5 ms·

I find that write-up dubious. > The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with t

I find that write-up dubious. > The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? > There were still active explosives on the sea bed as the pipes were leaking their gas, which explains why partially complicit Denmark and Sweden closed the whole area and denied all access, until they themselves had removed everything. This is just silly, and ignores Occam's Razor in order to fit a fact into a pre-determined narrative. Bubbles reduce the density of water, thus potentially reducing buoyancy (in research based around oil rigs and the like, it was found that a large enough leak pushed enough water upwards to compensate, but this wasn't a large leak). Aerated water is a known drowning hazard for workers in water treatment plants for this reason, now add enough gas into the ocean beneath a boat, see what happens. The leakage of residual gas in the pipeline into the water column posed a maritime hazard but sure, it was to remove the faulty bombs, that's why. They could have at least had the decency to mention and then explain away the buoyancy issue, at least insult my intelligence to my face.

ninjagoo 4y ago
>> The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. > Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? The OP might be referring to the triggering mechanism running out of battery and thus unable to receive the triggering signal, rather than to water exposure.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Perhaps, but again I'd posit that the world's most advanced military wouldn't mind slapping on a few more batteries, just to be sure.
  - linkjuice4all 4y ago
    Or a drone submarine or some crap like that. The problem with this story is that there are so many ways any capable not-even-super-power could do something like this. There’s also all the 4D chess about Putin keeping his oligarchs trapped since they can’t sell the nation’s largest commodity. Or that’s what insert country with special forces wants you to think. It’s possible Hersh is 100% correct but without anyone else corroborating him we’re just left with speculation.
    - KMag 4y ago
      Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is that Putin wanted to greatly reduce the incentive of petrochemical oligarchs to stage a coup in order to re-open the pipeline. Putin has shown he's very wary of the petrochemical oligarchs. If removing Putin from power doesn't open Nord Stream back up, then that's one less incentive for the petrochemical oligarchs to move on Putin, at least in the short term. Presumably, Putin also wanted to make threats against the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe in a way that kept plausible deniability. He wanted to show he could destroy that pipeline, but without committing an act of war against a Nato member, so instead he blew up an unused pipeline owned by Russia.
      - gerikson 4y ago
        This is my theory too. Putin blowing up the pipeline serves a number of purposes: - removes options from a potential opposition within Russia - reminds nations around the Baltic that Russia has undetectable underwater assets - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that)
        red-iron-pine 4y ago
        > - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that) this is the big one. I can't see a reason why the US even the UK would blow the pipelines, esp. when they already have a very strong NATO rallying cry, and Putin turning off the gas already means N. American Oil & Gas will be making big money. Like, you're already winning, why risk a disaster and blowback? Meanwhile Putin has shown, consistently, that he's capable and willing to play dirty like that, and can actively spite the Baltics and Scandinavia.
  - Gud 4y ago
    You repeat “the worlds most advanced military “ like it makes them infallible.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      I didn't repeat it :) First time I said: "World's largest military" Second time was "most advanced". I'm not saying they're infallible, but they're not exactly the Keystone cops, either.
      - Gud 4y ago
        Ok, fair enough!

ninjagoo 4y ago

>> The fear, however, was that the bombs wouldn’t work if they stayed in the water too long. This is actually what happened with two of the bombs. > Seriously? The world's largest military hasn't developed explosive devices that are sufficiently waterproof? The OP might be referring to the triggering mechanism running out of battery and thus unable to receive the triggering signal, rather than to water exposure.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
Perhaps, but again I'd posit that the world's most advanced military wouldn't mind slapping on a few more batteries, just to be sure.
- linkjuice4all 4y ago
  Or a drone submarine or some crap like that. The problem with this story is that there are so many ways any capable not-even-super-power could do something like this. There’s also all the 4D chess about Putin keeping his oligarchs trapped since they can’t sell the nation’s largest commodity. Or that’s what insert country with special forces wants you to think. It’s possible Hersh is 100% correct but without anyone else corroborating him we’re just left with speculation.
  - KMag 4y ago
    Right. The most plausible explanation, given the number of Russian petrochemical executives critical of Putin who have died under suspicious circumstances, is that Putin wanted to greatly reduce the incentive of petrochemical oligarchs to stage a coup in order to re-open the pipeline. Putin has shown he's very wary of the petrochemical oligarchs. If removing Putin from power doesn't open Nord Stream back up, then that's one less incentive for the petrochemical oligarchs to move on Putin, at least in the short term. Presumably, Putin also wanted to make threats against the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe in a way that kept plausible deniability. He wanted to show he could destroy that pipeline, but without committing an act of war against a Nato member, so instead he blew up an unused pipeline owned by Russia.
    - gerikson 4y ago
      This is my theory too. Putin blowing up the pipeline serves a number of purposes: - removes options from a potential opposition within Russia - reminds nations around the Baltic that Russia has undetectable underwater assets - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that)
      - red-iron-pine 4y ago
        > - serves to potentially split NATO members (Hersh's story is obviously part of that) this is the big one. I can't see a reason why the US even the UK would blow the pipelines, esp. when they already have a very strong NATO rallying cry, and Putin turning off the gas already means N. American Oil & Gas will be making big money. Like, you're already winning, why risk a disaster and blowback? Meanwhile Putin has shown, consistently, that he's capable and willing to play dirty like that, and can actively spite the Baltics and Scandinavia.
- Gud 4y ago
  You repeat “the worlds most advanced military “ like it makes them infallible.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    I didn't repeat it :) First time I said: "World's largest military" Second time was "most advanced". I'm not saying they're infallible, but they're not exactly the Keystone cops, either.
    - Gud 4y ago
      Ok, fair enough!