3 ms·

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?
      - Retric 5y ago
        I was responding to someone that said: “there are no circumstances” That’s an unreasonably high bar which invites “fantastic scenario” as such I referred to something I don’t consider reasonable, but it is possible. > Why would Russia go through the trouble If you want a more plausible scenario, causing immense harm in a deniable fashion is possible when a attacking a nuclear power plant that isn’t possible with widespread chemical weapons etc. Issue a public apology, have the guy ordering the attack executed, and yet the harm stays. I am not suggesting it’s likely Russia is going to attack Germany in the next 50 years. All I am saying is nuclear power plants have one more failure mode that should be considered. These things are built tough, Ukraine’s only lost 1.3 GW of capacity after the attack that’s no big deal. That said, considering them as a military not just a terrorist target is no longer a fantasy scenario it’s part of the long term risk calculation. To be clear, most people will likely run the numbers and say it’s an acceptable risk, which is fine as long as they actually run the numbers.
  - fmajid 5y ago
    Neither is Germany.
  - PopePompus 5y ago
    Yes, it doesn't have nukes anymore. I fear that one sad bit of fallout from Russia's invasion will be that no country will ever voluntarily give up nukes again.

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?
    - Retric 5y ago
      I was responding to someone that said: “there are no circumstances” That’s an unreasonably high bar which invites “fantastic scenario” as such I referred to something I don’t consider reasonable, but it is possible. > Why would Russia go through the trouble If you want a more plausible scenario, causing immense harm in a deniable fashion is possible when a attacking a nuclear power plant that isn’t possible with widespread chemical weapons etc. Issue a public apology, have the guy ordering the attack executed, and yet the harm stays. I am not suggesting it’s likely Russia is going to attack Germany in the next 50 years. All I am saying is nuclear power plants have one more failure mode that should be considered. These things are built tough, Ukraine’s only lost 1.3 GW of capacity after the attack that’s no big deal. That said, considering them as a military not just a terrorist target is no longer a fantasy scenario it’s part of the long term risk calculation. To be clear, most people will likely run the numbers and say it’s an acceptable risk, which is fine as long as they actually run the numbers.
- fmajid 5y ago
  Neither is Germany.
- PopePompus 5y ago
  Yes, it doesn't have nukes anymore. I fear that one sad bit of fallout from Russia's invasion will be that no country will ever voluntarily give up nukes again.