6 ms·
How did divers manage to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline?
- frays-tasty 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- voytec 2y agoSkip to "Group chartered sailing yacht" or even "Trained divers required" to avoid what reads as ML-generated SEO spam.
- greenavocado 2y agoWhile technically possible, carrying a 500 kg payload at depths beyond 50 meters is extremely challenging and would typically involve commercial diving teams, saturation diving techniques, or the use of ROVs. Handling a 500 kg payload is more feasible at shallower depths due to lower pressure and shorter decompression requirements. At 30-50m depths, the challenges increase, and more sophisticated equipment (e.g., lift bags with remote controls) is likely required. Typically, multiple large lift bags are used to make the payload neutrally buoyant or slightly negatively buoyant. The operation of these bags requires at least two divers, but ideally, a team of 3-4 divers should manage the lift bags to control the ascent and descent accurately. The payload needs to be guided and stabilized during the descent to prevent it from spinning, tilting, or drifting. This typically requires 2-3 divers focusing solely on keeping the payload steady. At such depths, safety divers are essential. They provide assistance in case of emergencies, such as a diver getting entangled with the payload or a lift bag malfunctioning. At least 2-3 safety divers would be advisable. A dive supervisor or lead diver should be responsible for overseeing the operation, managing communications, and coordinating the divers' actions. Minimum Team Size: Lift Bag Management: 3-4 divers. Payload Control: 2-3 divers. Safety and Supervision: 2-3 divers (including a dive supervisor). This brings the total minimum team size to around 7-10 divers. In addition to the divers in the water, a surface support team, including a dive supervisor, tender, and possibly a medic, is essential. If available, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can assist with the operation, potentially reducing the number of divers needed for direct handling. It is bizzare that one arrest warrant was issued when many people were involved.
- throwup238 2y ago> While technically possible, carrying a 500 kg payload at depths beyond 50 meters is extremely challenging and would typically involve commercial diving teams, saturation diving techniques, or the use of ROVs. Those conditions would be challenging during the day, but what about at night? That seems downright impossible without a huge professional operation, not some poor maintained pleasure boat. The closest equivalent I can think of is cave diving but those tend to have guidelines placed by expert teams and those often take many expeditions over several years to fully place.
- nradov 2y agoVisibility is bad in the Baltic Sea. At 80m depth there's not much ambient light so little difference between day and night. Once the pipeline has been located, the divers can just go straight down and up the anchor line. There's no need for them to navigate, or follow a guideline like in cave diving.
- slau 2y agoWhere does the 500kg figure come from? I don’t see it in the article. I’m also surprised about the 220lb figure mentioned in the article. Assuming a steel twinset, and 4 extra cylinders, we barely get to 60-70kg. Where do the remaining 30-40kg come from?
- ofrzeta 2y agoIt was an estimation made up early in the coverage by experts when they didn't even know what kind of explosives were used (it's Octogen).
- greenavocado 2y agoIf its HMX (Octogen) then two kilograms is a bit more than sufficient to get the job done. Even 1.2kg is likely sufficient.
- slau 2y ago
- raverbashing 2y agoYeah, if anything this shows up how hard and non-trivial it is. And they even suggest "they got the inadequate boat on purpose", oh really? I think anyone with a mission hard enough wouldn't make it harder on themselves on such a triviality. Special missions will nerf themselves for a variety of reasons but here it's not coming out across as a particular good reason
- selivanovp 2y ago[flagged]
- louthy 2y agoLet’s steer clear of saying who it “obviously” was when nobody knows. It’s likely to turn into a flame war unnecessarily.
- netbioserror 2y ago[flagged]
- louthy 2y agoAs far as I am aware, nobody knows who did it, or at least those that do know haven’t made it public. So, it’s hard to hold them responsible. Also, I doubt a comment thread on Hacker News is going to be the place of reckoning for whomever did it. So, kicking off an argument over speculation isn’t really worth it, imho.
- 7952 2y agoWhat difference does it make who did it? Unless maybe it was someone unexpected like China.
- throw10920 2y agoPlease read the comment that you're responding to before actually responding. You said "Yes, let's for sure avoid holding the responsible parties responsible", but if you had read the comment first, you would have seen that one of the points was "Let’s steer clear of saying who it “obviously” was when nobody knows." You can't hold someone responsible until you know who did it. GP is very clearly not saying that we shouldn't investigate (which is an implicit assertion made by your response), but that we shouldn't assign blame until we have very strong evidence as to the perpetrators, which is... extremely obvious.
- xedrac 2y agoAnd who is the unequivocal responsible party?
- srvmshr 2y agoThe article, funnily enough, made a better argument in pointing that Andromeda sailing boat might not have been involved - but rather some other vessel. The whole article felt like reading a 'proof by contradiction in prose' - from the shabby state of diving enclosure, to the extreme technicalities in executing the sabotage, and lastly even mentioning naval presence in the area. As a person not following the details of Nordstrom case, this article didn't tell me anything new except how a skeleton crew on a shabbily maintained skiff could/couldn't blow up a pipeline (better technical discussion offered by user:greenavocado in other thread). Are there other state actors involved? Maybe. Is it being used as a distraction for some cover-up? Possibly. Who knows And the icing: the person charged criminally is 'one Mr. Volodymir Z, who denies being involved' :)
- foobarqux 2y agoOften reporters can’t get a story past editors or into the headline but they manage to slip things into the body of the article if you read between the lines.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago[flagged]
- jacknews 2y agoYes the OP article and this whole argument seems like whitewash to me - a ragtag team of Ukrainian divers on a vacation charter yatch that doesn't even have sonar... planting 4 large explosives precicesly, at 80m depths? nope Any criminology surely starts with motive, and then means and opportunity. Who had a motive to destroy these pipelines? Who had the means? Could it be America, who would cut off Russia as a supplier to Europe, and step in to replace them, given their ample fracking supplies looking for a market? And who certainly have the means for such an operation. Out of all the suspects, America certainly had most to gain, and most capability.
- nradov 2y agoJust because the charter yacht didn't come equipped with sonar doesn't mean that the dive team didn't have sonar. You can literally rent a complete side-scan sonar system in a box and carry it onboard with you. Some of my friends do this hunting for lost shipwrecks to dive.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jacknews 2y agoyes, coulda. But why not just rent a boat with sonar, in good shape, with safe dive platform, etc. Only one culprit ticks all the boxes from a crimonology pov, and none of the others really make much sense. Why, really, would Ukraine destroy the pipeline (not exactly the best way to make friends in Europe), and honestly, could they even? They were busy with much closer-to-home issues. Why would Russia destroy it? They were already in complete control, and the sabotage lost their ability to re-open supplies and therefore any negotiation leverage. Germany? Hardly. It's America. Who also crowed the loudest pointing the finger at Russia, at the time. Only America has such blatant chutzpah.
- anovikov 2y agoOnly shows how little trust could be put on fixed infrastructure these days. From now on it has to be built in ways much more resistant to sabotage or attacks. In some ways this is already done: for example, renewable energy facilities are too spread out to be vulnerable, it takes too many and too powerful munitions to wreck a solar or wind power plant vs coal-fired one of comparable output. But gas pipelines are an entirely different thing.
- voytec 2y ago> Only shows how little trust could be put on fixed infrastructure these days You either introduce redundancy to get rid of single points of failure, or you invest in more reliable means to fulfill given requirements, and keep former main "pipe" as backup.
- anovikov 2y agoDoesn't work with gas pipeline, especially not with undersea ones. They scale down terribly poorly, becoming incredibly expensive to build and operate per bcm/y if made thinner/"smaller" to have many of them for redundancy. Also too long, equally well attacked at any point, thus impossible to defend, and impossible to fix once attacked (saltwater getting inside -> pipes are wrecked after a few days, long before they can be sealed and drained).
