774
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] G4Z@lemmy.world 120 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

That would be funny but it's pretty unlikely to be true. Fixing bridges has got to be fucking difficult.

That's why it's a war crime.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 39 points 14 hours ago

It's not as difficult as you might think. Or, more precisely, it's a lot more difficult to destroy a bridge than you might expect. Look at how much trouble Ukraine has had trying to keep the Kerch Strait bridge out of commission. Or look at the hundreds of bombing runs the US did in Vietnam to try and knock out one stupid bridge.

It's easy enough to temporarily shut a bridge down. Bombing its road deck is pretty easy. The deck is usually exposed to the sky, so bombs can be dropped right on it from above. And the deck is thin enough to be fairly vulnerable to bombing.

The problem is that bombing a bridge deck doesn't actually destroy the bridge. At best you create a hole in the bridge deck a meter or two across. That can shut a bridge down temporarily, but it doesn't actually damage the bridge's structure. To repair the deck you do something like:

  1. Clean up the hole. Remove any loose concrete chunks with a hammer, cut off any exposed rebar with an angle grinder.
  2. Drill holes at regular intervals through the edge of the hole.
  3. Run new rebar spanning the hole. Epoxy rebar into old bridge deck.
  4. Attach some plywood to the bottom side of the bridge deck to server as as mold.
  5. Pour new concrete and let cure.

This can be done in a day or two. And on a multi-lane-bridge, traffic can continue to flow around the bomb site at reduced capacity.

If you actually want to destroy a bridge, you can't just hit a random spot on the bridge deck. If it's a big truss bridge, a direct hit on a key truss member could cause the entire bridge to collapse. But those are very precise targets to hit. And if it's just a bridge deck sitting on beams sitting on piers, the only way to destroy the bridge will be to knock out the support piers.

The problem with destroying them is that bridge piers are both hard to hit and extremely resilient. They're protected from above by the bridge deck, so to hit them you'll have to glide a bomb in horizontally. And even if you manage to hit them, they're utterly massive. They have to support the entire weight of the bridge above. Plus they're often directly in a river's channel. This means they're built to survive the forces of water current and ice collision if the bridge is in a temperate climate. Plus they're built extra thick to resist the corrosive effects of the river water. Now, if you do actually manage to knock out a support pier, replacing it will be a nightmare. But that's a very difficult thing to do.

It's actually a lot more difficult to destroy a bridge than people realize. Knocking a hole in a bridge deck is easy. But bridge decks are easily and quickly repairable.

[-] Mpatch@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

This is kina dumb. Seeing how they can precisely land a missile on a car going 100kph on the other side of the world.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago

And yet, your gut feelings are incorrect. As has been clearly demonstrated by the well documented difficulties militaries have in keeping bridges down through air power alone. But sure, tell the literal structural engineer you know more about bridges than she does.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Now that we caught an actual structural engineer, here's a question from a fellow engineer (but the wrong kind to know this):

  • Would it be harder to repair a suspension bridge (or at least the suspended span of a bridge with one)?

I'm thinking of the top of my head that the forces and dynamics of a suspension bridge are very different from those of a more traditional bridge and thus that if the actual cables holding it are blown up at the anchor points, the whole suspended span just brings itself down as a whole leaving just the pillars.

Further, suspension bridges tend to be used for longer lengths of bridge were you can't really have pillars in the middle (in this example in the US, the suspended spawn being there so that ships can cross under the bridge)

[-] Mpatch@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I have extensively worked in Demolition. Salvage, and Scrap. Breaking shit is only hard when you are using the wrong tool for the job.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

And unfortunately for the US Air Force, planes and bombs are the wrong tool to take down a bridge.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 54 points 18 hours ago

Depends on what you call fixed. Good enough to work, maybe. Back to original condition, I really doubt it.

[-] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 49 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Yeah, it's not really a direct comparison. Bridges in Iran are generally badly damaged like this (real examples):

But the Francis Scott Key bridge is fully just gone for the entire load-bearing span and needs to be rebuilt.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 22 points 13 hours ago

That's pretty easy to fix. The bottom image just has a hole in the bridge deck. Clean up the hole, epoxy in some new rebar, build some forms, pour new concrete, and you're done.

The top image is worse, but it's still not as bad as it seems. Look closely at that bridge. That looks to be a bridge made of precast concrete. Look how the whole fallen span seems to have come down in one big piece. It's a very clean break.

When I say precast, I mean literally that. The beams for that bridge are not poured on site. They're made in a factory and trucked in. A precast concrete plant could have a whole yard full of beams just sitting there, ready to go. How you build such a bridge:

  1. Construct bridge piers by either casting in place or driving precast piles into the ground.
  2. Either cast the pier top caps in place or use precast caps carried in and placed by crane.
  3. Hoist precast beams and place them spanning the top caps.
  4. Once beams are in place, construct formwork and cast a bridge deck on top of the precast beams.

In a bridge like this, often the only part that is poured in place is the bridge deck. To fix the bottom bridge, you would remove any debris, clean up the edges, drop in some new beams, build some forms, and cast a new bridge deck.

And what I'm describing is just typical precast concrete bridges. I'm describing what you can do even when you haven't optimized your whole bridge construction sector for easy repairability. But Iran has been preparing for a US attack for a generation. The reason the US's decapitation strike failed to cause a regime collapse was because Iran isn't some tin pot dictatorship lead by one brutal despot. It's an advanced nation that's built its governmental system from the ground up with survivability in mind. There was an elaborate continuity of government plan in place, and as the US and Israel assassinated Iranian leadership, the conveyor belt just moved folks up to replace those killed. It's a modern day governmental version of the ancient Immortals. Iran's even granted a lot of their military forces a high degree of autonomy. There are a whole bunch of missile crews hiding in underground bases with standing orders to launch at pre-chosen targets if they don't receive word from leadership after a certain amount of time. In short, Iran has gone to great lengths to make its government and military highly resilient to attack.

And if they did this for their government, why not their infrastructure? You can design bridges with quick repairability in mind. For example, you can standardize sizes as much as possible. Instead of custom designing everything, design your precast bridges to use only a small number of different beam sizes and standardized length. You tell your bridge engineers:

  • All bridge spans must be in 2 meter increments, 4m, 6m, 8m, 10m, 12m, etc.
  • All bridges must be built from one of six beam cross-sections. Do not design custom sections.
  • All bridges must be designed to use the minimum strength of concrete any of our batch plants produce.
  • All bridge decks must be designed to use the lowest grade of rebar commonly available.
  • The distance between bridge beams must be in one of a few allowable dimensions to allow the use of pre-made drop-in formwork. * All bridges must be constructed with precast piers, pier caps, and beams with bridge decks cast in place using drop-in metal formwork.
  • All bridge piers must be designed with twice the usual factor of safety, ridiculously overbuilding them to make them extremely resistant to bomb damage.

I have no idea what Iran is doing. But I do have a background in structural engineering. I've taken a literal course called "bridge design." If you asked me to design a nation's bridges to be extremely repairable, this is how I would do it. The piers are the hard part to replace, so you make those far, far stronger than they need to be. That way if a bomb blows off a chunk of a bridge pier, there's still plenty of capacity left. Everything else? You standardize the hell out of it and then mass produce and stockpile replacement parts. If you only allow six beam sections and 6 beam lengths, that means there will only be 36 types of beams used across all of your bridges. You can then produce and stockpile huge numbers of these beams, allowing extremely rapid repair after an attack.

We typically don't build bridges to this level of standardization. The problem with using few standard sizes is that you inevitably end up over-designing your bridge. You can't design the perfect custom cross-section to carry your loads with the absolute minimum amount of material possible. So your bridges end up heavier and more expensive than they could otherwise be. But if you're willing to pay a bit more for a much, much more resilient transportation system, standardization can accomplish this.

Again, no idea if Iran is actually doing this. But considering the lengths they've gone to make their whole regime resilient to attack, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they've applied the same philosophy to their physical infrastructure. You don't try to build an indestructible bridge. You just make your bridges easy to repair instead. If you do it right, repairing a bridge will be far cheaper than dropping a bomb on one.

[-] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

Huh, thank you, this was extremely interesting!

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 7 points 12 hours ago

And it's over a very active shipping lane.

And the actual need for the bridge is marginal. I't useful, but hardly ever busy. For non-hazardous, normal sized loads, there is a 4 bore super tunnel, for smaller loads there's a two-bore tunel, Hazardous and oversized loads are hit hardest, but they just go the other way around the beltway. Coming south from 95 north of Baltimore to 95 south of Baltimore was a 40:60 shot between bridge and west beltway, longer but not unreasonable.

