3 ms·

Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad c

Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.

throw0101d 2mo ago
> Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either. The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...
- RandomLensman 2mo ago
  An adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now). Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.
  - anon48293 2mo ago
    Actually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though. So it’d actually be the safer option.
    - frm88 2mo ago
      The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday expressed "serious concern" after Moscow accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone attack on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine May 31st,2026 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclear-plant-warning-after-russia/story?id=133461599 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclea...

Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.

throw0101d 2mo ago

> Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either. The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...

RandomLensman 2mo ago
An adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now). Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.
- anon48293 2mo ago
  Actually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though. So it’d actually be the safer option.
  - frm88 2mo ago
    The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday expressed "serious concern" after Moscow accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone attack on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine May 31st,2026 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclear-plant-warning-after-russia/story?id=133461599 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclea...