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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#771

Post by thelittleone »

HWR_14 wrote: post #706
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…

If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, you may want to stop him early. Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.

So long as Putin says he won't go beyond Ukraine we can just believe him at his word right? /Sarcasm. But sadly this does seem to have been the strategy since Crimea.

Assassinations on foreign soil including attempt on opposition leader who now rots in a jail on rediculous charges. Shooting down passenger planes. Putin needs a punch in the face that rattles him to the core such that he fears stepping outside in daylight.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#772

Post by hef19898 »

throwhauser wrote: post #534
lordnacho wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD.…

> ...a Soviet guy decided it was best not to send missiles back In that case the judgment was whether the telemetry was reliable enough to justify launching a retaliatory strike, with all the grave consequences that produces. An unambiguous order to launch a first strike might not elicit the same kind of hesitation.

The both scenarios, the Russian sub during the Cuba Crisis and the Officer ignoring the early warning system, didn't involve clear orders from the legitimate chain of command to launch. The sub operated under the absence of orders, while the early warning system was a standard operating procedure, and the Officer in charge was involved in the systems development.

In any army of the world I would assume that, especially in the case of nuclear forces, orders to launch are not second guessed. After all, the whole concept of MAD depends on a swift counter attack. If those attack orders wouldn't be carried out fast, in the limited time frame available, something would be wrong.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#773

Post by eru »

lordnacho wrote: post #477
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…

There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD.…

> For one, it's actually happened that missiles looked like they were in the air, and a Soviet guy decided it was best not to send missiles back, and we're all still here.

Keep in mind that this false alarm didn't look like an all out attack, but like only one missile (or a handful, I don't remember the details).

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#774

Post by newby »

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 think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes.

I understood the point you are responding to differently than you - it is not about doing the (morally) "right" thing, it is about doing the self-preserving thing. I imagine there is always a lot of people willing to do horrible things when they can reasonably expect they will face no personal consequences (your Tiananmen Square massacre example, which would mean personal consequences for not doing it). The expectations are very different for officers hitting the launch button - they have to know that if they do it, it is very likely that they themselves and everybody they love will die or face horrible future in the post-apocalyptic world. I am not saying this means nobody will hit the button, I am just saying it makes doing it a lot harder and (hopefully) less likely.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#775

Post by anamax »

afterburner wrote: post #763
markdown wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the point. > If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).

NATO is an agreement to initiate MAD if needed. That's the point of NATO.

Do you really think that the US will nuke Russia to protect Poland or Germany?

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#776

Post by jacquesm »

hef19898 wrote: post #760
jacquesm wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effectively he did just that, now he has NATO bordering him on one more side and a buffer state is eradicated.

Sure. But that buffer was about to join NATO. Ukraine received a guaranteed invitation, so it is only a question of when , not if . Invading Ukraine pushes that, basically inevitable, NATO border further to the West.

> But that buffer was about to join NATO.

That is not correct afaik.

Besides that the downsides associated with all this far outweigh the upside of where NATO's borders are.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#777

Post by eru »

queuebert wrote: post #653
trashtester wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My numbers included the arsenals of all countries, and casualties for all reasons, including the direct blast, fallout, breakdown of infrastructure, the possibility of a nuclear winter, reduced food production, etc. Even people in areas with no nukes, little fallout and not affected by nuclear winter could face mass starvation due to lack of fertilizers, diesel, spare parts for machines, etc. Even in North America, E…

Exactly. I bet most of us on HN live in large cities and will be killed in the first strike.

I live in a large city, but have reasonable hope not to be targeted in a first strike by either side. (I live in Singapore.)

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#778

Post by hef19898 »

perilunar wrote: post #609
thelittleone wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

certainly no comparison in a conventional war. Ukraine could be as costly to Putin as Afghanistan was to the US.

Ukraine could also be as costly to Putin as Afghanistan was to the USSR.

Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for a reason.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#779

Post by vkou »

dtx1 wrote: post #752
ed wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. Develop nuclear weapons. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...

And they now learned what a serious naive mistake that was. As a german I am ashamed that we did not accept frances offer of a shared nuclear arsenal when we could. We cowardly hide under the umbrella of french nuclear deterrence, yet chose not to get our hands dirty and take the responsibility on ourselves

It's not clear they had a choice. The west was scared shitless of nuclear proliferation in ex-soviet republics, and would probably not have lifted a finger about the matter.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#780

Post by arisAlexis »

trhway wrote: post #745
wahern wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. Everybody understood that, including Putin and his generals. And while NATO and the U.S. maintained the official position (perhaps better characterized as a non-position) that any country, including Ukraine, remained free to apply to NATO, member states like Germany would hav…

While NATO takes all the spotlight, a very major real issue for Russia is that Ukraine started to develop significant partnerships, including military, with Turkey, a centuries old major enemy and competitor of Russia. Turkey has tremendously grown its power in the region in the recent decade (in not a small part because of its very successful drone program). Turkey was a military partner of Georgia back in 2008, tho…

What are you talking about? Turkey is a good weapons customer of Russia and Putin and Erdogan continuously profess their mutual respect.
Post reply on HN