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

Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#531

Post by Aeolun »

sveme wrote: post #145
newaccount2021 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU is incapable and the US doesn't have near enough assets nearby in any case, Putin would likely respond with a nuke (he already basically hinted this), this is an endgame for everyone, Ukraine, Russia, Putin...there will be no de-escalation or peace process. Putin already said Ukraine "does not need to exist"...either the Ukrainians can fight him off or not. Probably not. Sanctions won't matter. Scolding Putin at t…

I doubt that Russia can hold Ukraine for long. Once Putin is gone, everything he accomplished will fade away quickly.

You'd hope so right?

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#532

Post by gjm11 »

dghughes wrote: post #520
chewz wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. And that won't be much different from what Tsar Alexander did in 1812/1813 with similiar meager resources. So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams... And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years o…

>Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. France may not like that. They're not in NATO. But they have nuclear weapons.

France is in NATO.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#533

Post by DubiousPusher »

kodah wrote: post #519
trashtester wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has a bit more than a couple of nukes, as does the US. I believe I've seen the numbers indicate that the present arsenals that are currently in service are too small to erase humanity, but they are definitely big enough to cause hundreds of millions to a few billions of deaths. If we consider the situation of just 1-2 warheads are used in a conflict, I think it really hard to gauge the effect on public percept…

Personally, I think we are well past the point of nuclear armaments. I think, if there is war, it'll be a ground and air war that's like a sophisticated yet familiar chess game and a side war that is mostly anti-war propaganda, pro-Russia propaganda, misinformation, and attacks on IOT and public infrastructure that exhaust the citizenry out of watching the fighting.

Many people believed this kind of thing in July of 1914.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#534

Post by throwhauser »

lordnacho wrote: post #477
dudeinhawaii wrote: post #428

I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…

There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD.…

> ...a Soviet guy decided it was best not to send missiles back

In that case the judgment was whether the telemetry was reliable enough to justify launching a retaliatory strike, with all the grave consequences that produces.

An unambiguous order to launch a first strike might not elicit the same kind of hesitation.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#535

Post by theptip »

dghughes wrote: post #520
chewz wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. And that won't be much different from what Tsar Alexander did in 1812/1813 with similiar meager resources. So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams... And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years o…

>Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. France may not like that. They're not in NATO. But they have nuclear weapons.

France is one of the founding countries in NATO. Indeed, NATO's progenitor was a bilateral treaty between France and the UK (the "Treaty of Dunkirk").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#536

Post by DubiousPusher »

lordnacho wrote: post #477
dudeinhawaii wrote: post #428

I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…

There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD.…

There is absolutely no precedent in human history for two fairly equal powers engaging in a conflict and one side refusing in totality to use almost any weapon at its disposal and certainly not one that an enemy has already used. Japan did not nuke America back in 1945 because it did not have a nuke and had lost all air superiority.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#537

Post by Rd6n6 »

Aeolun wrote: post #504
dudeinhawaii wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or small land grabs without casualties. Escalation from NATO let's say is "NATO declares war on Russia for violating sovereignty of Poland". Next? Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? As long as I've been alive, neither US nor NATO have ever actively engaged a…

I think the only thing you can do when faced with MAD is to completely ignore it and conduct your war as if it didn't exist. Anything else would put you at a severe disadvantage.

The world would have ended by now had people followed that advice 50 years ago

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#538

Post by SCAQTony »

dghughes wrote: post #520
chewz wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. And that won't be much different from what Tsar Alexander did in 1812/1813 with similiar meager resources. So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams... And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years o…

>Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. France may not like that. They're not in NATO. But they have nuclear weapons.

France is a member of NATO, they entered NATO in 1949 • Reference, The NATO website: https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#539

Post by krisoft »

Aeolun wrote: post #504
dudeinhawaii wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or small land grabs without casualties. Escalation from NATO let's say is "NATO declares war on Russia for violating sovereignty of Poland". Next? Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? As long as I've been alive, neither US nor NATO have ever actively engaged a…

I think the only thing you can do when faced with MAD is to completely ignore it and conduct your war as if it didn't exist. Anything else would put you at a severe disadvantage.

So you are proposing that the air force can just start pummeling the air defences around Moscov? Because that would be a viable counter step if not for MAD.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#540

Post by [deleted] »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #478
jskrablin wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MAD works both ways. And some European countries (like the above mentioned France) have nuclear weapons. So I don't think Putin would make it to the French coastline easily. Ukraine should have made use of the material from the Chernobyl power plant while it had the chance. A threat of dirty bomb being delivered to Moscow would have stopped Putin. I guess their politicians are too naive and didn't consider this an op…

MAD was only really feasible when just three countries had nukes. It was abandoned a while back. Russia chose to pursue nuclear supremacy over conventional defense. They have the biggest arsenal, as well as super-nuclear and super-sonic ICBMs to deliver them. Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN