5 ms·

> ...Russians could sabotage nuclear reactors. They use such a remote possibility as an argument against all nuclear, seemingly forgetting that: Germany is

> ...Russians could sabotage nuclear reactors. They use such a remote possibility as an argument against all nuclear, seemingly forgetting that: Germany is surrounded by other countries with nuclear power. Russian sabotage would be an act of war. If Germany is at the point where Russia is attacking its nuclear power plants, I sure hope it’s not in a position where it depends on Russian gas. This is a deeply unserious policy direction.

Retric 5y ago
Russia recently attacked a nuclear power plant not that far from Germany, which happened to survive without serious issue. So, this isn’t meaningless speculation even if you personally don’t view it as a major issue. In the end designing a nuclear power plant to survive shelling might not mitigate that much risk, but it is something being seriously considered in many circles.
- _jal 5y ago
  This is pattern-matching taking the place of reasoning. Even if you don't, I promise you Putin understands the difference between attacking a plant in Ukraine and attacking one in Germany.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Assuming war will never happen is at best wishful thinking. At the point where people are attacking something in Germany that line becomes meaningless.
    - _jal 5y ago
      You seem to be replying to something I didn't say. > At the point where people are attacking something in Germany that line becomes meaningless. Exactly my point. I'm not saying desperation and ego won't drive him (along with everyone else) into the abyss, I'm saying he's savvy enough to know that right now, that line is protecting him.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Yes, it comes down to war. Let’s assume he’s extremely unlikely to attack Germany. What about his successor, and his successor’s successor? It’s unfortunate but many “crazy” people have ended up running dictatorships.
- alfalfasprout 5y ago
  It's a moot point. Attacking a german nuclear plant = nukes get shot back. And all out nuclear war.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Total war is less common than you might think. Ukraine for example isn’t a giant nuclear crater, yet they had a nuclear power plant being shelled. Meanwhile Ukraine isn’t shelling Russian civilians. So it’s quite possible for war between nuclear powers to avoid that level of escalation.
    - JamesBarney 5y ago
      But Ukraine isn't a nuclear power. And there are no circumstances where you're better off fighting an adversary that supplies all of your energy than having your own nuclear reactors.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Moving the goalposts doesn’t actually solve this issue. If you can’t conceive of a situation that having a nuclear power plant inside your country is dangerous you simply don’t know enough about them. Sabotage of a spent fuel cooling pond could get really nasty. It’s not the kind of risk anyone is taking that seriously for reasons I agree with, but it’s definitely possible.
        JamesBarney 5y ago
        Having your adversary supply all of the fuel your factories, cities, tanks, trucks, and aircraft run on is also exceedingly dangerous, much more so than the threat of them sabotaging a nuclear reactor.
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Just because one concieved a fantastic scenario doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. There is no evidence of such sabotage being ever attempted or planned - and thats a serious problem for your argument because various agencies have tried all kinds of shit from hypnosis to investigating supernatural abilities during the cold war. There are more straight forward ways to cause damage. It is quite staight forward to poison food supply chain, water supply, a dirty bomb is easy to make amd acessible to many rogue states Why would Russia go through the trouble of infiltration and covert ops of a well-secured and monitored installation that is in the middle of nowhere and will d9 minimal damage, if they have chemical weapons, Bioweapons, can make dirty bombs and have nukes at their disposal?
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  The scenario above was, russia attacks a nuclear plant on purpose, with the intention to destroy or damage it. What happened in the Ukraine lately was no such thing, it was conquering a nuclear plant and the plant itself was not damaged in the process. Still irresponsible and criminal, (like the whole war) - but not the same as targeting a nuclear plant, with the intention to destroy.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack. As far as analysis goes you can’t limit things to exactly what happened. If attacking nuclear power plants is on the table then a single miscommunication means someone is attempting to destroy it. Even just destroying some water pipes or some generators could lead to very serious issues.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack." Source? As far as I know and what wikipedia confirms, is that the plant itself was not damaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla... "During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage.[19] As of 04:20 UTC on March 4, the IAEA said that the fire, which was in a training building, had been extinguished. It did not impact reactor safety or any essential equipment"
      - Retric 5y ago
        Your Wikipedia link includes this: “The plant lost 1.3 GW of capacity which then was compensated by additional 9 power units in the thermal power station nearby.” From here: https://energo.dtek.com/en/media-center/press/dtek-tpps-compensates-for-the-shutdown-of-units-of-zaporizhzhya-npp-due-to-attack-by-occupiers-/ https://energo.dtek.com/en/media-center/press/dtek-tpps-comp... * As a result of an armed attack by the invaders on the Zaporozhia NPP, 1.3 GW of capacity generated by nuclear units has been lost.* If the power plant was I damaged it wouldn’t have lost capacity.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
Yeah. They didn't even sabotage reactors in a country they are currently in war with.
fabian2k 5y ago
This is a purely legal argument in the original German report. I don't understand the legal aspect here, what the report says is that due to constitutional law an extension of the runtime of the nuclear reactors would require a risk/benefit analysis. And a higher chance of attacks or sabotage would increase the risk here. The only thing the report says here is that this requires risk/benefit analysis would need to take these factors into account.

Retric 5y ago

Russia recently attacked a nuclear power plant not that far from Germany, which happened to survive without serious issue. So, this isn’t meaningless speculation even if you personally don’t view it as a major issue. In the end designing a nuclear power plant to survive shelling might not mitigate that much risk, but it is something being seriously considered in many circles.

_jal 5y ago
This is pattern-matching taking the place of reasoning. Even if you don't, I promise you Putin understands the difference between attacking a plant in Ukraine and attacking one in Germany.
- Retric 5y ago
  Assuming war will never happen is at best wishful thinking. At the point where people are attacking something in Germany that line becomes meaningless.
  - _jal 5y ago
    You seem to be replying to something I didn't say. > At the point where people are attacking something in Germany that line becomes meaningless. Exactly my point. I'm not saying desperation and ego won't drive him (along with everyone else) into the abyss, I'm saying he's savvy enough to know that right now, that line is protecting him.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Yes, it comes down to war. Let’s assume he’s extremely unlikely to attack Germany. What about his successor, and his successor’s successor? It’s unfortunate but many “crazy” people have ended up running dictatorships.
alfalfasprout 5y ago
It's a moot point. Attacking a german nuclear plant = nukes get shot back. And all out nuclear war.
- Retric 5y ago
  Total war is less common than you might think. Ukraine for example isn’t a giant nuclear crater, yet they had a nuclear power plant being shelled. Meanwhile Ukraine isn’t shelling Russian civilians. So it’s quite possible for war between nuclear powers to avoid that level of escalation.
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    But Ukraine isn't a nuclear power. And there are no circumstances where you're better off fighting an adversary that supplies all of your energy than having your own nuclear reactors.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Moving the goalposts doesn’t actually solve this issue. If you can’t conceive of a situation that having a nuclear power plant inside your country is dangerous you simply don’t know enough about them. Sabotage of a spent fuel cooling pond could get really nasty. It’s not the kind of risk anyone is taking that seriously for reasons I agree with, but it’s definitely possible.
      - JamesBarney 5y ago
        Having your adversary supply all of the fuel your factories, cities, tanks, trucks, and aircraft run on is also exceedingly dangerous, much more so than the threat of them sabotaging a nuclear reactor.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Just because one concieved a fantastic scenario doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. There is no evidence of such sabotage being ever attempted or planned - and thats a serious problem for your argument because various agencies have tried all kinds of shit from hypnosis to investigating supernatural abilities during the cold war. There are more straight forward ways to cause damage. It is quite staight forward to poison food supply chain, water supply, a dirty bomb is easy to make amd acessible to many rogue states Why would Russia go through the trouble of infiltration and covert ops of a well-secured and monitored installation that is in the middle of nowhere and will d9 minimal damage, if they have chemical weapons, Bioweapons, can make dirty bombs and have nukes at their disposal?
hutzlibu 5y ago
The scenario above was, russia attacks a nuclear plant on purpose, with the intention to destroy or damage it. What happened in the Ukraine lately was no such thing, it was conquering a nuclear plant and the plant itself was not damaged in the process. Still irresponsible and criminal, (like the whole war) - but not the same as targeting a nuclear plant, with the intention to destroy.
- Retric 5y ago
  The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack. As far as analysis goes you can’t limit things to exactly what happened. If attacking nuclear power plants is on the table then a single miscommunication means someone is attempting to destroy it. Even just destroying some water pipes or some generators could lead to very serious issues.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack." Source? As far as I know and what wikipedia confirms, is that the plant itself was not damaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla... "During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage.[19] As of 04:20 UTC on March 4, the IAEA said that the fire, which was in a training building, had been extinguished. It did not impact reactor safety or any essential equipment"
    - Retric 5y ago
      Your Wikipedia link includes this: “The plant lost 1.3 GW of capacity which then was compensated by additional 9 power units in the thermal power station nearby.” From here: https://energo.dtek.com/en/media-center/press/dtek-tpps-compensates-for-the-shutdown-of-units-of-zaporizhzhya-npp-due-to-attack-by-occupiers-/ https://energo.dtek.com/en/media-center/press/dtek-tpps-comp... * As a result of an armed attack by the invaders on the Zaporozhia NPP, 1.3 GW of capacity generated by nuclear units has been lost.* If the power plant was I damaged it wouldn’t have lost capacity.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

Yeah. They didn't even sabotage reactors in a country they are currently in war with.

fabian2k 5y ago

This is a purely legal argument in the original German report. I don't understand the legal aspect here, what the report says is that due to constitutional law an extension of the runtime of the nuclear reactors would require a risk/benefit analysis. And a higher chance of attacks or sabotage would increase the risk here. The only thing the report says here is that this requires risk/benefit analysis would need to take these factors into account.