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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#561

Post by heartbreak »

chewz wrote: post #460
danso wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, your hypothetical is just too far detached from reality to debate — you really think Russia in 2022 is remotely strong enough to sweep across Europe, and the only thing stopping that ambition is fear of MAD? Huh? > I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. Again…what? Based on NATO’s military inaction re: Ukraine, you’ve concluded that NATO will also do nothing if Russia were to actua…

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…

It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that Ukraine has collapsed. They’re massively outgunned, yet they’re still standing 24 hours later.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#562

Post by RustyConsul »

godmode2019 wrote: post #288
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a great news bullet point in the information war. "Russian forces taking Chernobyl" sounds much more familiar and much more terrifying than "Russian forces taking Chernihiv region" to all of us unfamiliar with the country. Even if strategically realistically it's the latter that is more important than the former.

It also has the following affect: """Don't the Russians already own Chernobyl? I guess it must not be in Russia. I saw a movie and I think they were speaking Russian. Wow they must be crazy actually entering a radiation zone, won't half of the troops die from exposure. I wouldn't want my son fighting those lunatics."""

For all the downvoters, he does bring up a valid point. It is a 'click-bait' title that is comparatively neutered to what is actually occurring.

"Russia bombs Ukraine' "hundreds dead in russian invasion ofUkraine" "Russia implements no fly zone over Ukraine" "Russia incircles Ukraines Capital"

And we get - A long deserted powerplant captured?

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#563

Post by vkou »

trashtester wrote: post #483
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…

I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventional force deployed by Putin is pretty significant in itself. Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted insta…

> Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border.

Had NATO forces been deployed in Ukraine four months ago, nobody would be making any nuclear threats today, veiled or otherwise.

In fact, there wouldn't have been an invasion to begin with. I am about 100% positive that Russian intelligence knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were picking a fight they could easily win. I am almost 100% positive that western intelligence knew that too, which is why its response was a bunch of bullshit about sanctions.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#564

Post by czhu12 »

PolygonSheep wrote: post #554
DubiousPusher wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Allies and Nazi Germany both refusing to use chemical weapons during WWII? They both had chemical weapons stockpiled but neither side wanted to go there after WWI.

Bret Devereaux discusses this at length here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

In short, we didn't stop using chemical weapons because of ethics (if thats the case, we should've given up landmines, which kill far more civilians).

Rather, chemical weapons are expensive to operate and ineffective weapons in modern battlefields.

Here is the relevant snippet from the blog:

"During WWII, everyone seems to have expected the use of chemical weapons, but never actually found a situation where doing so was advantageous. This is often phrased in terms of fears of escalation (this usually comes packaged with the idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but that’s an anachronism – while Bernard Brodie is sniffing around the ideas of what would become MAD as early as ’46, MAD itself only emerges after ’62). Retaliation was certainly a concern, but I think it is hard to argue that the combatants in WWII hadn’t already been pushed to the limits of their escalation capability, in a war where the first terror bombing happened on the first day. German death-squads were in the initial invasion-waves in both Poland, as were Soviet death squads in their invasion of Poland in concert with the Germans and also later in the war. WWII was an existential war, all of the states involved knew it by 1941 (if not earlier), and they all escalated to the peak of their ability from the start; I find it hard to believe that, had they thought it was really a war winner, any of the powers in the war would have refrained from using chemical weapons. The British feared escalation to a degree (but also thought that chemical weapons use would squander valuable support in occupied France), but I struggle to imagine that, with the Nazis at the very gates of Moscow, Stalin was moved either by escalation concerns or the moral compass he so clearly lacked at every other moment of his life."

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#565

Post by [deleted] »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #551
calsy wrote: post #542

-

First, it's the West and its media that are clamoring for war, while Russia has no intention of invading. Now that Russia has invaded, the problem is that the media has a simplistic narrative of good guys and bad guys. Striking how much Russian propaganda has made its way onto HN.

[deleted]

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#566

Post by giantg2 »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #384
giantg2 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably don't want to damage the structure itself, but the exclusion zone around it is quite large with little risk of collateral damage (possibly easier to engage).

There is a lot of contamination that was simply buried underneath the topsoil during the cleanup efforts. Bombing or artillery strikes would likely cause some of that to be kicked back up into the atmosphere.

Good point.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#567

Post by interfixus »

rob74 wrote: post #434
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…

Or, as Sting once sang, "I hope the Russians love their children too" - in this case, one particular Russian...

If that particular Russian is in fact an all-out psychopath, this concept may not apply.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#568

Post by baybal2 »

trashtester wrote: post #511
lordnacho wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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…

The cold war high side estimate was 50M if the West lets USSR to expend the whole of its arsenal on USA standing, doing nothing.

Recent figures I read were 20M-40M for worst case scenarios.

Realistically, a coordinated all in launch is ~1000 warheads, with 400 of them megaton scale in R36 MIRVs from West Siberia.

First strike is only possible with computerised launch infrastructure operational. Beheading the command structure is a way to prevent an effective first strike.

Without it, assorted launches get detected early, giving time for counterattack.

The missile defence can much more easily shoot down 20 boosting missiles coming one by one, than 10 missiles coming simultaneously.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#569

Post by HorizonXP »

Andrex wrote: post #556
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…

9/11 x100?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE Sorry, thread needed some levity.

Levity appreciated. It's needed even more during these times.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#570

Post by vkou »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #475
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…

This is likely the exact reason Putin took Chernobyl as one of the first targets. He knew that it would give Ukraine an improvised WMD and drastically change the balance of power. They could have rigged the entire thing with high explosives and wired it to a dead man’s switch.

Life isn't a comic book, nuclear power plants don't explode like bombs do. The only thing that would accomplish is poisoning Ukrainians.

The reason Chernobyl was taken is obvious if you look at a map. It's on the border, and there's a massive offensive across the entirety of it.

It's not a target, it's simply on the way to a target.

Post reply on HN