If there is intel saying Russia is about to do this then NATO should deploy ground forces in Ukraine to defend it and let the Ukrainians do a full offensive with all their capacity. How can the world sit back and let this happen?
The international community is so far not indicating support for the intel that Russia has mined the plant. Still reason to be concerned for sure, but I suspect that if the americans had dramatically different intel than what the IAEA is saying, we would be hearing more public comments about this.
Realistically though, IF it were already mined, then sending in ground troops to defend it is relatively meaningless. They would just destroy it prior to any disarming.
The international community is so far not indicating support for the intel that Russia has mined the plant. Still reason to be concerned for sure, but I suspect that if the americans had dramatically different intel than what the IAEA is saying, we would be hearing more public comments about this.
Realistically though, IF it were already mined, then sending in ground troops to defend it is relatively meaningless. They would just destroy it prior to any disarming.
It also does say this:
Quote:
The IAEA experts have requested additional access that is necessary to confirm the absence of mines or explosives at the site, Director General Grossi said. In particular, access to the rooftops of reactor units 3 and 4 is essential, as well as access to parts of the turbine halls and some parts of the cooling system at the plant, he added.
Director General Grossi stressed the importance of the IAEA team checking all parts of the ZNPP to monitor full compliance with the five basic principles for protecting Europe’s largest nuclear power plant during the current military conflict, following opposing statements and allegations in recent days regarding the military situation at the site.
Whether the explosives/mines are hidden in those areas, who knows. When the agency is able to fully investigate every single nook and cranny consistently and constantly report back it's safe, I'll feel better.
Until that happens, the russians are ####ing liars and love to play "find the mines" literally every area they occupy. Hopefully it's not the case here, but they don't deserve the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.
Last edited by Huntingwhale; 07-05-2023 at 01:32 PM.
Whether the explosives/mines are hidden in those areas, who knows. When the agency is able to fully investigate every single nook and cranny consistently and constantly report back it's safe, I'll feel better.
Until that happens, the russians are ####ing liars and love to play "find the mines" literally every area they occupy. Hopefully it's not the case here, but they don't deserve the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.
I agree, no benefit of the doubt. But we can still maintain hope that we're not staring down the barrel of the greatest nuclear disaster of this century (Fukushima inclus.)
I have the same feeling of dread right now that I did the first few days of the invasion.
Mining a nuclear plant, god help us.
Here's a good summary from a nuclear scientist contesting that it would not be anywhere near like Chernobyl or Fukushima. Still awful and still not desirable, but not likely to be anywhere near these two no matter what Russia does.
Edit: for the tl;dr crowd, the plant has been shut for some time so the fuel rods are much cooler and less radioactive, the reactor is much better protected, and the fuel is uranium oxide which is less problematic.
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 07-06-2023 at 10:56 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
What I'm wondering is, does Russia actually have the capability to hit North America anymore? Kyiv is shooting down everything Russia throws at it, including those "invincible" supersonic missiles, with Patriot systems that are almost 40 years old. My guess/hope is that by now the US would have something that could counter an ICBM
The comparison between shooting down a hypersonic missile that travels very close to the ground and an ICBM that travels literally into outer space to hit its target is nuts.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
What I'm wondering is, does Russia actually have the capability to hit North America anymore? Kyiv is shooting down everything Russia throws at it, including those "invincible" supersonic missiles, with Patriot systems that are almost 40 years old. My guess/hope is that by now the US would have something that could counter an ICBM
Yes, the Patriot even though it went through a software upgrade its designed to shoot down in theater ballistic missiles. I think its range is 60kms. Now if you armed the patriot with a nuclear tipped missile, it would have a better chance at it.
The THAAD missile defense system is what they would use, but those are in limited deployment in the States, The SM-3 is also designed to knock down Intermediate Ranged missile.
The problem is that Russia has between 300 and 400 ICBM's with 1100 warheads, and then another I think 800 SLBM warheads. So if this was a full on nuclear war, the Americans' likely don't have a way to stop everything.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Yes, the Patriot even though it went through a software upgrade its designed to shoot down in theater ballistic missiles. I think its range is 60kms. Now if you armed the patriot with a nuclear tipped missile, it would have a better chance at it.
The THAAD missile defense system is what they would use, but those are in limited deployment in the States, The SM-3 is also designed to knock down Intermediate Ranged missile.
The problem is that Russia has between 300 and 400 ICBM's with 1100 warheads, and then another I think 800 SLBM warheads. So if this was a full on nuclear war, the Americans' likely don't have a way to stop everything.
I think someone already pointed this out, but the problem isnt even just shooting them down. Even if you were able to blow them all up before they impacted, you'd be scattering radioactive material in the upper atmosphere. Terrible consequences either way once the launch button is pushed, it almost makes the idea of intercepting them academic. And thus, MAD.
Also, nobody should take for granted that an American response would be measured rather than escalatory. Past leaks of American nuclear plans showed a willingness to kill off a substantial percent of the world's population in response to a single believed launch by Russia, even if not an attack on American soil. Going nuclear is toying with extinction.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Also, nobody should take for granted that an American response would be measured rather than escalatory. Past leaks of American nuclear plans showed a willingness to kill off a substantial percent of the world's population in response to a single believed launch by Russia, even if not an attack on American soil. Going nuclear is toying with extinction.
That’s intentional though. Any leaked information needs to show strength. If it didn’t it counteracts MAD.
I think you would have plans and directives showing an absolute response as the default action.
I don’t think that is necessarily reflective of the response that would occur to a small scale event where there is time to consider a reaction.
We all hope that anyone with their finger on the button would be a Vasily Arkhipov, but taking that for granted in the face of plans that would see billions die is putting a pretty big bet on just hope.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I think the biggest thing stopping Russia from using nuclear weapons is their reliance on China for strategic support. Say what you want about about China, but I do believe they are serious about the no first strike policy and I don't think they would look the other way if Russia did something like that.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that with the Cold War over for 30+ years now, the threat of nuclear war has faded from the popular consciousness. But I’d feel a lot safer if we recalled this fundamental chain of causality:
Conventional military conflict between the U.S. and USSR >
use of tactical battlefield nuke >
massive nuclear exchange killing hundreds of millions >
annihilation of most of the rest of the people on the planet in subsequent fallout and nuclear winter.
The safeguards to prevent each stage in that progressions are feeble. The only way to prevent the last stage is to prevent the first.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
There will never be nuclear war because there's no profit in it, the people who actually make these decisions only care about money and power. Modern Warfare, especially if the US is involved, revolves around money: laundering it, grifting the taxpayer, funneling money into black operations, taking huge banker loans and filling the pockets of war-profiteers. Nuclear war resets everything back to zero, which is bad business.