- voytec 2y agoMy point is that you don't need gas specifically, but energy. Find ways to get energy without dependency on gas if the source is unstable.
- anovikov 2y agoThat's true. We should depend less on things that are so vulnerable. LNG is partially a solution though - a liquefaction or regasification terminal is easier to protect, and defence of shipping at sea is a well-debugged thing since WWI.
- odiroot 2y agoThe best scenario would have been for the pipeline to have never existed. This is the second best.
- fredgrott 2y agoGiven the recent reporting of a real collision of a ship with an undersea pipeline from Finland to Estonia...this seems not likely.... What is missing....there was several entities tracking one distinct Russian ship big enough to cause such damage before and after the even occurred...then several years later...nothing about that specific ship....
- CRConrad 2y ago> Given the recent reporting of a real collision of a ship with an undersea pipeline from Finland to Estonia... Your use of the word "collision" makes it sound so... Accidental. That was, IIRC, a Chinese ship, which: 1) Dragged its anchor[1] along the bottom of the sea for God knows how many miles, out in the middle of the Gulf of Finland, before they "just happened" to snag it on that telecommunications cable (IIRC; not a pipeline). 2) Then legged it across the Baltic and out through Öresund without responding to attempts at communication, and then home to China where authorities are denying Western investigators any access to the ship's crew. Doesn't feel very accidental at all to me. Buut... I don't see how it supports the hypothesis that it was the Russians who blew up NordStream 2. What's the logical connection? ___ [1]: Or some specialised implement designed to do the maximal amount of damage, but make it look like it was by an anchor?
- exar0815 2y ago[flagged]
- bloopernova 2y agoI'm not fully understanding you, are you saying russia is attempting to deflect attention onto its enemies?
- dtquad 2y agoThe German state and media has always been fanatically pro-Russia and pro-China but they don't get criticized for it unlike Hungary. I wonder why.
- K7J6H5G4 2y ago[flagged]
- cjpearson 2y agoWere there any reports beyond the Seymour Hersh substack post? Besides some Russian outlets nobody took that seriously. While Hersh has had some impressive scoops he also has a history of fabrication and unreliable sources. There's a reason no media outlet would touch that story and he had to self-publish. No newspaper is going to risk their credibility on a story by a disgraced journalist using a single anonymous source.
- K7J6H5G4 2y ago"Were there any reports beyond the Seymour Hersh substack post?" Not that I know of. I'm basing my speculations on Hersh's article, Biden stating openly that "we'll bring an end to it (the pipeline)" and a bit of "ciu bono?".
- zarzavat 2y agoThose claims were by Hersh who has a …mixed record. I can believe that the US was involved. I strongly doubt that Norway was involved, it would have poisoned relations with the EU.
- K7J6H5G4 2y ago"I strongly doubt that Norway was involved, it would have poisoned relations with the EU." So... Maybe that's why they won't admit it?
- zarzavat 2y agoThe relationship between Norway and the EU is like the relationship between Canada and the US, except that Norway is way more subservient. Norway has a system that has been called “fax democracy”, where it has to accept EU laws have supremacy over Norwegian laws, without any veto or democratic representation. That is not the position of strength from which to launch a sabotage attack on the EU’s largest and most powerful member. The chances of Canada attacking US infrastructure is zero. The chances of Norway doing the same to Germany is even less.
- themgt 2y agoYet this could be precisely why the saboteurs used [Andromeda]. To stay undetected and unaccountable — which they managed to do until the charges were made public this week. It's well worth reading the Spiegel piece from a year ago, which is far more in-depth and goes over a lot more of the evidence and plausibility of the scenario. It's odd to me ARD would put out this highly similar but 90% slimmed down and far less convincing article and not even mention the earlier and more authoritative Spiegel report. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-the-attack-on-nord-stream-all-the-clues-point-toward-kyiv-a-124838c7-992a-4d0e-9894-942d4a665778 https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-th...
- jaynetics 2y agoI guess the ARD take is intentionally more on the side of infotainment. There's also this WSJ article from a few days ago which purports to know some very specific facts and even to have quotes from participants of the operation: https://archive.ph/Ka8HB https://archive.ph/Ka8HB
- stefan_ 2y agoIt also of course claims > In the wake of the attack, which took out three of the four conduits forming the pipelines, energy prices surged. which is trivially disprovable, not least because the pipelines were not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while. They are too busy writing fiction they don't bother to verify even the most basic things.
- jaynetics 2y ago> which is trivially disprovable, not least because the pipelines were not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while. This doesn't disprove anything. Energy prices could still have surged for multiple reasons, e.g. because countries might have worried about similar attacks on other, active pipelines and might have become more eager to boost their reserves. We'd have to look at some actual stats, but even then it might be hard to tell apart any effects from the utter market chaos at the time.
- ofrzeta 2y agoRelated recent coverage about the failed arrest of one of the main suspects: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41244947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41244947
- DevX101 2y agoIt was enlightening to read/watch the realtime assessments of the sabotage from US leadership. The original storyline from American leadership was that Russia did it. That this story got any legs was an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. The pipeline was a major revenue source for Russia, and probably a major reason why Germany was slow to back Ukraine. Eventually leadership realized that this was a terrible angle, and now the story is that they have no idea who did it. My take is that it was either Ukraine or the U.S. And even if it was Ukraine, it was done with the U.S. president's approval and tactical support.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoWe were consuming different media at the time. I do not recall anyone serious making definitive statements about the perpetrators. Too many groups had the motive and opportunity to execute the plan. Given the small crew size required, it would not have even required national backing to execute. A professional diving crew would possess all the required equipment without additional funding.
- themgt 2y agoI do not recall anyone serious making definitive statements about the perpetrators. This might be narrowly literally true, but - especially in the context that apparently the CIA was aware of the Ukrainian plot to carry out the attack before it occurred - former CIA director Clapper saying "Russia is certainly the most likely suspect" or Biden's statement “Let me say this, it was a deliberate act of sabotage and now the Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies” And the anonymous "officials familiar with the latest intelligence" informed CNN [If Russia did deliberately cause the explosions] that Moscow would likely view such a step as worth the price if it helped raise the costs of supporting Ukraine for Europe. US and western intelligence officials believe Putin is gambling that as electricity costs rise and winter approaches, European publics could turn against the Western strategy of isolating Russia economically. Sabotaging the pipelines could “show what Russia is capable of,” one US official previously told CNN. And national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Friday that the US does not believe any NATO ally is behind the leaks. etc ... I think it's fair to say this at least vaguely pointed finger at Russia communicated to the public an impression which US leadership knew to be false. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipe...
- im3w1l 2y agoWhat about this approach? Put the payload on an inflatable lifeboat. Anchor the boat, and try to get the anchor to land directly on top of the pipeline. Keep trying until sonar confirms succes. Thread the rope through a loop on the lifeboat. Partially deflate the lifeboat so that it slowly descends. The rope serves as a guide. Use sonar to check whether the charge is acceptably close to the pipeline. Cut the rope and leave. If it was close enough, activate the charge remotely. Otherwise, just leave it there without activating it.
- tasty-frays 2y agoJoe Biden said if Russia invaded Ukraine there will no longer be a Nord stream 2. "We will bring an end to it." Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWUuhNd37WI&t=11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWUuhNd37WI&t=11 USA likely blew it up.
- kazinator 2y ago> Yet this could be precisely why the saboteurs used [Andromeda]. Or it could be precisely why that boat was not used for anything of the sort. This kind of argumentation reminds me of, "only a guilty man would protest that much against the charge laid against him".