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

871–880 of 894 posts

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

#871

Post by TMWNN »

adventured wrote: post #227
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> results could be considered a WMD What rubbish. This looks like Putin found a way to tactically deploy dirty nukes within the West’s red lines.

I expect if the invasion is protracted, Putin will at a minimum detonate a demonstration nuke. The downside consequences for Russia are modest at this point, and it'll be very terrifying to the people of Ukraine (and the world generally).

>I expect if the invasion is protracted, Putin will at a minimum detonate a demonstration nuke.

Given the widespread reports during this war of Russian equipment in poor condition, I've been thinking about this possibility for a while:

* Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might.

* The weapon is a dud.

I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!

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

#872

Post by ed_balls »

mulmen wrote: post #858
ed_balls wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no reason Ukraine would cross their own borders to strengthen their negotiation position "We give you back X, you give back Mariupol" > complete annihilation of Russia as a country you think US would die for some village in Ukraine? They were plenty of US politicians and generals which were against nuclear umbrella for West Germany.

None of what you are describing makes sense. If the Ukrainians can push Russians back why wouldn’t they do the same everywhere? Crossing the border becomes an act of aggression, only Russia has acted aggressively here. Everyone else is trying to avoid conflict. If Russia detonates a nuke in Europe the entire country will be obliterated immediately.

Ukrainians already have, there was a counter attack in the north of Dombas

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

#873

Post by nomel »

xdennis wrote: post #824
nomel wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give some examples of what you see as incompetent?

All the videos of abandoned tanks and vehicles, some with fuel.

I'm not sure I understand. Were they captured? Were the drivers killed? Did the drivers perhaps have relatives/friends in Ukraine? Were they told to leave them there?

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

#874

Post by suyjuris »

spopejoy wrote: post #864
suyjuris wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any kind of source for this? As far as I am aware, estimates for deaths based on thyroid cancers are ~160 [1]. Not 'thousand, just 160 – you claim is off by five orders of magnitude. Estimates for the total death toll are up to 60000 if you assume the linear no-threshold model [2], so might be much lower in reality. [1] See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... . [2] The mod…

How about the 2009 epidemiology study that estimates > 900,000 dead by 2009 with no end in sight? Quoting from a summary (easy to find the original): > In 2009, the New York Academy of Sciences published a book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. A team of European scientists led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail…

Thank you, that is indeed a source and I have raised my estimate of the probability larger casualties slightly. (For the record: above excerpt is from an article in the online magazine CounterPunch [1], which itself refers to the 2009 book [2].)

However, its methodology and rigour have been criticised [3]. As I am not an expert in this area I cannot evaluate the source directly, but several general heuristics apply. The source is a single book. (I am aware that the book claims to rely on numerous non-english sources, but I do not believe that they make the same claims.) The book relies on observational epidemiological data, which is generally hard to get right, and dose-response curves seem to be not analysed (seeing a relationship between doses and effect sizes is a good way to exclude spurious correlations). Finally, since the article mentions Yablokov's prior occupation I will also note that he founded and lead the Soviet chapter of Greenpeace, an organisation with a strong anti-nuclear position.

So I do not think that this is strong evidence. (But as I said earlier, I do currently consider it weak evidence.) In any case, the book claims one million deaths, not multiple millions, and only a fraction of those is attributed to thyroid cancer.

[1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahl...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

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

#875

Post by mulmen »

ed_balls wrote: post #872
mulmen wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you are describing makes sense. If the Ukrainians can push Russians back why wouldn’t they do the same everywhere? Crossing the border becomes an act of aggression, only Russia has acted aggressively here. Everyone else is trying to avoid conflict. If Russia detonates a nuke in Europe the entire country will be obliterated immediately.

Ukrainians already have, there was a counter attack in the north of Dombas

That was a tactical strike on an airfield. They don’t hold Russian territory. They have not secured a bargaining chip.

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

#876

Post by CoastalCoder »

cesarb wrote: post #394
CoastalCoder wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> than letting one NPP go critical. Just nitpicking, but AFAIK nuclear power plants already "go critical" whenever they're operating (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) "Criticality is the normal operating condition of a nuclear reactor, in which nuclear fuel sustains a fission chain reaction.")

Thanks, I didn't realize I was using the wrong term!

I'm not sure why the parent post was downvoted. It was on-topic and taught me something relevant.

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

#877

Post by MisterMower »

ssijak wrote: post #601
MisterMower wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming NATO would be willing to use nuclear weapons if he did attack a NATO country. I have far more confidence that Putin would use them than the US would. That asymmetry works to his advantage.

The only country which used them and on actual civilian cities leveling them to the ground is the US. Also, launching nukes is not one person job. His generals need to be mad too for that to happen.

I’m not sure what Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with the discussion. The context is so completely different as to be irrelevant.

I’m sure Putin doesn’t have a big red launch button on his desk, but between the US and Russia, who do you honestly think will have an easier time getting those missiles launched? The guy who mixed up Ukrainians and Iranians during a speech last week or the guy who ordered an invasion of a neighboring country? My money is on Putin.

Hopefully we never find out.

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

#878

Post by eyelidlessness »

eru wrote: post #568
eyelidlessness wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are literally doing total war without provocation. The theoretical threat of NATO has not been a part of this conflict at all. Treating that imagined threat as if it’s equivalent to the very real war is navel gazing excuse for a mass murdering fascist.

First, yes, Putin's Russia has started a war of conquest. Second, no, it is definitely _not_ a total war. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war for background. Third, the theoretical threat of NATO is not so much to Russia: I agree that NATO is not a threat to Russia. However I do also see that NATO and EU are a threat to Putin's long term vision for a renewed Russian Empire. To be clear, I agree that this visi…

> First, yes, Putin's Russia has started a war of conquest.

Glad we agree.

> Second, no, it is definitely _not_ a total war. See

It’s a total war.

> Third, the theoretical threat of NATO is not so much to Russia: I agree that NATO is not a threat to Russia. However I do also see that NATO and EU are a threat to Putin's long term vision for a renewed Russian Empire.

By this logic all conflicts are both sided. England is equally justified in bombing India because they “threatened” the British empire by rejecting being under its power.

> Please also be careful with accusing people of being fascists or Nazis. Putin and his predecessors in the USSR employed the same tactic. And whether anyone does or does not fulfill the textbook definition of a fascist is besides the point here.

I’m well aware of the importance of being precise and cautious with this term and I chose it carefully.

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

#880

Post by eyelidlessness »

beebeepka wrote: post #530
eyelidlessness wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak to why you’ve been downvoted, but it might be worth considering the incentives to fight aren’t the same between the “sides”. One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. It’s difficult to maintain safety measures while people are trying to kill you.

What's there to understand? Cuba is still under embargo 50 years after the Russians tried to put weapons there.

Hey that’s a valid point and one I agree with. The way the US has treated Cuba is also completely indefensible and based in no plausible threat scenario.
Post reply on HN