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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#641

Post by kidme5 »

bytelines wrote: post #635
nradov wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ballistic missile defense capabilities will remain very limited for at least the next few years. But Russia has also hedged against this risk by developing the Poseidon strategic nuclear torpedo. We have no effective defense. http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html

Same with hypersonic missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...

Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matter where the submarine is, the space-based launch-intercept system has whole earth coverage.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#642

Post by pkdpic »

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.

But does 9/11 times 100 equal 91,100 or 81.818181...?

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#643

Post by chasd00 »

baybal2 wrote: post #568
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…

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…

They are enough slbm armed subs stalking the ocean that a clean first strike is impossible. Even if you decapitate the enemy’s command and control the subs still rise and launch a full retaliatory strike.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#644

Post by ajsnigrutin »

wanda wrote: post #632

For those of you who can't wrap your heads around why Putin is invading Ukraine, I invite you to recall the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 by the US and its allies. While artfully justified to Western audiences at the time, they have both been subjected to intense criticism and questions of legitimacy since. In the case of Iraq, if I am not mistaken, the war was an operation to disarm a country of…

> For those of you who can't wrap your heads around why Putin is invading Ukraine, I invite you to recall the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 by the US and its allies.

As someone from the balkans i totally agree with you, and it is sad, that the world leaders that are "outraged" today are politically commanding armies that are still occupying many sovereign countries around the world.

But with the media and propaganda, the wars started by the west were "good", and every other war is "bad". The americans even convinced people that their soldiers killing people in middle east (and other places) is somehow "fighting for US freedom".

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#645

Post by daveguy »

toolz wrote: post #637
shmerl wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use World War II as a study case for that. Nazis could have been stopped sooner, instead some tried to appease them until it was too late.

Or you could use Dessert Shield as a case study which has turned into pointless and incredibly long-lived war fronts.

This is more like the desert storm scenario than the desert shield scenario. One country invading another sovereign country. The boundaries were clear. No occupying force necessary. I'm not saying we should jump to boots on the ground war without exhausting other possibilities first, but this is very little like Afghanistan and even less like the second Iraq war.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#646

Post by [deleted] »

shmerl wrote: post #631
throwawaylinux wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate…

You can use World War II as a study case for that. Nazis could have been stopped sooner, instead some tried to appease them until it was too late.

[deleted]

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#647

Post by chasd00 »

jacobr1 wrote: post #546
CPLX wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the line for action lies in the NATO treaty. NATO is not a philosophical concept it’s literally the outgrowth of written documents with the power of law. The T stands for treaty. The line is the borders of the NATO countries. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial that if someone drove a tank into Poland offensively it would be promptly incinerated.

I think the question is how does that escalate. If Putin is just taunting NATO with a few tanks crossing the border, and artillery takes out the tanks, that might be the end of it. But at want point does a broader escalation turn into a total war ... which bring in the nukes?

I think when one side sees it as an existential threat then the gloves come off. Russia will launch nukes before the government fell. United States would launch nukes before the government fell.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#648

Post by lmm »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #624
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'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate…

> I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here?

You've got to draw the line somewhere. If an offensive war like this passes, no-one is safe.

> And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.?

Launching an invasion no, at least not without a very clear UN-like process that gives them multiple opportunities to back down.

> I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

Whether I'd have the balls is another question entirely, but I absolutely do believe it. This is not subtle, this is not limited, this is war. If we were talking about unmarked "volunteers" in the "independent states" that Russia recognised a few days ago, you might reasonably argue for a more limited response. But when we have Russian regulars shooting in Kyiv, that is absolutely on the wrong side of anywhere the line can possibly be drawn, unless you're ready to start speaking Russian.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#649

Post by sg47 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #624
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'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate…

The last time a mad dictator wasn't nipped in the bud, the world lost millions in war.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#650

Post by 627467 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #624
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'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate…

"This", meaning peace near your border?

I'm surprised that everyone considers sanctions a sophisticated hard soft power tool (clearly useless) but don't consider mobilization of troops as hardware (short of firing rounds) as an effective and peaceful tool.

What Putin did (mobilize troops within their borders) was also an option for NATO/EU in bordering countries. Matching mobilization would definitely increase the costs of firing the first bullet.

But the truth is, despite the talk of solidarity and all this public indignation, Ukraine never really had a partner in NATO/EU/West.

And the world saw how uninterested in peace is NATO/EU/West

Post reply on HN