43 ms·

So russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us can in iran ? What am I missing ?

bufferoverflow 1y ago
[dead]
jiggawatts 1y ago
a) Russia plans to conquer Ukraine and use its resources. Nuclear power plants are very expensive and critical to industry. Russia wants to capture these for their own use, not blow them up and irradiate the countryside that they wish to be a part of their own country! b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation.
- tgv 1y ago
  My knowledge in these matters is limited, but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? At least, it can't produce the classical chain reaction, as there's not enough U235 to sustain it, I think.
  - aaronmdjones 1y ago
    > but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? Right now? Not that we know of. Historically? Yes. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
    - tgv 1y ago
      2B years ago, the U235/U238 ratios were different. Isn't that (part of) the explanation?
      - jwilk 1y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto... says: > A key factor that made the reaction possible was that [back then] the fissile isotope ²³⁵U made up about 3.1% of the natural uranium, which is comparable to the amount used in some of today's reactors.
- jwilk 1y ago
  > Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium [citation needed]
- mrs6969 1y ago
  So if russia do not want it as part of their country, and if it was not that level of radioactive, that would justify such attack ? So, attacking a nuclear facility is valid if they are not that radioactive (since you are attacking you are not planning to use it anyway) Did I get your answer correctly ?
15155 1y ago
> nuclear facility in ukraine Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways > us can in iran Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers
zorobo 1y ago
Ukraine has not been saying death to Russia for 40 years straight. Ukraine did not sponsor terrorism in Russia and other countries. Ukraine does not install and arm suppletive militia in other countries. Ukraine does not physically eliminate opposition at home and abroad. Ukraine does not hang homosexuals. Ukraine does not have a supreme leader for life. Etc.
- justsomehnguy 1y ago
  https://www.uaportal.com/ukr/section-mixed/news-moskalej-na-nozhi-video-kak-vstretili-bessmertnyij-polk-v-kieve-09-05-2019.html https://www.uaportal.com/ukr/section-mixed/news-moskalej-na-... And it's quite amusing what you just confirmed with your own words what Russia isn't a genocidal fanatical society hellbent on eradicating everything they don't like.
- mrs6969 1y ago
  When iraq attacked iran, the major funding came from us, about 5b dollar. Not to mention, all of these years iran has been sanctioned, and showed as a terror regime. İt is not like; us was doing nothing and iran was saying death to us out of nowhere… So us has been funding the death of iran 40 years ago, and iran has no right to say anything about it? This is far more than supporting terrorism. This is supporting your neighboring country to attack you. Rest of your arguments are irrelavant. Biggest ally of us is saudis, and they are doing pretty much everything iran does, in a highly totaliter regime. They kill opponent, hang homosexuals, have a supreme regime, yet us loves them. I am just saying, there is bit of an inconsistency here.
  - zorobo 1y ago
    Where did I say KSA is all nice and dandy?
- Spivak 1y ago
  This argument basically boils down to "because I think they're bad" as being the differentiating factor. That's not a strong argument when every country has a rap sheet of horrible things they've done. Half the damn world has a legitimate moral claim to nuke the US into dust based on what we've done/continue to do to them. Trying to moralize actions that are simply in the strategic interest of the US and our allies will lead you nowhere. Ukraine could have a king and stoned the gays and we still would have backed them against Russia.

[dead]

a) Russia plans to conquer Ukraine and use its resources. Nuclear power plants are very expensive and critical to industry. Russia wants to capture these for their own use, not blow them up and irradiate the countryside that they wish to be a part of their own country! b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation.

tgv 1y ago
My knowledge in these matters is limited, but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? At least, it can't produce the classical chain reaction, as there's not enough U235 to sustain it, I think.
- aaronmdjones 1y ago
  > but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? Right now? Not that we know of. Historically? Yes. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
  - tgv 1y ago
    2B years ago, the U235/U238 ratios were different. Isn't that (part of) the explanation?
    - jwilk 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto... says: > A key factor that made the reaction possible was that [back then] the fissile isotope ²³⁵U made up about 3.1% of the natural uranium, which is comparable to the amount used in some of today's reactors.
jwilk 1y ago
> Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium [citation needed]
mrs6969 1y ago
So if russia do not want it as part of their country, and if it was not that level of radioactive, that would justify such attack ? So, attacking a nuclear facility is valid if they are not that radioactive (since you are attacking you are not planning to use it anyway) Did I get your answer correctly ?

15155 1y ago

> nuclear facility in ukraine Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways > us can in iran Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers

zorobo 1y ago

Ukraine has not been saying death to Russia for 40 years straight. Ukraine did not sponsor terrorism in Russia and other countries. Ukraine does not install and arm suppletive militia in other countries. Ukraine does not physically eliminate opposition at home and abroad. Ukraine does not hang homosexuals. Ukraine does not have a supreme leader for life. Etc.

justsomehnguy 1y ago
https://www.uaportal.com/ukr/section-mixed/news-moskalej-na-nozhi-video-kak-vstretili-bessmertnyij-polk-v-kieve-09-05-2019.html https://www.uaportal.com/ukr/section-mixed/news-moskalej-na-... And it's quite amusing what you just confirmed with your own words what Russia isn't a genocidal fanatical society hellbent on eradicating everything they don't like.
mrs6969 1y ago
When iraq attacked iran, the major funding came from us, about 5b dollar. Not to mention, all of these years iran has been sanctioned, and showed as a terror regime. İt is not like; us was doing nothing and iran was saying death to us out of nowhere… So us has been funding the death of iran 40 years ago, and iran has no right to say anything about it? This is far more than supporting terrorism. This is supporting your neighboring country to attack you. Rest of your arguments are irrelavant. Biggest ally of us is saudis, and they are doing pretty much everything iran does, in a highly totaliter regime. They kill opponent, hang homosexuals, have a supreme regime, yet us loves them. I am just saying, there is bit of an inconsistency here.
- zorobo 1y ago
  Where did I say KSA is all nice and dandy?
Spivak 1y ago
This argument basically boils down to "because I think they're bad" as being the differentiating factor. That's not a strong argument when every country has a rap sheet of horrible things they've done. Half the damn world has a legitimate moral claim to nuke the US into dust based on what we've done/continue to do to them. Trying to moralize actions that are simply in the strategic interest of the US and our allies will lead you nowhere. Ukraine could have a king and stoned the gays and we still would have backed them against Russia.