Shelling a nuclear site, they keep finding ways to go even lower innit...regime change is the only viable option for the world.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree
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 ?
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.
I am afraid first strike is being mentioned at the end of the available options already.
It takes a particular type of dickhead to do that.
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.
I don't disagree. It was an interesting narrative given that Article 5 is now trending on twitter.
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.
Twitter fear mongering against Nuclear energy in full flow. These aren't some flammable molotov cocktails ffs.
Count me in the "modern nuclear plants may be so safe that even direct attacks don't cause catastrophe but I'd still prefer we stopped shooting at them" camp.
Missed this in the numerous and fast moving headlines .. he’s going to bankrupt his country. And probably doesn’t give a feck?
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/sp-drags-russias-rating-deeper-into-junk-territory-2022-03-03/
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/sp-drags-russias-rating-deeper-into-junk-territory-2022-03-03/
From earlier today, but if there are no Russian troops in Kharkiv, surely the West can assist in repelling these rogue assaults on Kharkiv.
Indeed, you only want that kind of stuff tested in reality on the moon.
When the risk is potentially half of Europe being made uninhabitable for centuries, that is (or should be) the only consideration needed. Nuclear fission power for electricity generation needs to be phased out rapidly. Germany is leading the way.
In terms of human lunacy, a lunatic might decide to target and destroy a nation's entire wind-farm capacity, causing long term power outages and shortages. But we could live with/survive that and rebuild them. We can't live with radiation.
Thank God for that.
No, the point wasn't about Chernobyl itself at all, you've make a completely ridiculous misread of what I said.
In people's minds, they automatically assume nuclear power station plus tanks = bad, but there is actually very little danger of something like the Chernobyl disaster happening because of this.
I brought it up because people got hysterical about Chernobyl when the Russians rolled into it last week when there was no need to. They got hysterical because of the above connection - 'nuclear + tanks = oh shit!'
You are being overly dramatic. And no, because if there was a particular danger of a huge explosion/meltdown and radioactivity contaminating Europe then myself and people I care about would be in the way of this.
The press and social media posts pandering to people's emotions and stoking things by over-dramaticising it helps absolutely nothing and makes people feel worse. When they captured Chernobyl people were all like 'OMG WE'RE GONNA DIE' when as you pointed out, the only thing that changed at all was 30+ years old dust being kicked up by movement, no danger whatsoever.
How intellectually deficient of a soldier can you be to even fire shells this close to a nuclear power plant?
Those feckers would be among the very first to be exposed to deadly levels of radiation, so much that they will be begging for that bullet in the morning if an accident happens.
Last edited: