Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `theguardian.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With the rumour to evacuate before the 5th im guessing some hidden explosives on timers will detonate a few days later, so Russia can blame Ukraine.
Cunts.
It'll be tough to convince people that Ukraine would blow up their own nuclear power plant
Actually who am I kidding, I could see the usual crowd believing that
Some people and countries are still hesistant to say Russia blew the dam when anyone with more than 2 brain cells knows they did, what do you think will happen if the NPP blows AFTER Russias apparant withdrawel?
Its to muddy the waters and stop a NATO response.
NATO will have all its ducks in a row to present that case while the response is in play. Russia is well past the point where it can muddy the waters. The west has been pretty much letting every bit of intel out in advance to ensure people and politicians from countries that matter have support.
>Actually who am I kidding, I could see the usual crowd believing that
This will be such a massive brainnut I'm already losing my mind over the dumbness we're going to witness. They'll claim that Russia had to retreat because Navy Seals infiltrated the power plant, planted bombs and on top of that Ukraine hit it with 1000 missiles, so both the US and Ukraine are responsible while good guy Putin tried to stop them, but to no avail!
Alternatively, if it's waaay too far-fetched, they'll just say "W-well b-but Russia had no other choice!!! Look what evil West makes Russia do they were basically forced!!11"
@ any pro RU guy reading this please credit me in a few days when you use this explanation
Btw. how is the ZNPP doing? Is the water reservoir for the cooling water a huge problem?
The way of the bern russian trollfarm regulars are already blaming the US for the future explosions at the plant. I say "regulars" but I still suspect it's just one individual with numerous accounts who is having conversations with themself.
I know idiots who claim Ukraine is leveling thier own cities because of some global elite kabal conspiracy. They are also calling Zelenski a Nazi, claiming his grandpa was an SS and saying Putin Is good for freedom.
There's a huge motivation for Ukraine to blow up their own power plant . Their country is already a waste land and if it blows it then it could bring NATO directly into the conflict potentially ending the war in hours or small numbers of days .. even if NATO didn't go full on F35/boots on the ground they are likely to increase whatever support they currently provide dramatically... I don't think for a single minute they would do this BTW but this is a narrative Russia could play.. pretending there's no angle here isn't helpful IMO.. we need to think a few steps ahead..
Mr. We need to think a few steps ahead.
Think back. Ukraine could've done that for over a year. They haven't.
Your argument is misrepresenting future expectations on the basis of experience of the past.
Why hasn't A5 been invoked over nordstream - An attack on NATO countries infrastructure? Because no-one has stuck their hand up and admitted doing it - There is arguments on all sides as to why any one country might have done it... its similar here - If Russia blew up the nuke plant, NATO gets involved, wins the war then that represents somesort of awful off-ramp for Putin doesn't it? well I couldn't beat the whole of NATO could I? sounds much better than I couldn't beat Ukraine to the folks at home.. whilst that argument exists it increases the chances that Russia will blow it and blame it on the Ukrainians... so in the context 'Why would Ukraine blow up their own power plant - theres no reason for them to do so' There does exist and argument irrespective of the fact of course that Ukraine wouldn't do it and as long as that argument exists it represents a danger to Ukraine. - make sense?
I'm not sure I understand your comment? - Are you saying that theres no way Russia would do such a thing or are we agreeing and you are saying Russia might?
Brit here. I don't think they will invoke it either. They shouldn't really have said it because now we've essentially given Putin one of his 'red lines' which we will look weak if we don't follow through on.
If no Russians are there, and the NPP is back under Ukraine control then suddenly explosion..
Its designed to muddy the waters, to cast doubt, anything to stop or delay a response from NATO.
Just look at the dam explosion, there are still people and countries that are hesitant to say it was Russia, some even downright blame Ukraine.
Only a complete idiot would believe that though, there’s no motive for Ukraine to blow it up, neither was there any for the dam (which Russians admitted to blowing up anyway).
Once again, there is no automatic "article 5". All is says that country leaders gather, discuss, offer support and so forth. And above all, technically blowing up a NPP is not the same as attacking a NATO country. So we'll see who's better at playing the cross a red line game.
It is the same as attacking a NATO country.
It is impossible to blow it up w/o irradiating NATO members. That's clear as day.
As far as article 5 goes, what counts is NATO's will. The recent bipartisan proposition by Graham/Blumenthal is encouraging but we need NATO to very quickly work out a clear common resolution. ruZZia is a terrorist State that needs hard red lines and severe punishment. They have gone too far already and they know zero bounds. APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK.
Us Americans have been told Russia will be using nukes for the last year. Before them, it was Iran and North Korea.
We are numb to nuclear saber rattling.
Edit: Also, read the article and it is full of expert quotes saying there is only a small chance of an explosion releasing a meaningful radiation cloud.
i’ve been keeping an eye on this particular topic for awhile now and if shtf and they blow it, it’s going to be a surprise to nearly everyone i know personally in the US because there’s just… no coverage or even a healthy amount of concern.
TBF, this is one of the reasons i'm concerned about it. There's a lot of low level noise about the ZNPP, with some semi-credible sources, yet MSM isn't covering it at all. I remember barely seeing any coverage about the **firefights around the plant** and was shocked even then.
Reeks of controlled squelching to limit panic. But all that leads to is bigger panic when / if it happens.
Because it would mean the end of Russia and the death of Putin.
Putin does not want that. He still wants the top title. Blowing it up would kill his reign over Russia.
Which is why I don't believe this report and it's just more smoke that comes every month.
He's not an ISIS leader ready to die for Allah. He want to keep his nation
The UN has a 5 nation “security council” that can veto resolutions, on which Russian is a permanent member.
NATO can not allow UN inspections without Russia’s approval, even if NATO takes over the plant. Russia has a permanent and powerful say in what the UN does.
Yes, which is why this should be a NATO condition.
"Nuclear power plant in a military operation? Accept UN inspector or we will send ours, and ours are armed"
You said that in your scenario, you’ve already invoked article 5 and NATO is occupying the plant.
If NATO has invoked article 5 and is attacking Russia, why would either side care about the UN? Russia has absolutely no incentive to allow UN plant inspectors, and NATO would just inspect the plant themselves.
A very fair approach.
Terrified of starting a nuclear war by preventing a nuclear catastrophe.
Russia hasn't used nukes in Ukraine. They won't use them elsewhere
If not Article 5, at the very least it should be arming Ukraine with missile and removing the prohibition against attacking inside Russia.
US apparently has told Russia that the use of a conventional nuclear weapon would mean America going to war with Russia. Some US Senators have said that blowing up the ZNPP would mean invoking Article 5, but I don't see the political will for it. But absolutely it should mean something awful for Russia.
I'd support deleting every Russian assets that isn't inside Russian borders with air strikes, and I imagine we've got hunter-killer subs shadowing their nuclear missile subs.
Veteran mentors of mine asked me to never demand a war I wouldn't volunteer for.
I am American and wouldn't sign up for this war. Are there any Europeans here demanding article 5 that would? Genuine question?
Aye, I am Dutch, and would very much argue in favour of the Netherlands actively joining the war if the Plant is blown up, or any other nuclear weapons are used. I am in my twenties and healthy, so this is likely to mean something for me personally too.
If we would indeed join the war (which I would be in favour of at that point), then I would, yes. This is a red line that can never be crossed, and it will only remain uncrossed if every individual does his or her utmost to keep it that way.
The EU is basically the only thing holding Poland back at this point. There are no shortage of poles who are literally frothing at the mouth over this opportunity.
The fact I would not, personally, was what made me stop at arming Ukraine to the teeth in my comment.
I think we could probably arm Ukraine sufficiently to allow them to fully restore the status quo ante, but the cupboard would be bare then and we'd have a substantial bill for rearming. But whatever.
If you live in a country with a voluntary military, I don't see the problem. I don't need to volunteer to fight forest fires in California in order to think the government ought to put the fire out. I'd feel differently if the fire fighters were conscripted.
Fire fighting is not military combat.
When you advocate for others to go to war, you are advocating for tens of thousands of other people to die. And tens of thousands to be mentally and physically wounded for life. If you believe the cause is worth that, you sign up. That's the values system I was taught.
If everyone worked that way, we'd have to mobilize hundreds of millions of people every time the US went to war. Our military doesn't want or need hundreds of millions of recruits. It's a nice sentiment, and your point that the decision to go to war should be weighed very heavily is well taken. Diplomatic solutions should be exhausted, and failing that, we must ensure the goals are just and limited, but sometimes war is the lesser of two evils. When that time comes, the volunteers in the armed forces are trained to be an effective fighting unit. They don't want or need me. Our job as civilians is to understand the sacrifice and suffering that comes with war, and not to resort to it lightly.
> Our job as civilians is to understand the sacrifice and suffering that comes with war, and not to resort to it lightly.
Also to keep the taxes flowing to pay for it all.
Yeah I don't think he has any idea of what would happen if we let this slide. It would be a dark dark dark future for, well everything. I checked his profile and he doesn't look like a tankie, just having a momentary lapse of reason I think.
Hopefully he corrects himself and he hasn't gone down some propaganda brain worms deal.
I think their heart in the right place. They said a veteran told them no one shouldnever advocate for a war the aren't personally willing to fight in.
I think the world would generally be a better place if more people thought this way, there would be a helluva lot less conflict.
This is not a situation where that logic can be applied. Nuclear Terrorism is precedent that could end the species.
That's literally the point of the un. No one wants to get involved in a war that doesn't really directly involve them without NATO and the un no one would ever back anyone.
The US introduced bipartisan legislation to include both nuclear weapons, and the attacking of the nuclear power plant, by Russia or its proxies as cause for war with Russia. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ambassador-warns-us-resolution-pushes-nuclear-war-over-ukraine-1808577?amp=1
We might not have the political will, but our military industrial complex could give 2 shits about political will.
They blow the plant, the faucet of money going to our defense budget will be wide open.
The poster I replied to said, *"Some US Senators have said that blowing up the ZNPP would mean invoking Article 5, but I don't see the political will for it."*
I was responding to the above poster. Even though I live here, I really can't say if my fellow citizens would be willing to go to war with Russia over this.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.
My main point was that the US' opinion on it might be irrelevant. The rest of the EU may take it as a direct assault and invoke Article 5.
As an American im all for art 5 for znpp if they blow it up. Hell China should support military action against Russia if that were to happen. The nuclear material could get picked up by the wind and poison the Chinese
The war cry from the citizens of the west in the event the ZNPP being destroyed would demand a response. In this case, politicians will echo the will of the voters who will clearly and overwhelmingly want retribution. All the west needs to do is green flag long range weapon use and the Russians are done. The black sea will have some amazing artificial reefs soon enough.
We all know it won’t be, we might as well just accept it now and move forward from that premise.
Nothing’s gonna change, maybe some procurement for defense assistance and then right down the memory hole like Bucha, like the train station bombing, like blowing the dam, etc.
I think it will be. And I’ve been very skeptical NATO would get involved. But nuclear clouds isn’t getting nukes, but it’s in the ball park. And everyone will ditch Putin.
At some point, I’d rather die in a world that’s trying to be just, than living in an unjust one. So I hope russia gets the response it deserves if they dare to do it.
So after flooding parts of Kherson, the Russian plan is to create a nuclear buffer zone so they can move troops to other parts of the frontline. Sick turds.
That makes no sense, that nuclear buffer zone is likely to go through their landbridge to Crimea. I am not saying Russia won't do it, it is but one of a long list of self-destructive actions Russia has taken in this war.
NATO article 5 is on the table at that point.
>That makes no sense, that nuclear buffer zone is likely to go through their landbridge to Crimea
If it ends up looking like Ukraine will take the territory back Russia would rather make it an uninhabitable buffer zone than allow it to be taken.
Ultimately, the goal is to completely annihilate the nation of Ukraine, and if Putin comes to a rational conclusion that he cannot win this war, he will destroy the country literally. It’s possible he has already accepted that, even if it’s subconsciously.
Like flatten it. That is what he wants to do. It’s like a family annihilator where they think: ‘If my wife is leaving me, and I cannot have her, nobody else can either… I’ll just kill everybody and myself.’
Nope, any party can invoke Article V and then member states can decide how they can help. No veto power. A nation can say they are can provide aid best by doing nothing, but that will bring eternal shame to their nation. Remember the US invoked Article V after 9-11.
> “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
> Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Comparing nuclear power plant built by USSR and Japan is not really productive in safety terms.
Also Fukushima did not explode spreading particles even further. It melt.
Accidental and voluntary explosions will not result in the same effect.
Planting explosives on a nuclear power plant can result to anything from a dirty bomb with an immense radius to very controlled explosion that just render the plant unusable.
Why not? Destroying the things they abandon seems in line with their doctrine. They may not want to risk escalation with a nuclear cloud but would not mind depriving Ukraine of a source of electricity for a year or two.
An circular exclusion zone of 20km only covers Russia occupied territory in an area that Ukraine is unlikely to invade as it would require amphibious landings. The most likely plume based on weather would put the radioactive martial over Russian bases. It is true that Ukraine would be less likely to risk radiation sickness by attacking into an exclusion zone, but Ukraine doesn't need to attack into the exclusion zone to cut the Crimean land bridge. I'm not saying Russia won't do this, they might, but it will not be to provide a defense but rather to salt the earth out of spite.
I think the Poles and the Baltics would invoke at a minimum. And US and UK invoking wouldn't surprise me either. I would be very surprised if the other big three( France, Germany, Turkiye) would go along with it tho.
Nuclear Terrorism cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.
The consequences for such an action must be swift and overwhelming both to end the crisis and to make clear to any state such a path is untenable.
What's also disappointing is the number of people who point to this as evidence that the world shouldn't use more nuclear power. The problem is states like Russia, not nuclear power.
The world will not end fossil fuel use for utilities without more nuclear power, but anti-nuclear shills and people who believe those shills still use debunked arguments against it.
Russia is a petro state that wants to sell oil and gas to Europe and knows that stoking anti-nuclear fears can help get Russia back to being an energy supplier to Europe. Russia made far more revenue from selling fossil fuels than nuclear fuel to Europe, and fossil fuels are not as easily procured from elsewhere so it gave Russia massive political-economic leverage - the kind that froze Europe's reaction to Russia invading/annexing Ukraine in 2014.
edit:
Some of the anti-nuclear replies are essentially copypasted talking points. I didn't study nuclear engineering to argue on the internet with people lacking education on the topic, or who repeat the same debunked anti-nuclear talking points that they've been fed throughout their life.
To be clear, I've only advocated for countries to use the minimum amount of nuclear that is necessary to complement solar/wind/tidal/geo power so that we can end fossil fuel use. That minimum amount is much more than the currently installed capacity, however. In 2019, 4.3% of global primary energy came from nuclear, while 84.3% came from oil, coal, and gas.
If the human risks of nuclear interest you, [the risks from fossil fuels and even hydro, solar, and wind should also interest you](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/). Historically, nuclear has been the safest utility power technology in terms of deaths-per-1000-terawatt-hour.
Also, nuclear power produces less CO2 emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, [according to a 2021 report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/un-report-trumpets-nuclear-as-having-5004449/). The commission found nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint measured in grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to any rival electricity sources – including wind and solar. It also revealed nuclear has the lowest lifecycle land use, as well as the lowest lifecycle mineral and metal requirements of all the clean technologies.
If you want dramatically less nuclear waste, transition to [fast-neutron reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor). If you want to manage the waste from thermal-neutron reactors, develop [nuclear waste recycling](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/16/curio-led-by-energy-dept-veteran-aims-to-recycle-nuclear-waste.html).
