3 ms·

Couldn't they build something similar to the eurotunnel but with denmark and sweden?

lukan 1y ago
There is a bridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge And more tunnels are getting build. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link
- Akronymus 1y ago
  Oh. I should've looked it up before making a statement on it. My apologies and thanks for the correction.
- yencabulator 1y ago
  That bridge is going to be incredibly easy to destroy, should a big enough country wish that. And it definitely isn't going to be rebuilt quickly enough to matter for a war.
  - lukan 1y ago
    With nukes, you can destroy anything. Otherwise the kerch bridge is still standing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge
    - yencabulator 1y ago
      Russia does not want that bridge to fall. Ukraine likely does but wasn't able to execute (outside of artillery range by now, limited access to long-range missiles, utter lack of sea power in the area, failure to anticipate circumstances enough to take it out while they still had control over area). All other countries are trying to not get involved, including not selling Ukraine (many) long-distance high destructive power missiles. I wouldn't generalize from that to "nobody could destroy a bridge".
      - lukan 1y ago
        "I wouldn't generalize from that to "nobody could destroy a bridge". Moving goalposts? "That bridge is going to be incredibly easy to destroy" Of course bridges can be destroyed. Also Ukraine would have succeded by now, if it really would have changed the war and justify the efforts. (It doesn't anymore, since russia has the land train connections) But it really ain't "incredibly easy", if that bridge is guarded. The failed attempts document as much - and Ukraine knows how to destroy things by now.

There is a bridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge And more tunnels are getting build. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link

Akronymus 1y ago
Oh. I should've looked it up before making a statement on it. My apologies and thanks for the correction.
yencabulator 1y ago
That bridge is going to be incredibly easy to destroy, should a big enough country wish that. And it definitely isn't going to be rebuilt quickly enough to matter for a war.
- lukan 1y ago
  With nukes, you can destroy anything. Otherwise the kerch bridge is still standing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge
  - yencabulator 1y ago
    Russia does not want that bridge to fall. Ukraine likely does but wasn't able to execute (outside of artillery range by now, limited access to long-range missiles, utter lack of sea power in the area, failure to anticipate circumstances enough to take it out while they still had control over area). All other countries are trying to not get involved, including not selling Ukraine (many) long-distance high destructive power missiles. I wouldn't generalize from that to "nobody could destroy a bridge".
    - lukan 1y ago
      "I wouldn't generalize from that to "nobody could destroy a bridge". Moving goalposts? "That bridge is going to be incredibly easy to destroy" Of course bridges can be destroyed. Also Ukraine would have succeded by now, if it really would have changed the war and justify the efforts. (It doesn't anymore, since russia has the land train connections) But it really ain't "incredibly easy", if that bridge is guarded. The failed attempts document as much - and Ukraine knows how to destroy things by now.