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

Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 894 posts

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#321

Post by armada651 »

boringg wrote: post #274

So, aside from the obvious nature of messing around with Nuclear generating station being an idiotic move. From a tactical move for Russia - clearly they want the generating station offline to cause further chaos in Ukraine and that it supplies 1/6 of the power I believe(?). Was the generating station fighting to say online / not surrender or did Russia just show up guns blazing? It's clearly a tactically important s…

The only public statement I've read is that the Russian Army is concerned the Ukrainians would use their Nuclear Power Plants as dirty bombs.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#322

Post by archibaldJ »

I gradually stop seeing this as a war just for the freedom of the Ukrainian people. This is a war for the progress of humanity. A war between the new and old worlds.

With more breakthroughs in nuclear fusion energy and policies [1], the gradual adoption of nuclear (as well as EV tech) will soon mark the end of old world. The implication of this is beyond anything anyone can conceive as we do not truly know what becoming a Tier 1 civilisation means. This could also mean new military tech that would render all existing fossil-fuel-based weapon systems inefficent things of the past. In this new world social mobility would mean different things too (as energy gets cheaper (which is the cost of pretty much every basic thing a modern industrial society depends on), things get more decentralized), old status quos will crumble as the cost-to-transform skyrockets.

Systems that come with top-down execution structure always optimize for cost-to-execute and not cost-to-transform [2]. This would give you advantages eg in a Nash equilibrium, etc, but it also means losing touch with the every-changing reality that is the world now.

[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=tru...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28331939

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#323

Post by agumonkey »

armada651 wrote: post #321
boringg wrote: post #274

So, aside from the obvious nature of messing around with Nuclear generating station being an idiotic move. From a tactical move for Russia - clearly they want the generating station offline to cause further chaos in Ukraine and that it supplies 1/6 of the power I believe(?). Was the generating station fighting to say online / not surrender or did Russia just show up guns blazing? It's clearly a tactically important s…

The only public statement I've read is that the Russian Army is concerned the Ukrainians would use their Nuclear Power Plants as dirty bombs.

devious ukrainians even built a whole plant in advance to ensure their genocides

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#324

Post by dylan604 »

kortilla wrote: post #309
dylan604 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the fact that a Ukranian actually has one. I was going to make an "In Soviet Russia..." style joke, but a quick reading of the room suggested not good timing.

Commenter literally said “far from Ukraine”. What are you talking about?

oh, you're right. i totally missed the word far on initial read. totally changes the everything.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#325

Post by ABeeSea »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #315
ABeeSea wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t intentionally causing a nuclear meltdown during war already nuclear war?

Not in the same sense people usually mean "nuclear war". Swapping many ICBMs is a lot more deadly than letting one NPP go critical.

So if someone detonated a dirty bomb in Russia, that wouldn’t be nuclear war?

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#326

Post by redwall_hp »

jliptzin wrote: post #310
boringg wrote: post #274

So, aside from the obvious nature of messing around with Nuclear generating station being an idiotic move. From a tactical move for Russia - clearly they want the generating station offline to cause further chaos in Ukraine and that it supplies 1/6 of the power I believe(?). Was the generating station fighting to say online / not surrender or did Russia just show up guns blazing? It's clearly a tactically important s…

Isn’t one major problem with nuclear is that it’s hard to shut down when you don’t need it? Hopefully they understand that

Usually they have fail safes that will more or less immediately shut them down. On any reactor designed in the last 50 years, they pretty much default to a safe state, as they require power to keep the failsafes open.

Starting back up after is the slow part.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#327

Post by chillingeffect »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #185
mwattsun wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only 4 during the Cuban Missile crisis, but I've talked to people who remember it and this sounds a lot like it.

Unironically, it is exactly that crisis that is key to understanding Russias actions right now, as there are many similar parallels. That, plus the 2.5T barrels worth of shale that Chevron and Exxon prospected underneath the Crimean peninsula. If Russia really did go to war over securing some natural resources and a geopolitical strategic location, over a false pretense of something like liberation, it would sound so…

Trying to rescue you from downvotes, but ppl refuse to see the big picture, to think reflexively. MSM sure isn't helping.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#328

Post by Gare »

ummonk wrote: post #284
purple_ferret wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the difference if Putin invaded a NATO state and NATO was forced to defend? What would be the difference if he starts losing the war and needs to kick it up a notch? Is there any less chance he'd use nukes? Serious question. Threatening nukes is a rational move. Actually using them is not.

In general, the side that cares about the conflict more is more likely to engage in direct conflict, and escalate to nuclear use if their goals are being thwarted by conventional war. To Russia, Ukraine is a core interest, and thus they're the most likely to escalate to tactical nuclear weapons if NATO intervenes and Russia starts losing. With a NATO country, that calculus changes, and if for some crazy reason Russia…

> as existing NATO countries aren't core interests to Russia

The Baltic states (former Soviet Union states) might be

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#329

Post by bastawhiz »

nomel wrote: post #203
bastawhiz wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Causing a nuclear incident in a place you want to occupy is profoundly stupid.

You're making a pretty serious assumption that they're doing something haphazard rather than something calculated and planned. What's your reason for first assuming incompetence?

The last time I checked, being Russian doesn't make you immune to radiation. Controlling land is pretty pointless if you've poisoned it into uninhabitability for the next few generations or so.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#330

Post by ABeeSea »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #319
ABeeSea wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn’t it?

> Why isn’t it? Because the effects of a nuclear meltdown are closer to that of a chemical attack and far away from that of a thermonuclear detonation. Blurry red lines cease to be lines.

If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war?
Post reply on HN