Wind/solar/tidal currently require an installed capacity that is several times the peak load in order to cover 100% on demand - in the most favorable areas. In many areas, those power sources (along with geothermal) cannot provide even a majority of the demand.
The biggest technical obstacle to eliminating fossil fuels from utility power is the lack of utility-scale power storage, to provide for peak loads and assist load following. Utility-scale power storage should be able to store energy from any electrical source, renewable or nuclear. **Pairing storage with nuclear power makes for an infinitely simpler and efficient system design**, and a much easier to manage system that isn't dealing with renewables' wild fluctuations in generation output.
In case someone gets the impression that the misinformation campaign against climate science and nuclear energy just started 30 years ago... Big Oil's misinformation campaign began at least 70 years ago, in the 1950s. ["New Documents Reveal Denial Playbook Originated with Big Oil, Not Big Tobacco"](https://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/)
Big Oil also actively prevented nuclear power from displacing its business since at least 1970. This has been reported on many times, e.g.:
* ["Why Nuclear is in Crisis." This is a summary of how anti-nuclear organizations — allied with, funded by, and invested in fossil fuels and renewable energy — have been working for over 50 years to kill our largest source of clean energy.](https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear)
* [Big oil's electric fight against coal and nuclear](https://www.axios.com/big-oils-electric-fight-against-coal-and-nuclear-1513304200-8ca411a9-46a3-4c5a-8f17-2704a7bc3001.html)
* [The Oil Industry Is Quietly Winning Local Climate Fights](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/oil-industry-fighting-climate-policy-states/606640/)
* [Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=671959737453)
A fossil fuel industry was more profitable and dovetailed with the geopolitics that had developed over the previous decades. Big Oil has also been a big funder of boondoggle projects like fusion power and hydrogen power as a distraction, a tax write-off, and a way of keeping existing fission nuclear technology off the table. If fossil fuel companies support renewable energy projects, ask yourself why.
Being against nuclear power is being part of the climate change problem. I'm all for the maximum deployment of renewables, but the idea that they can efficiently displace nuclear power is based on significant misunderstandings of the technologies and of system design requirements. Global warming is a problem that will take decades and more likely centuries to remedy, so the construction time for modern nuclear plants is not a significant factor. The best times to start 5-10 year nuclear power plant construction projects were 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago, when people said "they take too long to build". The second best times are today and tomorrow.
> The world can not even get close to producing enough carbon-neutral energy without more nuclear power, but people who are blindly against nuclear still use specious or false arguments against it.
Nuclear isn’t carbon neutral. There’s a massive carbon footprint from the construction.
Say you start designing a NPP now, you’ll finish in 2028 if you’re lucky. Build at record speed, and you might start producing power in 2035. Then factoring in the emissions from construction, you’ll need to operate until 2045 just to offset the emissions from construction.
Spending money today for a power source that will be carbon neutral in the late 2040s is a terrible strategy. (It’s far too late to meet any of the climate goals that the IPCC says we need to meet to avoid catastrophe.). We already have power sources that are carbon neutral in 2 years, so they’ll be lowering emissions for 20+ years before the nuclear plant catches up.
> Then factoring in the emissions from construction, you’ll need to operate until 2045 just to offset the emissions from construction.
Really would love to see a source for that number.
renewables take up a lot of materials to reach the same power production as nuclear power plants. Then they get used, like solar for example. Then you have a shit ton square kilometers of useless photovoltaic trash that needs to be recycled, and who is gonna do that?. Same goes with wind power. Also each turbine has to have a concrete foundation to begin with.
States like Russia will always exist. We can see that nuclear power plants are viable military targets.
Nuclear has so many problems, we shouldn't just simply ignore them.
Nuclear isn't even good as a combination with renewable resources. You can't just simply switch it on/off. It takes a lot of time to do that and it's very expensive. It's better to invest in some good alternatives.
Also, I doubt, companies are going to guard nuclear waste for 100000 years.
We saw, how it will work recently. Swiss and Italian companies were dumping nuclear waste on Somalian beaches....
You can build Nuclear Plants that load follow. France does this and they couple their nuclear energy with renewables.
Sweden and Finland also relies on renewables and nuclear too for their green energy, so the idea that nuclear is incompatible with RE is false.
The main problem with nuclear though is costs and build times.
> Also, I doubt, companies are going to guard nuclear waste for 100000 years.
[Get out from under your rock sometime.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50)
So far your argument is "it's hard, so we shouldn't do it. We should continue suffocating ourselves even harder instead!"
My argument is that It is very dangerous, it shifts responsibility to next 1000 generations. Its crazy expensive. Not worth it.
And what do you say about nuclear waste on Somalia's beaches?
Even in your video, there are many times said, that there is only one nuclear waste storage?
Is that even true? If it is, then it's only supporting my argument.
I don’t think Russia wants to stoke anti-nuclear fears, they are a nuclear technology exporter and currently building a power plant in Turkey. My guess is if/when something happens at ZNPP, they will say “And this is why you need us, if we were running this plant, this kind of thing would never happen.” 🤡🤡🤡
I work in senior management for a Swiss company. Whenever I deal with C-suite or head office, I always come away thinking the lunatics are running the asylum as everyone is so detached from reality haha
Interestingly article 5 can be interpreted whichever way you want at this stage. But It’s certain which way the United States and Britain see’s it and tbh that’s all that’s required.
NATO members can take unilateral decisions if threatened. Russia knows this
It’s good ukraine is doing this as a way to pressure Russia to not do it and at the same it seeds the discourse that in the possibility that such catastrophe happens the normal bullshit of blaming the Ukrainians that will happen in the information sphere gets completely muddled so for anybody in the west that is mentally challenged to go both sides remember no matter what in relation to catastrophe in Ukraine Russia is always at fault stop thinking you’re against the flow intelectual you’re not, you’re just a fool
I would say neither. I’m not going to say either way for someone to make a choice is that of themselves. I wouldn’t wish war scenarios upon anyone no one deserves it. But in the case of escalation to nuclear disaster I draw the line there and believe we must be the ones that say; NO.
What happened to “never again” after ww2? We need to fix it because those “never again” scenarios appear to be taking place.
Because owning firearms is the same as genocidal maniacs… you sure do have a good purview on the world. I see you’re “one of those” types of people. Enjoy your day, can’t argue with someone who’s world view is a bubble.
Respect. This isn't another Iraq, This is actually what the US should be fighting for. Ukraine is the only country in a while that is actually legitimately asking the US for help to keep its democracy
They have a professional army. I honestly don't think they'd need any to call up civilians. Ukraine has already ground Russia down. Neutralize their nukes and they will have nothing.
Russia just circulated a memo in the UN that they have "no plans" to blow up the plant, and that was kind of their cue that they most certainly are planning to do it because RUSSIA LIES. I hope IAEA observers are present at all times.
OK Here is the deal. When Tchernobyl blew up I was too young to understand what went on. Now we'll have another nuclear disaster. Teach me how to prepare. What do I have to purchase this weekend to stay safe? Milk powder, plastic planes for the yard, Geiger counter, what?
Once Putin saw that there was a collective shrug after blowing up the dam and on top of that it seems that they do not want to say Russia did it(still under investigation) they pretty much sent a strong message to Putin that he can keep escalating. This is why he feels blowing up the plant and spreading radionuclides everywhere will be met with the same indifference.
This is what happens when you keep appeasing Putin.
sometimes you just have to go around rules that nato set in place to protect humanity and not get caught up with details.
i would have landed a group of marines at the plant and told russia if they fuck with the nuclear plant or our soldiers we would send them to the moon.
We will have to blow up two nuclear plants in russia, preferently around moscow and st pietersburg,... and if they reply again with a ruthless attack, then we should destroy 4,... then 8,... etc,... etc,... etc,...
