[welterde]

Then explain to me why the US would not blow up both pipes of NS2? And instead blew up NS1 completely?

That makes no sense for anyone but Russia (leave the option slightly ajar for selling gas later on). And the contracts would not quite be irrelevant since they could then try to seize more assets from Russia.

Also a Norway-Poland gas pipeline was opened up just one day before the NS attacks, so could also be sending a message.

[988747]

> Then explain to me why the US would not blow up both pipes of NS2?

Maybe they wanted to, but simply failed? One of the bombs did not go off, or something like that.

[aerostable_slug]

Seems unlikely. The US has successfully engaged in much more difficult, intricate operations successfully in the past. Here the attacker didn't even have to worry about collateral damage.

A former Navy SEAL was interviewed and stated pipelines are what they called (IIRC) "friendly targets" — it doesn't take much explosive to take them out (I imagine their pressurization helps, but I don't have subject matter knowledge).

[miguelazo]

Exactly. It’s funny how the US war machine fanboys ascribe such perfection it, especially after its glaring failures all over the Middle East.