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

Post by NikolaNovak » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 9:16 AM UTC

twaw wrote: post #528

gambiting wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure he means the Ukrainians inside the nuclear plant, not Ukrainians in general.

Operators of nuclear plant are civilians. They are not part of force. Civilians can be captured, they cannot surrender, because nobody asks them to do that. I never heard that police or army asks somebody unarmed to surrender.

Post by ignoramous » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 9:21 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #642

ignoramous wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As abhorrent as it sounds, if the Russian government authorizes use of nuclear weapons, it might only be exclusively to get Ukraine to surrender and end the war on Russian terms. I don't think their designs will be to go nuclear on rest of Europe.

That's just the nuclear salami method. Declare you're only using nukes locally and everyone else better not piss you off. Take that slice. Repeat.

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

QuarterReptile wrote: post #196

Thaxll wrote: post #131

One can wonder what does it takes for the west to military intervene. Sanctions are a long term plan but it won't save Ukraine.

We're going to keep telling ourselves that it would risk nuclear retaliation right up until the point where there's nothing in Ukraine worth defending because Russia nuked every place in Ukraine still standing. The only exit that isn't a destructive spiral out of control is the one where Putin is no longer in power.

Post by HPsquared » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 9:27 AM UTC

Muromec wrote: post #603

HWR_14 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet speculation is that the power plant will be shut down once taken over. Which at least minimizes the ongoing risk of human error. Heck, shutting down is probably a far simpler process than continuing to run - nuclear power plants are designed to be shut down if necessary.

Well, shutting down nuclear reactor is not a simple process — it has to be actively cooled for weeks after being disconnected, which requires power, which you don’t have because you shut it down. So there should be either on-site generators (burning fuel) or external power . That’s why power stations usually have multiple reactors which are serviced on schedule, so it always has some generation happening. None of it…

Post by HPsquared » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 9:28 AM UTC

pintxo wrote: post #606

HWR_14 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet speculation is that the power plant will be shut down once taken over. Which at least minimizes the ongoing risk of human error. Heck, shutting down is probably a far simpler process than continuing to run - nuclear power plants are designed to be shut down if necessary.

Given the continuous need for cooling and containment, and within the context of a war, does it really matter if a fission power plant is running or shut down in terms of environmental security?