3 ms·
No this doesn't have anything to do with Nuclear Weapon deterrence. Much of the liquidation effort was literally burying contaminated topsoil in the area. The e
by BitwiseFool 5y ago
No this doesn't have anything to do with Nuclear Weapon deterrence. Much of the liquidation effort was literally burying contaminated topsoil in the area. The explosions from conventional bombs would kick radioactive particles back up into the atmosphere. Europe probably does not want to deal with that, so I imagine they will refrain from attacking directly.
- systemvoltage 5y agoIf I understand correctly, your central thesis is about deterring EU from attacking. It misses the point that Russia already has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons to deter EU from attacking them. So, why would they rely on an 'offchance' 2nd-hand threat of fallout when they can just threaten to use their guaranteed-to-deter stockpile of weapons?
- rocqua 5y agoI think the thesis is to prevent Ukraine from attacking the staging area. Giving them a really safe base.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI think I'm using "Allied Forces" and "Europeans" too loosely. I was lumping Ukrainian forces into that label. They're already under attack so any conventional retaliation on invading forces is already a given. I'm basically saying that NATO/EU would put pressure on Ukraine NOT to attack the staging area because any fallout could waft over into Western Europe. This is in addition to the already present downside of Ukraine re-contaminating their own backyard.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI see, it’s an important distinction. I would agree, Ukrainian military would face some deterrence.