Shipping terminals in Dundalk used it as a primary exit to head south. Sparrows point isn't the production powerhouse it once was. They're going to drag their feet.

[-] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 14 hours ago

Sure but if you took the billions and billions spent on attacking Iran and instead rebuilt the bridge it could have been done by now.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 23 points 14 hours ago

Straightfowardly, no, it couldn't be. Bridge construction on this scale isn't just a matter of throwing money or people at the problem. Like the old saw that says you can't get nine women to make a baby in one month, a 1200' span takes time. Foundations have to be built below water, piers have to be formed and given time to achieve design concrete strength, and each bridge segment has to be completed in sequence, including formwork, rebar, concrete pouring and setting, etc., in a careful sequence that keeps the cantilevered sections of the bridge in balance.

The US is no paragon of speedy infrastructure projects, but even in China cable-stayed concrete bridges are years-long projects. The Changtai Yangtze River Bridge, for instance, has spans similar to the Francis Scott Key bridge and it took fully 6 years from start of construction to completion, never mind design time.

[-] limelight79@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

In addition, it's worth noting that the Key Bridge was built to lower standards than are acceptable today, so it has to be completely redesigned and rebuilt - we can't just slap up another bridge of the same design. Plus, with the circumstances that caused it to collapse, you can bet that any replacement bridge will be very much reinforced against a similar incident, probably to the point where it's almost too strong given the likelihood of another incident like that.

There are so many people on Facebook that seem to think it should have been rebuilt already. They think Maryland should already have had plans to rebuild it in the file..........it's likely they are the same people that also bitch about taxes every chance they get. I have the strong impression many of them aren't even local; they're just stirring the pot, trying to make Governor Wes Moore (a Democrat) look bad; they actually have no stake in the game and probably have never even been to Maryland.

[-] not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 13 hours ago

this user bridges

[-] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 14 points 15 hours ago

*Dad voice - fixing bridges is a war crime?

But I'm actually a bridge engineer and you're spot on, shit takes a shocking amount of time even for small, simple bridges. That's why they last for 100 years.

[-] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 21 points 18 hours ago

That's why it's a war crime.

Depends on who's doing the bombing.

The USA don't answer to nobody.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 12 hours ago

Whether or not it's enforced, it's still a war crime. History will recount it as an atrocity, with footnotes that putting Trump in power was a bad thing, and we as a people should reflect on how to not do anything like that again.

I mean, granted, we try to live down the genocide of the first nations here in the US, or our economy depending on slave-run sugar and cotton plantations, but it keeps coming back to haunt us.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Depends who writes History.

That said, what's going on in the US (not just now but for at least 1 or 2 decades) parallels the typical historical Fall Of Empire so much that it's unlikely that those who write this part of History will be the current political forces in the US.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

Bombing bridges is a war crime?

But bombing humans is not? 🧐

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 12 hours ago

Bombing humans is a war crime.

Bombs are supposed to be used to destroy the infrastructure that their military depends on.

Once you're bombing to reduce population, you're also doing what Sun Tzu says is an absolute last resort, and should be ashamed of your skills as a commander.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Okay yeah, that makes sense. But bombing bridges is also a war crime though? Sounds a lot to me like bridges are "the infrastructure that their military depends on". Am I thinking about this wrong? 😅

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 hours ago

If the bridges are in the theater, then yes. In fact they become strategic hot points and bombing them can be important.

But in the case of Iran, it was entirely air, missiles and drones, and so the US was hitting bridges just to inconvenience the civilians.

Granted, if the US invaded with troops and mechanized armor, then those bridges would be useful as the front line advanced, but we have improvised pontoon bridges for that.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Makes sense, thanks. I think every war action that is technically a war crime should be reported as such in the media. Why are the media so slack on this? Like even independent media.

This would open people's eyes a little more, I would hope.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago

There's more nuance to it. It mostly depends on skin color.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Ah yes, makes sense 🙃

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

If you don't let us bomb humans, how are we supposed to do war!?

  • some world leaders, probably.
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
774 points (99.0% liked)

Political Memes

12364 readers
2212 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS