. So yes.

File: kariba dam.png (1MB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x850px

if you throw a rock at the Kariba dam it'll explode and drown 3 million niggers.

>>34394046
The Netherlands sat out WW1. The closest they got to involvement was when Germany built an electric fence along the Belgian/Netherlands border to dissuade (read: kill) refugees.

>>34394252
Make Rhodesia great again.

Why not weaponize Dodgers stadium instead?

>>34392497
Not so sure about offensive but the Dutch have used their waterworks as a defensive measure in loads of wars. Mostly to stop infantry advances. Of course this is now obsolete due to airforces and paratroopers.

>>34394046
the king freaked out. It turned out to be an expensive mistake. Although tensions did get pretty high when a german unit crossed the Netherlands in the most southern tip of Limburg on their way to belgium due to a communication error.

>>34392602
>90% of the way through construction
>locals detonate a bomb a few miles up the river
>diverts it onto a new path that goes around the dam

lmao

>>34392497
works on a small scale or for long term effects
ie your enemy lives downriver and eats fish and gets water from the river, dam it and they're fucked unless they come to your pre-prepare dam defenses

>>34393934
what better reason can you think of to NOT "invade".
did your girlfriend leave you for a hillbilly, anon?

History is replete with accounts of invaders coming to a bad end after conquering a mountainous region.

File: 05e62d3b09d6e899c4fb43aea5fc7b2b.jpg (287KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1600x1200px

It could, but it's really only a way of being a dick more than an effective means of war. You're essentially crippling the area post-war and the gross amount of civilians impacted in comparison to military would probably get it labeled as a war crime.

>>34392497
Doing the opposite (diverting water) was one of the major causes for the 6 day war.

File: 1498464896672.jpg (223KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1024x683px

>>34392497

Discarding all the absurdities of this hypothetical; flooding an entire region would be indiscriminate use of force on a civilian population, which is highly frowned upon in the age of guided munitions.

File: 1479495407253.png (159KB, 500x566px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 500x566px

>>34392497
Well, Chiang Kai-Shek tried it against the Japanese in 1938 on the Yellow River. It pretty much just killed somewhere between half a million and a million of his own citizens, while doing little in the long run to stop the Japanese.

It, uh, wasn't the greatest plan.

>>34392497
is your last name castor by chance?