Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.
Edit: Source for the sceptics
The deep demolition, which became a central element in Finnish post-war demolition tactics, and especially the development of readiness to counter surprise attacks that emerged as a threat scenario in the 1960s, received significant support immediately after the wars. The decision concerning structural demolition preparations for bridges was made on January 15, 1946. These preparations meant building charge wells, charge chambers, charge pipes, and charge hooks. Authorities responsible for constructing bridges were required to include the aforementioned structures in their plans, which significantly improved the readiness to destroy the bridges.
If it was not possible to place the charge space inside the abutment or pier, charge hooks could be embedded in the supports during the casting phase, to which the charges could then be attached.
I wasn't being a dick. Asking for a source isn't being a dick.
Just because you imagine me having a complaining or whining voice doesn't make it so. You're projecting shit from your consciousness onto me.
If an assertion is made without any proof, it is equally easy to dismiss it. This is literally rhetoric 101. But yes, I know you äidin lil' kullanmurut get so upset when someone dares to question a thing.
And thats why you'll stay an introverted socially inept weakling.
"Perättömistä syytöksistä"
Name one. Oh you can't? What did I accuse you of. You're the one being insanely dickish here, because you can't read neutral comments as neutral. Literally the reason Finland sucks is the attitude you're exemplifying, and also a threat to our democracy. But you would never believe it no matter what, so it's no use talking about it.
Oh and another "I'm gonna block you". People who say that never do, because you're so utterly desperate to see what I think about your message.