3 ms·

Federal Highways in the US are designed to increase national security. The best example is certain bridges are in certain places so that their destruction would

Federal Highways in the US are designed to increase national security. The best example is certain bridges are in certain places so that their destruction would cut off the easy path for mobilized enemy armor. They're designed to be easily blown up on purpose.

wfunction 9y ago
> The best example is certain bridges are in certain places And you cannot utter their names or locations because?
CydeWeys 9y ago
You got any credible sources on that? It sounds like one of those urban legends that people like to repeat. The Eisenhower interstate system was built in a post-nuclear world, and in a post-nuclear world it's hard to imagine there ever being a mainland invasion of the United States. The bombs would be flying before that, and there wouldn't be anything left worth invading (on any side in the conflict). Being able to utterly destroy the other nation and its military forces within minutes by launching thousands of ICBMs is a much more credible plan of war than blowing up some random bridges on your own turf, and indeed that is the logical course of action that we did go down.
- rangibaby 9y ago
  The military purpose of the interstate is moving friendly troops around (logistics).
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Now this is a lot more true, and the military value of having good transportation within the boundaries of your own land has been known since at least Roman times, and likely much farther back. It doesn't explain the bridge blowing up thing, however.
- int_19h 9y ago
  I don't know about the bridges specifically, but that the interstate system had an explicit national security purpose is not just well-documented, it's literally right there in the name of the law that created it: National Interstate and Defense Highways Act.
  - lawpoop 9y ago
    My understanding was that it was created to mobilize the military and transport resources across the continent, not to make it easy to cut off enemy routes. But likewise, I have no references either.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    My issue with the bridge thing is that it's easy enough to blow up bridges, especially as you're retreating from the territory they're in, regardless of their location or construction. It could cost billions of extra construction dollars to unnecessarily site a bridge in anything but its obvious ideal location (e.g. the shortest possible span).

wfunction 9y ago

> The best example is certain bridges are in certain places And you cannot utter their names or locations because?

CydeWeys 9y ago

You got any credible sources on that? It sounds like one of those urban legends that people like to repeat. The Eisenhower interstate system was built in a post-nuclear world, and in a post-nuclear world it's hard to imagine there ever being a mainland invasion of the United States. The bombs would be flying before that, and there wouldn't be anything left worth invading (on any side in the conflict). Being able to utterly destroy the other nation and its military forces within minutes by launching thousands of ICBMs is a much more credible plan of war than blowing up some random bridges on your own turf, and indeed that is the logical course of action that we did go down.

rangibaby 9y ago
The military purpose of the interstate is moving friendly troops around (logistics).
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Now this is a lot more true, and the military value of having good transportation within the boundaries of your own land has been known since at least Roman times, and likely much farther back. It doesn't explain the bridge blowing up thing, however.
int_19h 9y ago
I don't know about the bridges specifically, but that the interstate system had an explicit national security purpose is not just well-documented, it's literally right there in the name of the law that created it: National Interstate and Defense Highways Act.
- lawpoop 9y ago
  My understanding was that it was created to mobilize the military and transport resources across the continent, not to make it easy to cut off enemy routes. But likewise, I have no references either.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  My issue with the bridge thing is that it's easy enough to blow up bridges, especially as you're retreating from the territory they're in, regardless of their location or construction. It could cost billions of extra construction dollars to unnecessarily site a bridge in anything but its obvious ideal location (e.g. the shortest possible span).