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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#731

Post by allisdust »

beloch wrote: post #703
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…

Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily . Russia can attack non-NATO countries and intimidate NATO into doing nothing, but to attack a NATO member would automatically bring the whole alliance into the war. The whole point of alliances like NATO is to prevent countries from being picked off by a bully the way U…

On paper yes. They are obligated to join or whatever. In practice, the whole west has become so risk averse in last few decades, they would just fold and offer 'asylum' to the fleeing poles and making statements like doing everything in their power to avoid 'escalations'.

Unfortunate reality is that the west collectively lost their balls post 9/11 due to the needless wars sapping the spirit. They would wait till its too late and by then its too late. The politician with actual brains and balls and who has kept europe whole and safe so far has recently retired and the rest are just good for press releases.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#732

Post by [deleted] »

natmaka wrote: post #692
aksss wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some…

For many (most?), even cops, heavily beating up people who didn't nor do anything violent or amoral/immoral isn't easy. Isn't violent repression nearly always triggered by protesters' violence (sometimes only by a fraction of them, sometimes by people acting up in order to trigger repression, sometimes through misinterpretation or some fake-flag operation...) ? Isn't a well-rehearsed then conducted (in order to avoid…

[deleted]

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#733

Post by throwawaylinux »

HWR_14 wrote: post #719
throwawaylinux wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours. > you may want to stop him early. What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way? If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would p…

I don't think Putin is going to stop after Ukraine - he may temporarily stop to rebuild and plan the next war, but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper. The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. Howeve…

> I don't think Putin is going to stop after Ukraine - he may temporarily stop to rebuild and plan the next war,

So far they seem to have occupied heavily pro-Russian areas very close to home that have not put up much resistance. I don't think that's a good indication they would just keep going further. Possibly though.

> but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper.

> The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries.

That is not my belief. It is my belief that I care about my countrymen more though or at least have more responsibility to them being that I have a vote in how the country is run, and it is also my belief that those with something to lose have to take a stand. I wouldn't want to send solders from my country even if Putin was driving a tank down the Champs-Elysees, if the French were all just sitting there waiting for me.

And pretty clearly Western European governments do not consider this a high risk given their military spending. So I just think it's very premature to take action based on the idea you can be so sure such a thing would happen.

> As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.

It would absolutely stretch supply lines and defenses. Reality isn't like an RTS you can't just keep conquering territory and it turns red and your resources immediately grow.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#734

Post by throwawaylinux »

shmerl wrote: post #724
throwawaylinux wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are Russian troops entering Ukraine different from Germany invading Poland? Well probably quite a lot. Sort of a hard question obviously there are differences and similarities I don't want to get into just listing things out and arguing why the differences or similarities matter or don't matter. I hardly even know what's going on in the region now and my WWII history is not fantastic, so I don't think it would be…

The main parallel is that it's about a power maniac who won't stop until he is stopped. Or to put it differently, he'll take as long as he can. So the question you should be asking, will he stop with Ukraine if he'll take it?

> The main parallel is that it's about a power maniac who won't stop until he is stopped.

Well there's clearly huge differences then aren't there?

> Or to put it differently, he'll take as long as he can. So the question you should be asking, will he stop with Ukraine if he'll take it?

I think I should be asking a lot of questions, that one included of course. And I'm not sure or even sure he would risk getting involved in a significant war in Western Ukraine. At this point "power maniac who must be stopped" doesn't sway me enough that I should ask someone else to send their son to die.

If we are concerned with power maniacs, should we start with China? Will they stop at Tibet and the Uyghurs and Hong Kong? Should we take the CCP regime down before they take Taiwan? That is actually stated goal of the party after all. North Korea? Saudi?

I mean if the concern is occupations, mad dictators, human rights or whatever, we have a lot of wars we could start. Why just limit ourselves to Ukraine?

That's why I don't find that emotional argument convincing (coming from the ruling class, at least). They're sometimes concerned with dictators, except when they aren't. In those other cases sometimes they ignore them and sometimes they actually support them. Sometimes they were the ones who installed them in the first place.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#735

Post by DubiousPusher »

aksss wrote: post #557
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.

I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some…

I agree. For every example of soldiers ethically disobeying orders there are dozens or even hundreds of examples where they; followed through, carried that violence beyond its stated ends and even initiated it themselves with the tacit but not explicit approval of their commanders.

It's nice to believe everyone is thinking their orders through but militaries exist to get people to do violence and they are often very good at their intended purpose. They explicitly seek to drive individualism out of people in order to ensure high discipline in uncertain circumstances when that discipline is most necessary.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#736

Post by DubiousPusher »

solotronics wrote: post #600
aksss wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some…

Thank God there are multiple real world examples of officers getting the order to fire a nuke and disobeying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

That i not an example of subordinate disobedience in the face of a clear retaliatory order. From the article

> Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov.

Arkhipov had authority to veto the order. What's more, the captain was assuming war had begun and had no order from above to attack.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#737

Post by DubiousPusher »

asdff wrote: post #674
aksss wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some…

A group of Russian soldiers in Ukraine has already surrendered because this was more than what they signed up for.

Only like 10,000 units to go.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#738

Post by kcb »

vkou wrote: post #563
trashtester wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 to…

NATO forces don't deploy in a foreign country. That's not how it works.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#739

Post by sakopov »

Russia never ceases to amaze me even after spending half of my life living there. Its massive territory extends over 8 times zones stretching over 2 continents and it has historically been incapable of governing most of it. Everything outside of Moscow and Saint Petersburg (and a few other bigger cities) is often neglected and in constant state of poverty. Geopolitical stuff aside, this incessant need to have more land and more control when you can't even deal with the shit you already have is just baffling.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#740

Post by rmk »

pertymcpert wrote: post #370
rmk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was ne…

The fact that Germany was going to increase their dependence on Russian gas with NS2 instead of lowering it is despicable and incredibly short sighted. Same country which is going nuclear free. Complete morons.

Don't worry, until now EU member states were blissfully ignoring or putting their NATO obligations on the back burner. Hence the prodigious dependency on Russian gas. Also, the greens hold considerable sway in large parts of Western Europe and the Nordic countries, so nuclear became a dirty word.

I think this debacle will jolt the the EU members' leadership out of its complacency, and there will be a renewed focus on European Security, now that Macron's deal-brokering has clearly failed.

Which country is going nuclear free? I hope it's not France, because I thought they are the leaders in nuclear energy.

Post reply on HN