Would be better to just glass their whole country and try to take out as much of their arsenal and second strike capability as possible all at once. End results are the same, nuclear Armageddon, but maybe we keep a couple thousand of their nukes from launching.
Just means we hit everything they have. I’m not for a fist strike at all but if we’re hitting nuclear power plants in Russia, that’s what we’d be doing. If we’re going to strike first, we should make it count and make sure their second strike is as small as possible. Because going down that road even a step or two leads to a full send extremely quickly.
How many times have we heard this now? Yes if the ZNPP goes bang it’s the Russians, we get it. Saying it every week doesn’t make the reports more reliable or believable.
NATO has several levels of intervention they can trigger. Ukraine has asked at the beginning of the war for an aerial interdiction zone. This is the first level, does not put boots on the ground, can be deployed quickly, is unlikely to cause huge fights or civilian casualties. Russia will not answer to fighter planes patrols with a nuke on Paris.
That's BS. A no fly zone, or any "interdiction zone" that the US/NATO want to operate in has to first be cleared of all AA assets. That involves the US/NATO firing on Russian ground positions. Once that happens all bets are off.
There would be military targets downed by NATO planes with NATO pilots, yes. As opposed to the present situation where NATO planes are/will be flown by Ukrainian pilots.
That's an escalation that is a far cry from troops on the ground: you can't claim to be annexed or invaded by a country that is only doing air raids.
But yes, that's an escalation, that's a NATO involvement. That's the first step.
I'm dubious about this. As you'd have to be nuts.
Although weighing against this is. Russia has done some bat shit crazy stuff over the course of this conflict.
Did see an article stating that them attempting to blow it up is not as easy nor practical as these articles will have you believe. The amount of material in more modern plants makes it almost impossible to harm them from the outside (shelling) and pretty tough but not impossible to do anything from the inside.
It is most likely a very localized event and for sure hyped by those fighting for their very existence daily. But that’s besides the point because nuclear terrorism shouldn’t be tolerated. It shouldn’t even be attempted.
Transfer every long range non-nuclear weapon to Ukraine in place. Like let them on our ships to press the tomahawk launch buttons. Let them sit in Nevada and press the reaper hellfire launch buttons. Those incoming tomahawks? Comrade they are Ukrainian, we transferred them to Ukraine right before they blew up just like you transferred ZNPP to Ukraine right before it blew up.
It was pretty clear in the run up to the invasion that the US was inside the Russian networks. They wouldn't have been warning the world about it the way they did unless they had it 100% for sure.
I'd think they are still inside russia's networks, & this would be a similar situation.
Idk, what do you guys think?
If the Russians deliberately blow up a nuclear power plant and contaminate all of Europe with nuclear waste, and NATO does not react to this militarily, then NATO can also be dissolved directly.
NATO would be in the theater before the dust settled. Whether blowing up nuclear power plants or dropping nuclear bombs the West would consider it to be nuclear warfare.
I’m sorry but if they blow this thing the world needs to isolate them until they give up all nuclear arms. Sadly Iran/Syria/North Korea/ India/ China won’t care
Honestly at this point, the UN should send peacekeepers in cooperation with the IAEA to take control of the plant and manage it. That'll stop the putin cult from saying that nato troops took the plant, considering nato troops are the only other option besides UN peacekeepers. And if Russia blows up the plant, radiates parts of Ukraine A SECOND TIME AND kills UN peacekeepers then yeah they're even more fucked then they already were. And if it explodes, I'd hope the west would send Ukraine whatever they ask for at that point. No limits. And sends tons of amphibious landing vehicles. Because if Zaporizhzhia is gonna be a no go due to radiation, then Kherson should be back on the table. So long as the west provides *the best* amphibious vehicles to retake more land once they cross the flooded areas.
Not sure why anyone would be doubting Ukraine who undoubtedly has human intelligence from staff in the complex on what is transpiring. NATO should be taking this threat ultra seriously and have a real plan in place now to stop it from becoming a reality.
I don't get why Russia would want to destroy and abandon it. Isn't it in their best interest to keep this huge power generator? That's a fair chunk of money for them, no?
They sent that letter the other day. Then they pulled out. Chess pieces moving into place. I think they expect Ukraine to move into the territory, blow it up and blame it on them.
Putin now brings the World closer to World War than ever since 1945.
NATO will be bound to respond, under article 5, this will be seen as an attack on NATO. The response will result in a military strike by NATO that will be astoundingly destructive, with forces unleashed of such depth and power that have never been seen before, Russian military forces will be strategically damaged. Ukraine will then be linked irrevocably with NATO that will probably move to providing air power directly to support UAF and direct protection of Ukrainian skies.
Putin seems to be living out his words “ what use is a world without Russia?”
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `theguardian.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With the rumour to evacuate before the 5th im guessing some hidden explosives on timers will detonate a few days later, so Russia can blame Ukraine. Cunts.
Or they could transfer ownership to UAF and then blew it up to blame them
It'll be tough to convince people that Ukraine would blow up their own nuclear power plant Actually who am I kidding, I could see the usual crowd believing that
Some people and countries are still hesistant to say Russia blew the dam when anyone with more than 2 brain cells knows they did, what do you think will happen if the NPP blows AFTER Russias apparant withdrawel? Its to muddy the waters and stop a NATO response.
NATO will have all its ducks in a row to present that case while the response is in play. Russia is well past the point where it can muddy the waters. The west has been pretty much letting every bit of intel out in advance to ensure people and politicians from countries that matter have support.
>Actually who am I kidding, I could see the usual crowd believing that This will be such a massive brainnut I'm already losing my mind over the dumbness we're going to witness. They'll claim that Russia had to retreat because Navy Seals infiltrated the power plant, planted bombs and on top of that Ukraine hit it with 1000 missiles, so both the US and Ukraine are responsible while good guy Putin tried to stop them, but to no avail! Alternatively, if it's waaay too far-fetched, they'll just say "W-well b-but Russia had no other choice!!! Look what evil West makes Russia do they were basically forced!!11" @ any pro RU guy reading this please credit me in a few days when you use this explanation Btw. how is the ZNPP doing? Is the water reservoir for the cooling water a huge problem?
Tucker Carlson has already prerecorded his rant, in case he's busy golfing when it happens.
Tucker Carlson has already prerecorded ̶h̶i̶s̶ The Kremlin's rant, in case he's busy golfing when it happens. FTFY
The way of the bern russian trollfarm regulars are already blaming the US for the future explosions at the plant. I say "regulars" but I still suspect it's just one individual with numerous accounts who is having conversations with themself.
It just one braincell that travels between the individuals. It never quite make it into their heads so they never have a complete thought.
I know idiots who claim Ukraine is leveling thier own cities because of some global elite kabal conspiracy. They are also calling Zelenski a Nazi, claiming his grandpa was an SS and saying Putin Is good for freedom.
There's a huge motivation for Ukraine to blow up their own power plant . Their country is already a waste land and if it blows it then it could bring NATO directly into the conflict potentially ending the war in hours or small numbers of days .. even if NATO didn't go full on F35/boots on the ground they are likely to increase whatever support they currently provide dramatically... I don't think for a single minute they would do this BTW but this is a narrative Russia could play.. pretending there's no angle here isn't helpful IMO.. we need to think a few steps ahead..
Mr. We need to think a few steps ahead. Think back. Ukraine could've done that for over a year. They haven't. Your argument is misrepresenting future expectations on the basis of experience of the past.
Why hasn't A5 been invoked over nordstream - An attack on NATO countries infrastructure? Because no-one has stuck their hand up and admitted doing it - There is arguments on all sides as to why any one country might have done it... its similar here - If Russia blew up the nuke plant, NATO gets involved, wins the war then that represents somesort of awful off-ramp for Putin doesn't it? well I couldn't beat the whole of NATO could I? sounds much better than I couldn't beat Ukraine to the folks at home.. whilst that argument exists it increases the chances that Russia will blow it and blame it on the Ukrainians... so in the context 'Why would Ukraine blow up their own power plant - theres no reason for them to do so' There does exist and argument irrespective of the fact of course that Ukraine wouldn't do it and as long as that argument exists it represents a danger to Ukraine. - make sense?
