Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#31

Post by konart »

microcolonel wrote: post #7
maga20yes wrote: post #3

Russia is required to behave under first world standards when it comes to their commitments, but it's relegated to third world when it comes to participating in global leadership/trade.

> ...relegated to third world when it comes to participating in global leadership/trade. Because when given more civilized tools, they nonetheless alienate the world. They could have annexed Crimea peacefully, at least the part that they actually needed, but chose instead to engage in a semi-hot war while sending mixed signals with the referendum. Then President Obama completely shut the door on them, which did not h…

> They could have annexed Crimea peacefully

Crimea was annexed peacefully.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#32

Post by sandworm101 »

aaron695 wrote: post #17
LandR wrote: post #2

The headline from the BBC is a bit sensationalist I think, but that's what they have. Interesting article about retrieving the submarines though.

I was going to say Chernobyl created a huge wilderness park, these just sit there doing nothing. But if they do pull then up and have an accident the article claims fishing might have to stop for a while, so perhaps they are as good? I'm dubious on the claims though. Either way, the tech and recovery is the interesting bit.

Fishing might stop in the area due to adverse publicity, but not because of the radiation. Chernobyl fallout fell and was concentrated on the surface of the earth, a two-dimensional plane. Oceans are three-dimensional. Even a chernobyl-magnitude radiation event will be quickly diluted into the hundreds of cubic-kilometers of water that passes over every point in the ocean daily. It is hard to wrap one's head around exactly how big, how literally massive, oceans are.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#33

Post by Retric »

newen wrote: post #27
Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a history of handling territory back after invasions, which makes people less nervous. China’s invasion /annexation of Tibet for example made everyone on it’s borders very concerned.

Instead, they just plant military bases in the country and set up a puppet government that supports the US. Amounts to the same thing.

In the short term perhaps. However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. Japan for example has the 5th most powerful military in the world.

‘Amusingly,‘ Cuba has a US base and a rather antagonistic relationship. However, long term many countries like US bases because money flows in one direction from that base into the local economy. It’s the same reason so many bases exist across the US.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#34

Post by martin_a »

Retric wrote: post #33
newen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead, they just plant military bases in the country and set up a puppet government that supports the US. Amounts to the same thing.

In the short term perhaps. However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. Japan for example has the 5th most powerful military in the world. ‘Amusingly,‘ Cuba has a US base and a rather antagonistic relationship. However, long term many countries like US bases because money flows in one direction from that base into the local economy. It’s the same reason so many bases exist across the US.

> However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US.

As a sidenote from a German: This is somewhat delicate and often talked about in German population. Not really happening in media, but I think everybody has his stance on this and some pros or cons. Anyway it's not easy for Germans.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#35

Post by microcolonel »

mantas wrote: post #18
maga20yes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just say that China or India (to put two bulky examples) have terrible civil rights AND environmental protection history and yet they aren't featured under a negative light on a daily basis in media.

Huh? China is seen kinda negative in press... India is usually shown as shithole country too.

Or at least a country with extreme material inequity; there are people in India who are recognizably wealthy by global standards, and there are also people who can't afford to poop on a toilet.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#36

Post by Shivetya »

While a bit sensationalist it obviously poses a real problem and fortunately its being acknowledged and acted upon.

however google can bring up the stuff of nightmares of what we have dumped into the oceans, worse this of course only what we know of. many countries have dumped stuff without any record keeping.

Chemical Weapons and other munitions https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/decaying-weapo...

https://www.nonproliferation.org/chemical-weapon-munitions-d...

Gulf of Mexico https://www.jacksonville.com/zz/news/20190719/what-lies-bene...

Low level radioactive wastes http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-a2/

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#37

Post by ashtonkem »

konart wrote: post #30
ashtonkem wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US declared Iraq to be part of America, then yes. Or the next time American claims a chunk of Mexico or Canada for themselves. Iraq was a huge mistake, but it is not the same as trying to seize land from your neighboring country.

So killing a fuck ton of people is okay as long as you not going to grab some land (but take some oil or any other resource), right?

Ethically, no. But at the nation state level, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that countries care much more about protecting territory than people, especially people in far away places. That’s both the story of colonialism, and the story of countries standing by and doing nothing during various genocides in the 19th and 20th century.

So yes, I would absolutely expect countries to respond differently to the invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. Same as how countries have reacted quite differently to Russia’s behavior in Ukraine than in Syria.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#38

Post by opwieurposiu »

American subs use Highly enriched 90%+ uranium metal fuel rods, as opposed to power plants which use low enriched uranium oxide. They use this kind of fuel so they can fit enough in the reactor for twenty plus years of power. Does anyone know what kind of fuel russian subs use?

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#39

Post by newen »

martin_a wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short term perhaps. However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. Japan for example has the 5th most powerful military in the world. ‘Amusingly,‘ Cuba has a US base and a rather antagonistic relationship. However, long term many countries like US bases because money flows in one direction from that base into the local economy. It’s the same reason so many bases exist across the US.

> However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. As a sidenote from a German: This is somewhat delicate and often talked about in German population. Not really happening in media, but I think everybody has his stance on this and some pros or cons. Anyway it's not easy for Germans.

Yes, it's similar to the situations in Japan and South Korea where the US has what are essentially US supporting puppet governments in power. It's impossible for these countries to kick the US military bases out of their lands.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#40

Post by simonebrunozzi »

Retric wrote: post #24
luckylion wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should perhaps consider not invading places all the time We're kicking the US out of G7 next, then? Oh wait ... it's okay when we do it, right?

The US has a history of handling territory back after invasions, which makes people less nervous. China’s invasion /annexation of Tibet for example made everyone on it’s borders very concerned.

> The US has a history of handling territory back after invasions

Really?

Post reply on HN