3 ms·

Isn’t intentionally causing a nuclear meltdown during war already nuclear war?

by ABeeSea 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
solmanac 5y ago
Clearly not
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  Why? It’s basically a giant dirty bomb.
vkou 5y ago
No, it's not. We are arguing semantics.
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  Why isn’t it?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Why isn’t it? Because the effects of a nuclear meltdown are closer to that of a chemical attack and far away from that of a thermonuclear detonation. Blurry red lines cease to be lines.
    - ABeeSea 5y ago
      If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war?
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war? No. Because, again, if you detonated a thermonuclear weapon above that same space, the difference would be night and day.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Because a reactor explosion is a small chemical reaction, with the yield of a single medium-sized conventional bomb, that also happens to scatter some amount of radioactive crap into the surrounding environment. Whereas a nuclear explosion is a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, which produces a fireball that can engulf an entire city. Given the option, I'd far rather stand a mile downwind of an exploding reactor[1], than a mile from ground zero of any modern nuclear weapon[2]. The solution to the first problem is walking away, and trying not to breathe too much of the crap in. There is no solution to the second problem, because you, and everything in miles around you would be instantly incinerated. [1] https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193 https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193 [2] https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 - the fireball is a mile across. Anyone for miles outside the fireball zone will be turned into charcoal. Each modern ICBM carries 6-12 of these. That is what nuclear war will look like. Both sides in a nuclear conflict will fire hundreds of them, against opposing cities.
CoastalCoder 5y ago
Not in the same sense people usually mean "nuclear war". Swapping many ICBMs is a lot more deadly than letting one NPP go critical.
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  So if someone detonated a dirty bomb in Russia, that wouldn’t be nuclear war?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It would, but still better than glassing cities with ICBMs
- cesarb 5y ago
  > than letting one NPP go critical. Just nitpicking, but AFAIK nuclear power plants already "go critical" whenever they're operating (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) "Criticality is the normal operating condition of a nuclear reactor, in which nuclear fuel sustains a fission chain reaction.")
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    Thanks, I didn't realize I was using the wrong term! I'm not sure why the parent post was downvoted. It was on-topic and taught me something relevant.

Isn’t intentionally causing a nuclear meltdown during war already nuclear war?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

solmanac 5y ago

Clearly not

ABeeSea 5y ago
Why? It’s basically a giant dirty bomb.

vkou 5y ago

No, it's not. We are arguing semantics.

ABeeSea 5y ago
Why isn’t it?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Why isn’t it? Because the effects of a nuclear meltdown are closer to that of a chemical attack and far away from that of a thermonuclear detonation. Blurry red lines cease to be lines.
  - ABeeSea 5y ago
    If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war? No. Because, again, if you detonated a thermonuclear weapon above that same space, the difference would be night and day.
- vkou 5y ago
  Because a reactor explosion is a small chemical reaction, with the yield of a single medium-sized conventional bomb, that also happens to scatter some amount of radioactive crap into the surrounding environment. Whereas a nuclear explosion is a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, which produces a fireball that can engulf an entire city. Given the option, I'd far rather stand a mile downwind of an exploding reactor[1], than a mile from ground zero of any modern nuclear weapon[2]. The solution to the first problem is walking away, and trying not to breathe too much of the crap in. There is no solution to the second problem, because you, and everything in miles around you would be instantly incinerated. [1] https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193 https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193 [2] https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 - the fireball is a mile across. Anyone for miles outside the fireball zone will be turned into charcoal. Each modern ICBM carries 6-12 of these. That is what nuclear war will look like. Both sides in a nuclear conflict will fire hundreds of them, against opposing cities.

CoastalCoder 5y ago

Not in the same sense people usually mean "nuclear war". Swapping many ICBMs is a lot more deadly than letting one NPP go critical.

ABeeSea 5y ago
So if someone detonated a dirty bomb in Russia, that wouldn’t be nuclear war?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It would, but still better than glassing cities with ICBMs
cesarb 5y ago
> than letting one NPP go critical. Just nitpicking, but AFAIK nuclear power plants already "go critical" whenever they're operating (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) "Criticality is the normal operating condition of a nuclear reactor, in which nuclear fuel sustains a fission chain reaction.")
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  Thanks, I didn't realize I was using the wrong term! I'm not sure why the parent post was downvoted. It was on-topic and taught me something relevant.