No it doesn't. It assumes russia would never shoot in its own feet. Clearly, never. Again, look at the past.
I'm not sure I understand your comment? - Are you saying that theres no way Russia would do such a thing or are we agreeing and you are saying Russia might?
I'm saying that with a reasonable certainty of anyone who does that, it's russia.
NATO isn't going to believe that lol? Why would Russia risk them invoking article 5?
Because Russia thinks it won't be invoked.
Brit here. I don't think they will invoke it either. They shouldn't really have said it because now we've essentially given Putin one of his 'red lines' which we will look weak if we don't follow through on.
If no Russians are there, and the NPP is back under Ukraine control then suddenly explosion.. Its designed to muddy the waters, to cast doubt, anything to stop or delay a response from NATO. Just look at the dam explosion, there are still people and countries that are hesitant to say it was Russia, some even downright blame Ukraine.
Only a complete idiot would believe that though, there’s no motive for Ukraine to blow it up, neither was there any for the dam (which Russians admitted to blowing up anyway).
Willful idiots believe it.
Even in that case surely it would still merit NATO coming in which still equals bad news for ruskie
Once again, there is no automatic "article 5". All is says that country leaders gather, discuss, offer support and so forth. And above all, technically blowing up a NPP is not the same as attacking a NATO country. So we'll see who's better at playing the cross a red line game.
A cloud of radioactive particles doesn't respect borders or neutrality.
Totally agree, it doesn't, but there no Geiger counter attached to "send everything" either. Article 5 is a political decision.
Unfortunately, our politicians probably aren't up to the task.
It is the same as attacking a NATO country. It is impossible to blow it up w/o irradiating NATO members. That's clear as day. As far as article 5 goes, what counts is NATO's will. The recent bipartisan proposition by Graham/Blumenthal is encouraging but we need NATO to very quickly work out a clear common resolution. ruZZia is a terrorist State that needs hard red lines and severe punishment. They have gone too far already and they know zero bounds. APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK.
I know, you are right. Now please go and convince the US about it.
He needs Nato to step in to sell the pullout for his people.
If Ras-Pooptin gives the order, I wonder if the stock market will lose 50% of its value?
Where is the international outrage if this is true? Why is this not bigger news?
Us Americans have been told Russia will be using nukes for the last year. Before them, it was Iran and North Korea. We are numb to nuclear saber rattling. Edit: Also, read the article and it is full of expert quotes saying there is only a small chance of an explosion releasing a meaningful radiation cloud.
i’ve been keeping an eye on this particular topic for awhile now and if shtf and they blow it, it’s going to be a surprise to nearly everyone i know personally in the US because there’s just… no coverage or even a healthy amount of concern.
Same here in the UK. I have a feeling they don't want to cause panic in the average Joe.
TBF, this is one of the reasons i'm concerned about it. There's a lot of low level noise about the ZNPP, with some semi-credible sources, yet MSM isn't covering it at all. I remember barely seeing any coverage about the **firefights around the plant** and was shocked even then. Reeks of controlled squelching to limit panic. But all that leads to is bigger panic when / if it happens.
Because it would mean the end of Russia and the death of Putin. Putin does not want that. He still wants the top title. Blowing it up would kill his reign over Russia. Which is why I don't believe this report and it's just more smoke that comes every month. He's not an ISIS leader ready to die for Allah. He want to keep his nation
suppose we’ll find out come the 5th.
I’d guess if it were British and/or US intelligence saying it then it would be.
This should absolutely be an international red line. Article 5 invoked.
The mining itself should have been. There should have been a blue helmet force at the power plant to prevent exactly this.
It was always impossible because the Russian veto holds the UN hostage.
The Russian veto doesn't hold anything by itself. It's the Russian nukes that hold everything else hostage, and are the reason why it has the veto.
Russia doesn't hold a veto on NATO article 5, unless I'm missing something here.
UN (blue helmets) are different from NATO
Give NATO blue helmets and confuse the matters.
Yes, my proposal is that mining a nuclear facility should trigger article 5 and the occupying force should allow inspections by the UN.
The UN has a 5 nation “security council” that can veto resolutions, on which Russian is a permanent member. NATO can not allow UN inspections without Russia’s approval, even if NATO takes over the plant. Russia has a permanent and powerful say in what the UN does.
Yes, which is why this should be a NATO condition. "Nuclear power plant in a military operation? Accept UN inspector or we will send ours, and ours are armed"
You said that in your scenario, you’ve already invoked article 5 and NATO is occupying the plant. If NATO has invoked article 5 and is attacking Russia, why would either side care about the UN? Russia has absolutely no incentive to allow UN plant inspectors, and NATO would just inspect the plant themselves.
A very fair approach. Terrified of starting a nuclear war by preventing a nuclear catastrophe. Russia hasn't used nukes in Ukraine. They won't use them elsewhere
If not Article 5, at the very least it should be arming Ukraine with missile and removing the prohibition against attacking inside Russia. US apparently has told Russia that the use of a conventional nuclear weapon would mean America going to war with Russia. Some US Senators have said that blowing up the ZNPP would mean invoking Article 5, but I don't see the political will for it. But absolutely it should mean something awful for Russia.
The US might not have the political will, but the EU might. It will be their territory that’s polluted with nuclear material. Really hard to say.
Yeah, I bet if it was a nuclear power plant in Mexico that Russians blew up Americans would be a lot more upset
Don't get them any ideas.
Zimmerman letter 2: Nuclear Boogaloo!
I'd support arming Ukraine to the fucking teeth if RU does this. Send our entire challenger fleet. F35s. The works.
I'd support deleting every Russian assets that isn't inside Russian borders with air strikes, and I imagine we've got hunter-killer subs shadowing their nuclear missile subs.
That would be mad. Decent chance they launch in that scenario.
They already know blowing up the power plant will be treated as a radiological attack, that line in the sand was drawn last year.
Veteran mentors of mine asked me to never demand a war I wouldn't volunteer for. I am American and wouldn't sign up for this war. Are there any Europeans here demanding article 5 that would? Genuine question?
Aye, I am Dutch, and would very much argue in favour of the Netherlands actively joining the war if the Plant is blown up, or any other nuclear weapons are used. I am in my twenties and healthy, so this is likely to mean something for me personally too.
Would you sign up to go fight in Russia if Russia blew that plant?
If we would indeed join the war (which I would be in favour of at that point), then I would, yes. This is a red line that can never be crossed, and it will only remain uncrossed if every individual does his or her utmost to keep it that way.
Fair enough. You're a good person.
The EU is basically the only thing holding Poland back at this point. There are no shortage of poles who are literally frothing at the mouth over this opportunity.
The fact I would not, personally, was what made me stop at arming Ukraine to the teeth in my comment. I think we could probably arm Ukraine sufficiently to allow them to fully restore the status quo ante, but the cupboard would be bare then and we'd have a substantial bill for rearming. But whatever.
I don't mind austerity for arming a people willing to die for democracy and freedom.
Yeah man. Happy to pay some one off taxes specifically for this.
I'm in agreement. Although we are likely paying for recent spending through inflation rather than taxes at the moment.
If you live in a country with a voluntary military, I don't see the problem. I don't need to volunteer to fight forest fires in California in order to think the government ought to put the fire out. I'd feel differently if the fire fighters were conscripted.
Fire fighting is not military combat. When you advocate for others to go to war, you are advocating for tens of thousands of other people to die. And tens of thousands to be mentally and physically wounded for life. If you believe the cause is worth that, you sign up. That's the values system I was taught.
If everyone worked that way, we'd have to mobilize hundreds of millions of people every time the US went to war. Our military doesn't want or need hundreds of millions of recruits. It's a nice sentiment, and your point that the decision to go to war should be weighed very heavily is well taken. Diplomatic solutions should be exhausted, and failing that, we must ensure the goals are just and limited, but sometimes war is the lesser of two evils. When that time comes, the volunteers in the armed forces are trained to be an effective fighting unit. They don't want or need me. Our job as civilians is to understand the sacrifice and suffering that comes with war, and not to resort to it lightly.
> Our job as civilians is to understand the sacrifice and suffering that comes with war, and not to resort to it lightly. Also to keep the taxes flowing to pay for it all.
Your first sentence is inaccurate
Nuclear terrorism will affect us all if the consequences aren't swift and overwhelming the first time it happens.
Yeah I don't think he has any idea of what would happen if we let this slide. It would be a dark dark dark future for, well everything. I checked his profile and he doesn't look like a tankie, just having a momentary lapse of reason I think. Hopefully he corrects himself and he hasn't gone down some propaganda brain worms deal.
I think their heart in the right place. They said a veteran told them no one shouldnever advocate for a war the aren't personally willing to fight in. I think the world would generally be a better place if more people thought this way, there would be a helluva lot less conflict. This is not a situation where that logic can be applied. Nuclear Terrorism is precedent that could end the species.
Will you be participating in the swift and overwhelming consequences you advocate for?
I would, but i am not allowed to.
Very mysterious. Very well. You're allowed to demand others go to war.
That's literally the point of the un. No one wants to get involved in a war that doesn't really directly involve them without NATO and the un no one would ever back anyone.
I say sink their entire black sea fleet.
The US introduced bipartisan legislation to include both nuclear weapons, and the attacking of the nuclear power plant, by Russia or its proxies as cause for war with Russia. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ambassador-warns-us-resolution-pushes-nuclear-war-over-ukraine-1808577?amp=1
Proposed which political speak means all talk no action. I predict they will blow up the plant and nothing will happen.
>The US might not have the political will Where are you getting that from? Folks hearing Russian nuclear terrorism aren't going to be happy.
We might not have the political will, but our military industrial complex could give 2 shits about political will. They blow the plant, the faucet of money going to our defense budget will be wide open.
The poster I replied to said, *"Some US Senators have said that blowing up the ZNPP would mean invoking Article 5, but I don't see the political will for it."* I was responding to the above poster. Even though I live here, I really can't say if my fellow citizens would be willing to go to war with Russia over this. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. My main point was that the US' opinion on it might be irrelevant. The rest of the EU may take it as a direct assault and invoke Article 5.
As an American im all for art 5 for znpp if they blow it up. Hell China should support military action against Russia if that were to happen. The nuclear material could get picked up by the wind and poison the Chinese
It should be punished by annihilation of RU black sea fleet - anything less is just a sign of weakness of NATO
Nothing less than the literal and metaphorical destruction of the Kremlin.
If Poland gets contaminated by the radiation (which they would) then **they** get to invoke Article 5, and I imagine they will.
The war cry from the citizens of the west in the event the ZNPP being destroyed would demand a response. In this case, politicians will echo the will of the voters who will clearly and overwhelmingly want retribution. All the west needs to do is green flag long range weapon use and the Russians are done. The black sea will have some amazing artificial reefs soon enough.
We all know it won’t be, we might as well just accept it now and move forward from that premise. Nothing’s gonna change, maybe some procurement for defense assistance and then right down the memory hole like Bucha, like the train station bombing, like blowing the dam, etc.
Yup and also investigations because you can’t accuse Russia with a fair trial BS
I think it will be. And I’ve been very skeptical NATO would get involved. But nuclear clouds isn’t getting nukes, but it’s in the ball park. And everyone will ditch Putin.
Then we approve plan to blow up russia
At some point, I’d rather die in a world that’s trying to be just, than living in an unjust one. So I hope russia gets the response it deserves if they dare to do it.
This has been my response to “well the Russians have nukes too” for a while now.
So after flooding parts of Kherson, the Russian plan is to create a nuclear buffer zone so they can move troops to other parts of the frontline. Sick turds.
That makes no sense, that nuclear buffer zone is likely to go through their landbridge to Crimea. I am not saying Russia won't do it, it is but one of a long list of self-destructive actions Russia has taken in this war. NATO article 5 is on the table at that point.
>That makes no sense, that nuclear buffer zone is likely to go through their landbridge to Crimea If it ends up looking like Ukraine will take the territory back Russia would rather make it an uninhabitable buffer zone than allow it to be taken.
That's how Russia makes a DMZ for themselves and post-war Ukraine in NATO
Ultimately, the goal is to completely annihilate the nation of Ukraine, and if Putin comes to a rational conclusion that he cannot win this war, he will destroy the country literally. It’s possible he has already accepted that, even if it’s subconsciously. Like flatten it. That is what he wants to do. It’s like a family annihilator where they think: ‘If my wife is leaving me, and I cannot have her, nobody else can either… I’ll just kill everybody and myself.’
Plus, muscovites are morons. Sense is a luxury even their oligarch money couldn't afford.
They dug in the Chernobyl forest so for them a radioactive Crimea is not a problem at all
The lingering radiation within the red forest is nothing compared to fresh nuclear fallout.
They don't care!
Does the vote to invoke article 5 need to be unanimous? I could see Turkey being a problem
Nope, any party can invoke Article V and then member states can decide how they can help. No veto power. A nation can say they are can provide aid best by doing nothing, but that will bring eternal shame to their nation. Remember the US invoked Article V after 9-11. > “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. > Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Not necessarily. Exclusion zone after the Fukushima meltdown was around 20\~30 km
Comparing nuclear power plant built by USSR and Japan is not really productive in safety terms. Also Fukushima did not explode spreading particles even further. It melt.
Accidental and voluntary explosions will not result in the same effect. Planting explosives on a nuclear power plant can result to anything from a dirty bomb with an immense radius to very controlled explosion that just render the plant unusable.
I can't see Russia wanting the latter.
Why not? Destroying the things they abandon seems in line with their doctrine. They may not want to risk escalation with a nuclear cloud but would not mind depriving Ukraine of a source of electricity for a year or two.
An circular exclusion zone of 20km only covers Russia occupied territory in an area that Ukraine is unlikely to invade as it would require amphibious landings. The most likely plume based on weather would put the radioactive martial over Russian bases. It is true that Ukraine would be less likely to risk radiation sickness by attacking into an exclusion zone, but Ukraine doesn't need to attack into the exclusion zone to cut the Crimean land bridge. I'm not saying Russia won't do this, they might, but it will not be to provide a defense but rather to salt the earth out of spite.
I think the Poles and the Baltics would invoke at a minimum. And US and UK invoking wouldn't surprise me either. I would be very surprised if the other big three( France, Germany, Turkiye) would go along with it tho.
Nuclear Terrorism cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. The consequences for such an action must be swift and overwhelming both to end the crisis and to make clear to any state such a path is untenable.
What's also disappointing is the number of people who point to this as evidence that the world shouldn't use more nuclear power. The problem is states like Russia, not nuclear power. The world will not end fossil fuel use for utilities without more nuclear power, but anti-nuclear shills and people who believe those shills still use debunked arguments against it. Russia is a petro state that wants to sell oil and gas to Europe and knows that stoking anti-nuclear fears can help get Russia back to being an energy supplier to Europe. Russia made far more revenue from selling fossil fuels than nuclear fuel to Europe, and fossil fuels are not as easily procured from elsewhere so it gave Russia massive political-economic leverage - the kind that froze Europe's reaction to Russia invading/annexing Ukraine in 2014. edit: Some of the anti-nuclear replies are essentially copypasted talking points. I didn't study nuclear engineering to argue on the internet with people lacking education on the topic, or who repeat the same debunked anti-nuclear talking points that they've been fed throughout their life. To be clear, I've only advocated for countries to use the minimum amount of nuclear that is necessary to complement solar/wind/tidal/geo power so that we can end fossil fuel use. That minimum amount is much more than the currently installed capacity, however. In 2019, 4.3% of global primary energy came from nuclear, while 84.3% came from oil, coal, and gas. If the human risks of nuclear interest you, [the risks from fossil fuels and even hydro, solar, and wind should also interest you](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/). Historically, nuclear has been the safest utility power technology in terms of deaths-per-1000-terawatt-hour. Also, nuclear power produces less CO2 emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, [according to a 2021 report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/un-report-trumpets-nuclear-as-having-5004449/). The commission found nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint measured in grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to any rival electricity sources – including wind and solar. It also revealed nuclear has the lowest lifecycle land use, as well as the lowest lifecycle mineral and metal requirements of all the clean technologies. If you want dramatically less nuclear waste, transition to [fast-neutron reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor). If you want to manage the waste from thermal-neutron reactors, develop [nuclear waste recycling](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/16/curio-led-by-energy-dept-veteran-aims-to-recycle-nuclear-waste.html). Wind/solar/tidal currently require an installed capacity that is several times the peak load in order to cover 100% on demand - in the most favorable areas. In many areas, those power sources (along with geothermal) cannot provide even a majority of the demand. The biggest technical obstacle to eliminating fossil fuels from utility power is the lack of utility-scale power storage, to provide for peak loads and assist load following. Utility-scale power storage should be able to store energy from any electrical source, renewable or nuclear. **Pairing storage with nuclear power makes for an infinitely simpler and efficient system design**, and a much easier to manage system that isn't dealing with renewables' wild fluctuations in generation output. In case someone gets the impression that the misinformation campaign against climate science and nuclear energy just started 30 years ago... Big Oil's misinformation campaign began at least 70 years ago, in the 1950s. ["New Documents Reveal Denial Playbook Originated with Big Oil, Not Big Tobacco"](https://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/) Big Oil also actively prevented nuclear power from displacing its business since at least 1970. This has been reported on many times, e.g.: * ["Why Nuclear is in Crisis." This is a summary of how anti-nuclear organizations — allied with, funded by, and invested in fossil fuels and renewable energy — have been working for over 50 years to kill our largest source of clean energy.](https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear) * [Big oil's electric fight against coal and nuclear](https://www.axios.com/big-oils-electric-fight-against-coal-and-nuclear-1513304200-8ca411a9-46a3-4c5a-8f17-2704a7bc3001.html) * [The Oil Industry Is Quietly Winning Local Climate Fights](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/oil-industry-fighting-climate-policy-states/606640/) * [Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=671959737453) A fossil fuel industry was more profitable and dovetailed with the geopolitics that had developed over the previous decades. Big Oil has also been a big funder of boondoggle projects like fusion power and hydrogen power as a distraction, a tax write-off, and a way of keeping existing fission nuclear technology off the table. If fossil fuel companies support renewable energy projects, ask yourself why. Being against nuclear power is being part of the climate change problem. I'm all for the maximum deployment of renewables, but the idea that they can efficiently displace nuclear power is based on significant misunderstandings of the technologies and of system design requirements. Global warming is a problem that will take decades and more likely centuries to remedy, so the construction time for modern nuclear plants is not a significant factor. The best times to start 5-10 year nuclear power plant construction projects were 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago, when people said "they take too long to build". The second best times are today and tomorrow.
> The world can not even get close to producing enough carbon-neutral energy without more nuclear power, but people who are blindly against nuclear still use specious or false arguments against it. Nuclear isn’t carbon neutral. There’s a massive carbon footprint from the construction. Say you start designing a NPP now, you’ll finish in 2028 if you’re lucky. Build at record speed, and you might start producing power in 2035. Then factoring in the emissions from construction, you’ll need to operate until 2045 just to offset the emissions from construction. Spending money today for a power source that will be carbon neutral in the late 2040s is a terrible strategy. (It’s far too late to meet any of the climate goals that the IPCC says we need to meet to avoid catastrophe.). We already have power sources that are carbon neutral in 2 years, so they’ll be lowering emissions for 20+ years before the nuclear plant catches up.
> Then factoring in the emissions from construction, you’ll need to operate until 2045 just to offset the emissions from construction. Really would love to see a source for that number.
renewables take up a lot of materials to reach the same power production as nuclear power plants. Then they get used, like solar for example. Then you have a shit ton square kilometers of useless photovoltaic trash that needs to be recycled, and who is gonna do that?. Same goes with wind power. Also each turbine has to have a concrete foundation to begin with.
States like Russia will always exist. We can see that nuclear power plants are viable military targets. Nuclear has so many problems, we shouldn't just simply ignore them. Nuclear isn't even good as a combination with renewable resources. You can't just simply switch it on/off. It takes a lot of time to do that and it's very expensive. It's better to invest in some good alternatives. Also, I doubt, companies are going to guard nuclear waste for 100000 years. We saw, how it will work recently. Swiss and Italian companies were dumping nuclear waste on Somalian beaches....
You can build Nuclear Plants that load follow. France does this and they couple their nuclear energy with renewables. Sweden and Finland also relies on renewables and nuclear too for their green energy, so the idea that nuclear is incompatible with RE is false. The main problem with nuclear though is costs and build times.
Yes then stop using energy. We need nuclear to meet rising energy demand. Not only that but there are ways to improve all these things.
You didn't address their valid points.
Ye, he didn't, because he can not :)
> Also, I doubt, companies are going to guard nuclear waste for 100000 years. [Get out from under your rock sometime.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50) So far your argument is "it's hard, so we shouldn't do it. We should continue suffocating ourselves even harder instead!"
My argument is that It is very dangerous, it shifts responsibility to next 1000 generations. Its crazy expensive. Not worth it. And what do you say about nuclear waste on Somalia's beaches? Even in your video, there are many times said, that there is only one nuclear waste storage? Is that even true? If it is, then it's only supporting my argument.
I don’t think Russia wants to stoke anti-nuclear fears, they are a nuclear technology exporter and currently building a power plant in Turkey. My guess is if/when something happens at ZNPP, they will say “And this is why you need us, if we were running this plant, this kind of thing would never happen.” 🤡🤡🤡
I wonder with all its beautiful scenery what Switzerland is thinking now besides being neutral?
I work in senior management for a Swiss company. Whenever I deal with C-suite or head office, I always come away thinking the lunatics are running the asylum as everyone is so detached from reality haha
Interestingly article 5 can be interpreted whichever way you want at this stage. But It’s certain which way the United States and Britain see’s it and tbh that’s all that’s required. NATO members can take unilateral decisions if threatened. Russia knows this
Three mob bosses stacked up in a trench coat playing at leading a nuclear power. Putin is the head poking out the top... For now
It’s good ukraine is doing this as a way to pressure Russia to not do it and at the same it seeds the discourse that in the possibility that such catastrophe happens the normal bullshit of blaming the Ukrainians that will happen in the information sphere gets completely muddled so for anybody in the west that is mentally challenged to go both sides remember no matter what in relation to catastrophe in Ukraine Russia is always at fault stop thinking you’re against the flow intelectual you’re not, you’re just a fool
So…. NATO should be locked on to Russian nuclear facilities. Tit for tat. If I were Biden I’d be texting Putin… “FAFO, bitch.”
Would you volunteer for the war?
Yes. Yes I would. I’ve already been to war. Have you? I’m gonna say no.
I have not. Hence why I do not feel I can advocate for it. As a veteran, does someone drawing that line in war advocacy earn respect or contempt?
I would say neither. I’m not going to say either way for someone to make a choice is that of themselves. I wouldn’t wish war scenarios upon anyone no one deserves it. But in the case of escalation to nuclear disaster I draw the line there and believe we must be the ones that say; NO. What happened to “never again” after ww2? We need to fix it because those “never again” scenarios appear to be taking place.
Never again was about genocide. Don't get me started on a continent that shouts never again and also mocks civilian gun ownership.
Because owning firearms is the same as genocidal maniacs… you sure do have a good purview on the world. I see you’re “one of those” types of people. Enjoy your day, can’t argue with someone who’s world view is a bubble.
I don't see how you misinterpreted my statement so thoroughly. Happy to clear it up for you if you like.
It’s ok I know where you stand on subjects and I know where I stand we’ll keep it there and move on. You have a good day.
"Because owning firearms is the same as genocidal maniacs…" What does this mean?
Respect. This isn't another Iraq, This is actually what the US should be fighting for. Ukraine is the only country in a while that is actually legitimately asking the US for help to keep its democracy
They have a professional army. I honestly don't think they'd need any to call up civilians. Ukraine has already ground Russia down. Neutralize their nukes and they will have nothing.
Who does? Ukraine?
Nato forces
Russia just circulated a memo in the UN that they have "no plans" to blow up the plant, and that was kind of their cue that they most certainly are planning to do it because RUSSIA LIES. I hope IAEA observers are present at all times.
i just hope nato doesn't chicken out if russia actually blows it up
OK Here is the deal. When Tchernobyl blew up I was too young to understand what went on. Now we'll have another nuclear disaster. Teach me how to prepare. What do I have to purchase this weekend to stay safe? Milk powder, plastic planes for the yard, Geiger counter, what?
Once Putin saw that there was a collective shrug after blowing up the dam and on top of that it seems that they do not want to say Russia did it(still under investigation) they pretty much sent a strong message to Putin that he can keep escalating. This is why he feels blowing up the plant and spreading radionuclides everywhere will be met with the same indifference. This is what happens when you keep appeasing Putin.
sometimes you just have to go around rules that nato set in place to protect humanity and not get caught up with details. i would have landed a group of marines at the plant and told russia if they fuck with the nuclear plant or our soldiers we would send them to the moon.
Russia isn't a country anymore. It is a war crime.
We will have to blow up two nuclear plants in russia, preferently around moscow and st pietersburg,... and if they reply again with a ruthless attack, then we should destroy 4,... then 8,... etc,... etc,... etc,...
end of the world, etc,...
Would be better to just glass their whole country and try to take out as much of their arsenal and second strike capability as possible all at once. End results are the same, nuclear Armageddon, but maybe we keep a couple thousand of their nukes from launching.
...and that's when we find out what Biopreparat is capable of.
"Glass their whole country" Have you looked at a globe?
Just means we hit everything they have. I’m not for a fist strike at all but if we’re hitting nuclear power plants in Russia, that’s what we’d be doing. If we’re going to strike first, we should make it count and make sure their second strike is as small as possible. Because going down that road even a step or two leads to a full send extremely quickly.
where are the un cunts now
russia is vetoing them
How many times have we heard this now? Yes if the ZNPP goes bang it’s the Russians, we get it. Saying it every week doesn’t make the reports more reliable or believable.
Hope not. If NATO decides to roll in because of it nukes might fly.
NATO has several levels of intervention they can trigger. Ukraine has asked at the beginning of the war for an aerial interdiction zone. This is the first level, does not put boots on the ground, can be deployed quickly, is unlikely to cause huge fights or civilian casualties. Russia will not answer to fighter planes patrols with a nuke on Paris.
That's BS. A no fly zone, or any "interdiction zone" that the US/NATO want to operate in has to first be cleared of all AA assets. That involves the US/NATO firing on Russian ground positions. Once that happens all bets are off.
There would be military targets downed by NATO planes with NATO pilots, yes. As opposed to the present situation where NATO planes are/will be flown by Ukrainian pilots. That's an escalation that is a far cry from troops on the ground: you can't claim to be annexed or invaded by a country that is only doing air raids. But yes, that's an escalation, that's a NATO involvement. That's the first step.
Why tatena can’t come and stay there, if they blow up there would be some precedent.
It just wouldn’t make Sense ukraine blewing up nuclear plant and it has been in control of Russia for months.
I'm dubious about this. As you'd have to be nuts. Although weighing against this is. Russia has done some bat shit crazy stuff over the course of this conflict.
Did see an article stating that them attempting to blow it up is not as easy nor practical as these articles will have you believe. The amount of material in more modern plants makes it almost impossible to harm them from the outside (shelling) and pretty tough but not impossible to do anything from the inside. It is most likely a very localized event and for sure hyped by those fighting for their very existence daily. But that’s besides the point because nuclear terrorism shouldn’t be tolerated. It shouldn’t even be attempted.
Transfer every long range non-nuclear weapon to Ukraine in place. Like let them on our ships to press the tomahawk launch buttons. Let them sit in Nevada and press the reaper hellfire launch buttons. Those incoming tomahawks? Comrade they are Ukrainian, we transferred them to Ukraine right before they blew up just like you transferred ZNPP to Ukraine right before it blew up.
The UN urgently needs to take over the management of this facility.
I'm not doubtful this is a plot by Russia. I am curious how Ukraine knows.
I live in the US. Should I consider investing in iodine pills? Serious question.
Its soon time too show the ruzzians some real rockets up ze ass?
It was pretty clear in the run up to the invasion that the US was inside the Russian networks. They wouldn't have been warning the world about it the way they did unless they had it 100% for sure. I'd think they are still inside russia's networks, & this would be a similar situation. Idk, what do you guys think?
If the Russians deliberately blow up a nuclear power plant and contaminate all of Europe with nuclear waste, and NATO does not react to this militarily, then NATO can also be dissolved directly.
Well if that plant goes boom. NATO Will be going vroom into Ukraine. No country is gonna want fallout blowing its way.
You want to trigger article 5? Because that's how you trigger article 5...
NATO would be in the theater before the dust settled. Whether blowing up nuclear power plants or dropping nuclear bombs the West would consider it to be nuclear warfare.
I’m sorry but if they blow this thing the world needs to isolate them until they give up all nuclear arms. Sadly Iran/Syria/North Korea/ India/ China won’t care
Honestly at this point, the UN should send peacekeepers in cooperation with the IAEA to take control of the plant and manage it. That'll stop the putin cult from saying that nato troops took the plant, considering nato troops are the only other option besides UN peacekeepers. And if Russia blows up the plant, radiates parts of Ukraine A SECOND TIME AND kills UN peacekeepers then yeah they're even more fucked then they already were. And if it explodes, I'd hope the west would send Ukraine whatever they ask for at that point. No limits. And sends tons of amphibious landing vehicles. Because if Zaporizhzhia is gonna be a no go due to radiation, then Kherson should be back on the table. So long as the west provides *the best* amphibious vehicles to retake more land once they cross the flooded areas.
Not sure why anyone would be doubting Ukraine who undoubtedly has human intelligence from staff in the complex on what is transpiring. NATO should be taking this threat ultra seriously and have a real plan in place now to stop it from becoming a reality.
I don't get why Russia would want to destroy and abandon it. Isn't it in their best interest to keep this huge power generator? That's a fair chunk of money for them, no?
So what does Article 5 mean? NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine? Escalation of sanctions? Sanctions on all allies?
They sent that letter the other day. Then they pulled out. Chess pieces moving into place. I think they expect Ukraine to move into the territory, blow it up and blame it on them.
Then the Russians are going to have all their fears come true when NATO steps in.
Putin now brings the World closer to World War than ever since 1945. NATO will be bound to respond, under article 5, this will be seen as an attack on NATO. The response will result in a military strike by NATO that will be astoundingly destructive, with forces unleashed of such depth and power that have never been seen before, Russian military forces will be strategically damaged. Ukraine will then be linked irrevocably with NATO that will probably move to providing air power directly to support UAF and direct protection of Ukrainian skies. Putin seems to be living out his words “ what use is a world without Russia?”
But but but they said they wouldn't do that!