Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Green_Red said:
Putin is a coward. I just watched a video of a village destroyed by Russian Air strikes. Children! Putin is a monster.

NATO needs to respond with military. I believe right now troops are being deployed in preparation of a response.

Even if people in the Ukraine identify as Russian the West has a responsibility to respond to this.
Click to expand...

Can't see it happening mate. Putin is already backed into a corner by sanctions, at this stage, he could be looking for any excuse to use his nuclear weapons. NATO intervention is highly unlikely.
 
atkar83 said:
What the hell is there to gain from destroying something so dangerous. This would probably make you lose any support you had. Wreckless
Click to expand...
If this thing blows up, this is a death sentence for most of Eastern Europe if it's truly that much bigger than Chernobyl.

It's also much further south. Depending on the winds, the whole of Europe could be turned into a contaminated site.

Someone needs to stop these feckwits.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Russia is already now starting to call-up reservists. If a general call-up follows, as rumoured, I wonder how Putin's propaganda will square all this with his pretence to the Russian public of a limited military engagement - and definitely not an "invasion"?
Click to expand...

Simple. He will tell the reservists that the West is coming to invade Mother Russia. They need to get prepped up. Some will go westwards towards Nazi Ukraine to stop them from killing their fellow Russians as we did in WW2.

The key is to set the initial premise -- Nazis to the west and the US wanting to kill Russians. The rest after is easy.
 
Of all the places to be fighting at night, this is absolutely crazy.

 
atkar83 said:
What the hell is there to gain from destroying something so dangerous. This would probably make you lose any support you had. Wreckless
Click to expand...
Russian’s propaganda has been adding some new lines to their bs: (“the Nazi rulers of Ukraine are developing nuclear weapons”)

So I guess it’s part of the “demilitarisation”
 
In case anyone has the nerves, here's livestream.

At least it appears the fighting has stopped for now but unconfirmed reports say there's elevated levels of radiation, possibly because of the emergency shut down procedure.

 
Rightnr said:
If this thing blows up, this is a death sentence for most of Eastern Europe if it's truly that much bigger than Chernobyl.

It's also much further south. Depending on the winds, the whole of Europe could be turned into a contaminated site.

Someone needs to stop these feckwits.
Click to expand...

It's also yet another reason why nuclear power plants are a bad idea ... aside from being unnecessary.

All risk equations have two parts: the estimated chances of event X happening + the consequences of event X happening, if it happens.

If the 2nd part is massive beyond almost imagination, it matters little if the 1st part is alleged to be tiny.

So the risk equation for nuclear power doesn't - and never did - make sense.
 
GlastonSpur said:
It's also yet another reason why nuclear power plants are a bad idea ... aside from being unnecessary.

All risk equations have two parts: the estimated chances of event X happening + the consequences of event X happening, if it happens.

If the 2nd part is massive beyond almost imagination, it matters little if the 1st part is alleged to be tiny.

So the risk equation for nuclear power doesn't - and never did - make sense.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Without nuclear power, we have nuclear Putin over our heads in Europe.

I am very much pro-Nuclear and outside of madness like Ukraine occuring, they are very, very safe.

Edit: my point is for the short and medium term where the transition to green can be smoothed.

If we had nuclear, Putin would not be in the position he's in now strategically.
 
Green_Red said:
I know for a fact that troops are being deployed to border regions in the event of the worst case scenario.

The only corner he's backed into is the one with China waiting to prop him up.
Click to expand...

I can see Art 5 kicking in as Russian troops make an incursion into say Poland. I cannot see NATO making the first move.
 
The speculation is that the Ukrainian forces have surrendered.

If the Russians really played a game of chicken with a huge power plant, I'm not sure how NATO can just sit back and watch. They're literally happy to risk turning Europe into a waste land, so they can wipe out a nation.

Now, there's reports one of the reactors is on fire but it's currently not operational but still has fuel.
 
Rightnr said:
Disagree. Without nuclear power, we have nuclear Putin over our heads in Europe.

I am very much pro-Nuclear and outside of madness like Ukraine occuring, they are very, very safe.

Edit: my point is for the short and medium term where the transition to green can be smoothed.

If we had nuclear, Putin would not be in the position he's in now strategically.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power stations are "very, very safe"? I've no idea how you can claim this at the very moment when Russian missile/artillery attacks appear to be threatening a catastrophic release of radiation that could potentially render half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.

It's pointless saying safe "outside of madness like Ukraine occurring", because the potential for military strikes on nuclear reactors are part of our reality .... not some impossibly improbable occurrence.

Moreover, what is happening in Ukraine has very little to do with electricity generation. It's all about freedom and democracy vs control and oppression. This would not be changed if Europe had 10 times as many civil nuclear reactors than now.
 
Shelling a nuclear site, they keep finding ways to go even lower innit...regime change is the only viable option for the world.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Nuclear power stations are "very, very safe"? I've no idea how you can claim this at the very moment when Russian missile/artillery attacks appear to be threatening a catastrophic release of radiation that could potentially render half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.

It's pointless saying safe "outside of madness like Ukraine occurring", because the potential for military strikes on nuclear reactors are part of our reality .... not some impossibly improbable occurrence.

Moreover, what is happening in Ukraine has very little to do with electricity generation. It's all about freedom and democracy vs control and oppression. This would not be changed if Europe has 10 times as many civil nuclear reactors than now.
Click to expand...
I think you've missed my point slightly.

Germany and Italy shut down their nuclear power plants because they had referendums on it immediately after Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Because of that decision, they are very reliant on Russian gas for energy which has allowed the Putin apparatus to weasel itself into Europe with the money given to them and associated influence. This in turn has given him a licence to pursue the foreign policy he has because of the power he holds over these politicians who can be kicked out for increasing the price of energy.

And it's very easy to say nuclear is dangerous but when you have a low salaries and can barely afford food and heating, cheap energy is life and death for many. And we're talking about winters where you can easily have months of negative temperatures.
 
Rightnr said:
The speculation is that the Ukrainian forces have surrendered.

If the Russians really played a game of chicken with a huge power plant, I'm not sure how NATO can just sit back and watch. They're literally happy to risk turning Europe into a waste land, so they can wipe out a nation.

Now, there's reports one of the reactors is on fire but it's currently not operational but still has fuel.
Click to expand...

I feel like Putin signed his death warrant with this move. There is no negotiating with someone willing to blow something that not only affects most of Europe, but the 200k soldiers he has in the vicinity
 
The Firestarter said:
Shelling a nuclear site, they keep finding ways to go even lower innit...regime change is the only viable option for the world.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's emotive because people assume 'nuclear + artillery = bad' but they couldn't actually cause a Chernobyl via a tank/mortar

Was the same when it was reported they'd taken Chernobyl itself, there wasn't actually much danger but people shit themselves because they know what it is.
 
The Firestarter said:
Shelling a nuclear site, they keep finding ways to go even lower innit...regime change is the only viable option for the world.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, its just Putin playing 4D chess. Just like he factored in the sanctions to sustain himself indefinitely. Probably something he conjured up whilst shirtless on horseback.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Nuclear power stations are "very, very safe"? I've no idea how you can claim this at the very moment when Russian missile/artillery attacks appear to be threatening a catastrophic release of radiation that could potentially render half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.

It's pointless saying safe "outside of madness like Ukraine occurring", because the potential for military strikes on nuclear reactors are part of our reality .... not some impossibly improbable occurrence.

Moreover, what is happening in Ukraine has very little to do with electricity generation. It's all about freedom and democracy vs control and oppression. This would not be changed if Europe had 10 times as many civil nuclear reactors than now.
Click to expand...

The wind direction in the next 2 days goes in direction crimea and away from Europe or even circles then into Russia...

Atleast if I see that right on windy.com
 
atkar83 said:
What the hell is there to gain from destroying something so dangerous. This would probably make you lose any support you had. Wreckless
Click to expand...
I had to check where this power station was, it's situated directly next to the Dnieper. This nutter wants to poison not only the watershed but also the Black sea and by extension every settlement surrounding it.

For the sake of humanity, someone close to him HAS to pop him now.
 
matherto said:
I mean, it's emotive because people assume 'nuclear + artillery = bad' but they couldn't actually cause a Chernobyl via a tank/mortar

Was the same when it was reported they'd taken Chernobyl itself, there wasn't actually much danger but people shit themselves because they know what it is.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, you are absolutely clueless on this.

The Chernobyl increase in radiation was purely because of the tanks moving through the territory and causing the top soil which covers the radioactive layer which has been covered with that top soil. This is 35 years after the disaster, so the elevated levels are caused purely by disrupting the work of the brave men who gave away their life to save millions.

Now for this, the reactors need to be cooled otherwise there's a real risk of a Chernobyl-style explosion. This power plant is also next to the Dnipro river as well as the Black sea. And one thing is for certain, radiation does respect boundaries.
 
If Russia causes a nuclear power plant to explode and somehow manages to create a new Chernobyl-level disaster, I think NATO just has to say "feck it" and go in. Tell Russia we're not looking for a nuclear war, but here we come.
 
Russians reportedly turning away the firefighters. Absolutely ridiculous.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Nuclear power stations are "very, very safe"? I've no idea how you can claim this at the very moment when Russian missile/artillery attacks appear to be threatening a catastrophic release of radiation that could potentially render half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.

It's pointless saying safe "outside of madness like Ukraine occurring", because the potential for military strikes on nuclear reactors are part of our reality .... not some impossibly improbable occurrence.

Moreover, what is happening in Ukraine has very little to do with electricity generation. It's all about freedom and democracy vs control and oppression. This would not be changed if Europe had 10 times as many civil nuclear reactors than now.
Click to expand...

Apart from the inherent and extreme danger associated with running nuclear power stations, if you include the costs of building and decommissioning a nuclear power station (as you should) it is now the most expensive form of power generation.
 
Rightnr said:
I think you've missed my point slightly.

Germany and Italy shut down their nuclear power plants because they had referendums on it immediately after Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Because of that decision, they are very reliant on Russian gas for energy which has allowed the Putin apparatus to weasel itself into Europe with the money given to them and associated influence. This in turn has given him a licence to pursue the foreign policy he has because of the power he holds over these politicians who can be kicked out for increasing the price of energy.

And it's very easy to say nuclear is dangerous but when you have a low salaries and can barely afford food and heating, cheap energy is life and death for many. And we're talking about winters where you can easily have months of negative temperatures.
Click to expand...

All this shrinks into utter insignificance when compared to the risk of potentially half of Europe being made uninhabitable for centuries. You appear not to understand the totality of the risk equation concerned.
 
nimic said:
If Russia causes a nuclear power plant to explode and somehow manages to create a new Chernobyl-level disaster, I think NATO just has to say "feck it" and go in. Tell Russia we're not looking for a nuclear war, but here we come.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
matherto said:
I mean, it's emotive because people assume 'nuclear + artillery = bad' but they couldn't actually cause a Chernobyl via a tank/mortar

Was the same when it was reported they'd taken Chernobyl itself, there wasn't actually much danger but people shit themselves because they know what it is.
Click to expand...
They can't cause exactly chernobyl, but rupturing the containment vessel and setting reactor building on fire, do you think the world would care the exact way how the radionuclides got into the wind ?
 
GlastonSpur said:
All this shrinks into utter insignificance when compared to the risk of potentially half of Europe being made uninhabitable for centuries. You appear not to understand the totality of the risk equation concerned.
Click to expand...
I get the risk but I think you are going about this as if this risk is the only consideration. In an ideal world, they don't get operated but here it's human lunacy and you can never account for that, no matter what you decide to cancel.
 
nimic said:
If Russia causes a nuclear power plant to explode and somehow manages to create a new Chernobyl-level disaster, I think NATO just has to say "feck it" and go in. Tell Russia we're not looking for a nuclear war, but here we come.
Click to expand...
I am afraid first strike is being mentioned at the end of the available options already.
 
Wibble said:
Apart from the inherent and extreme danger associated with running nuclear power stations, if you include the costs of building and decommissioning a nuclear power station (as you should) it is now the most expensive form of power generation.
Click to expand...

Quite so. And then you also have to add in the cost of storing and keeping safe the nuclear waste products for periods of future time that in some cases exceed the time elapsed since the Roman Empire collapsed.

When civil nuclear power was first proposed, it was done so on the back of promises that the electricity generated would be "cheaper than water" (that's a direct quote). Such promises were, of course, bollocks.
 
matherto said:
@Rightnr is he clueless too?
Click to expand...
You made an absolutely ridiculous point comparing a decommissioned nuclear disaster site with an active threat. So, yes, what you said is clueless since the tweet is 30 minutes old.

There's literally no clarity at the moment and you think I'm being overly dramatic because of a huge potential disaster.

Also, you might feel different if people you cared about were in the way of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.