this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
582 points (99.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

25445 readers
944 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I mean its also very much usable for other stuff like hanging up temporary cables and hoses and in practice its probably used for things like that more often.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

I genuinely just think it's the construction crew just bending the rebar that they had as extra when building it, instead of spending time cutting these off to make it look nice.

As in they needed like x meters of rebar so they used x +0.5m to make sure there is enough, and in the end just couldn't be arsed to cutt off the extra, sand it down, paint over it, etc.

[–] ForestGreenGhost@literature.cafe 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody on earth is "just bending" rebar instead of cutting it off. It's difficult as fuck to bend rebar and only takes about eight seconds to cut a piece off.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Sure. But also, no-one is blowing bridges by hanging explosives inside instead of drilling them into the structure.

For 28 years, the bridge carried traffic and goods, including timber from the Soviet Union, until replaced by the present concrete structure. Pits for demolition charges are visible in the piles. These cavities could be filled with explosives in order to blow the bridge to smithereens should this ever have become necessary.

https://sotatie.fi/en/battlegrouds-trail/site-descriptions/mohko-village

[–] Krzd@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Cutting rebar is much easier than bending it, especially upwards and in a proper curve.
Also, those hooks immensely complicate the concrete framework. (If they were done during the initial pour)
So it's pretty unlikely that they are leftovers from construction.
Cold war paranoia is the likeliest reason.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I appreciate the input from a building perspective and I'll buy that, sure, I don't know shit about pouring concrete.

Cold war paranoia is the likeliest reason.

I still haven't had any rational reason for these to be for bombs. It's just much more effective to have bombs actually in the structure instead of just hanging on it. Imagine trying to blow a safe. Would you do it just by leaning an explosive on it and wishing for the best? Nah. You'd at least try to attach it to the lock somehow.

And every article I can find on bombing bridges in Finland talks about "charge pits", not "a line of hooks well hang explosives off of". So I just don't buy these being military in any way. Not convinced.

[–] Wutchilli@feddit.org 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

But usually exposed rebar is considerd a fault because it can lead to corrosion and failure of the building.

And you would cut the rebar to length before pouring the beton.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 12 hours ago

I should've thought so as well but unless you can come up with better reasoning or source for these being for bombs, I still find it more probable. I'm not saying it's a good explanation, but it's more probable to me.

Anything I found was discussing "charge pits" and I can't imagine any explosive you'd want to hang on the outside of what you're demolishing with that sort of frequency.

I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm not convinced.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Exposed rebar is a big nono in construction. It lets water in which causes rusting and eventually chunks of concrete start falling off.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I should've thought so as well but unless you can come up with better reasoning or source for these being for bombs, I still find it more probable. I'm not saying it's a good explanation, but it's more probable to me.

Anything I found was discussing "charge pits" and I can't imagine any explosive you'd want to hang on the outside of what you're demolishing with that sort of frequency.

I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm not convinced.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

As a pioneer I'm quite certain that the explosive you're supposed to hang from there is just a plain anti-tank mine or few. It's basically just a 10kg chunk of TNT - even has a handle.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, it does. And it's also designed so that it takes 10 kilograms of pressure to detonate. Are you gonna rig up sideways launchers for each? Perhaps there already are remote detonators that you just replace the normal weight switch with.

But still. I don't buy it. First off why hang them so frequently, and do all the texts speak of charge PITS instead of "charge hooks"?

It just doesn't make sense to me and I just think OP has heard it from someone in real life and decided to believe it and is now spreading it here.

Unless someone can actually show these are for explosives, I just don't buy it.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

More often? Once you do use them to blow up the bridge then there's no bridge or hooks.