8 ms·

Today rockets on zaporischja? Just a bad time to advocate for nuclear power in general..

moltar 3y ago
That nuclear plant was designed to withstand pretty serious attacks and natural disasters. In fact it was designed to withstand and airplane crashing into it.
cplusplusfellow 3y ago
Rockets on Zaporischja do advocate for something but it isn’t less nuclear power.
- dividedbyzero 3y ago
  They could be construed to advocate for more decentralized power production in order to be less vulnerable to targeted strikes in times of conflict. That doesn't rule out decentralized nuclear power production, though that has its fair share of trade-offs and unknowns. Depending on how one weighs those it might end up implying less nuclear.
  - BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
    Decentralized power generation is something we all need. Too bad so many politicians, especially Gavin Newsom FFS, are deep in the bockets of the utility companies who refuse to invest in it.
cbmuser 3y ago
Following this logic, we should stop building any industrial complex because Russia could be firing rockets at it.
- honzabe 3y ago
  Why? Nuclear plants are extremely valuable targets for at least two reasons: 1. Destroying them can cause great environmental damage. People are going to be afraid of something like intentionally caused Chornobyl, which gives the attacker a lot of leverage. 2. Nuclear plant is a very centralized energy source, which means a huge disruption when one of them is hit. I can't think of any other industrial complex that makes a country that vulnerable in case of a war.
libertine 3y ago
Well, it goes to show that if you're a neighbor of Russia you have to be either a member of NATO, or have nuclear deterrence - it looks like that's the only thing that keeps Russians in their borders. Putin decided to go to the Nazi Germany playbook and turn the Russian language into a casus beli to invade countries, as he could claim Russian speakers are in danger and he would proceed to annex land (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine).
- dividedbyzero 3y ago
  For now. A NATO left behind by a hypothetical second Trump administration might be a much less effective deterrent. With two nuclear powers on the continent and one latent nuclear power (Germany) and none in the east save Russia, things might get very interesting for a while if that came to pass.
  - malcolmgreaves 3y ago
    Good thing congress slipped in a provision in the latest defense spending bill to prevent the president from withdrawing from NATO unilaterally: https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/ https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-...
    - baybal2 3y ago
      [dead]
    - dividedbyzero 3y ago
      That's signaling intention to uphold NATO by that particular congress, not something that would prevent a US government from bringing it down. If a US president were only to make it known that he or she would actively resist giving the required orders to fulfill NATO commitments in a crisis, I think the alliance in its current form would be walking dead from that point forward. There is considerable public doubt already as to whether the US would honor their commitment to wage a nuclear war over NATO matters and that's the keystone of the whole alliance. If Russia were to attack a NATO member and win the gamble, I'd expect a massive shift of power on the continent and a great loss of US soft power in Europe (at the least).
elzbardico 3y ago
This tired idiocy of Russia shelling a reactor that is under their control again?
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  With enough propaganda, people actually believe stuff like this.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
With this logic, we should tear down all dams after bombing Kakhovka dam.

That nuclear plant was designed to withstand pretty serious attacks and natural disasters. In fact it was designed to withstand and airplane crashing into it.

cplusplusfellow 3y ago

Rockets on Zaporischja do advocate for something but it isn’t less nuclear power.

dividedbyzero 3y ago
They could be construed to advocate for more decentralized power production in order to be less vulnerable to targeted strikes in times of conflict. That doesn't rule out decentralized nuclear power production, though that has its fair share of trade-offs and unknowns. Depending on how one weighs those it might end up implying less nuclear.
- BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
  Decentralized power generation is something we all need. Too bad so many politicians, especially Gavin Newsom FFS, are deep in the bockets of the utility companies who refuse to invest in it.

cbmuser 3y ago

Following this logic, we should stop building any industrial complex because Russia could be firing rockets at it.

honzabe 3y ago
Why? Nuclear plants are extremely valuable targets for at least two reasons: 1. Destroying them can cause great environmental damage. People are going to be afraid of something like intentionally caused Chornobyl, which gives the attacker a lot of leverage. 2. Nuclear plant is a very centralized energy source, which means a huge disruption when one of them is hit. I can't think of any other industrial complex that makes a country that vulnerable in case of a war.

libertine 3y ago

Well, it goes to show that if you're a neighbor of Russia you have to be either a member of NATO, or have nuclear deterrence - it looks like that's the only thing that keeps Russians in their borders. Putin decided to go to the Nazi Germany playbook and turn the Russian language into a casus beli to invade countries, as he could claim Russian speakers are in danger and he would proceed to annex land (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine).

dividedbyzero 3y ago
For now. A NATO left behind by a hypothetical second Trump administration might be a much less effective deterrent. With two nuclear powers on the continent and one latent nuclear power (Germany) and none in the east save Russia, things might get very interesting for a while if that came to pass.
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  Good thing congress slipped in a provision in the latest defense spending bill to prevent the president from withdrawing from NATO unilaterally: https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/ https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-...
  - baybal2 3y ago
    [dead]
  - dividedbyzero 3y ago
    That's signaling intention to uphold NATO by that particular congress, not something that would prevent a US government from bringing it down. If a US president were only to make it known that he or she would actively resist giving the required orders to fulfill NATO commitments in a crisis, I think the alliance in its current form would be walking dead from that point forward. There is considerable public doubt already as to whether the US would honor their commitment to wage a nuclear war over NATO matters and that's the keystone of the whole alliance. If Russia were to attack a NATO member and win the gamble, I'd expect a massive shift of power on the continent and a great loss of US soft power in Europe (at the least).

elzbardico 3y ago

This tired idiocy of Russia shelling a reactor that is under their control again?

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
With enough propaganda, people actually believe stuff like this.

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago

With this logic, we should tear down all dams after bombing Kakhovka dam.