Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

((In response to Ulfarr's accusation of purely serving a narrative, which I wouldn't dismiss as being part of it, but...))

All I've seen as a 'report' is:

Ukrainian government reports that the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant has lost power due to damage to an high voltage power line to Kyiv. They state this could potentially impact the cooling of spent fuel assemblies and lead to nuclear discharge.

...unless you're saying it can not potentially impact the cooling (...etc), Ulfarr, I'm not sure what you're getting animated about.

I will confidently state that it can do this. That it's always a risk, though usually a minor one in modern times when old mistakes (Windscale, Three-Mile Island, Fukushima, etc, and Chernobyl itself of course) have been learnt from and caution is now the watchword in any mature nuclear-operator. Maybe more risky in 'up-and-coming' places with other concerns (Iran, NK...).

In an active war-zone, with prior incident-damage to look after and limited to whatever resources are already on site, yes, there's potential problems at the most basic level (the cooling) that could escalate to further problems.

Better to say this than to ignore it/do the "This is fine" thing. It might be worse at a more recently active power-plant (like Zaporizhzhia, which had all six reactors active within the last month and did have initially worrying damage done to some of its auxilliary infrastructure), or if the Sarcophagus[1] were not there to do its intended job.


[1] Not armoured against attack, but at least preventing further casual damage to the Soviet-era reactor buildings damaged in the original incident by careless invaders.

Spoiler: A slight digression about the CNPP (click to show/hide)

I'm not sure how much of the original buildings are still exposed to environment nowadays. There is supposed to be a newer (completed a few years ago) layer/wall surrounding the damaged building. How protective is that layer, what it can protect from etc, is a different topic and I don't know enough about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement
...which I erroneously called the Sarcophagus, that name actually being for the original rushed 'repair/enclosure' that the NSC is, in turn, protecting. But basically the two layers together (until they do the deconstruction work to all the inner bits) are protecting the environment from the broken reactor systems so I conflated them. But neither are really intended to be armoured against attack. There's tornado-resistance built in (over-engineerdd for expectations, but better safe than sorry!), yet any decent heavy munition would at least punch holes in the NSC and not help the inner 'confinement', should someone wish to try that.  So FYI.

Back on the topic at hand. I'm getting animated, as you said, about the possibility of getting even more caught in a war that started because some people decided that they want to show the world how much they are packing. A war that I want nothing to do with.

I'm not sure you're making sense, complaining about the Ukrainians for not just dealing with the big regional bully in complete silence. I'm not itching to expand the conflict, but I'm not going to condemn the quite correct attempts to let the world know that stupid things are being done (intentionally or otherwise) by the invasive forces. And stupid things that can potentially cause cross-border problems. (The wind there is from the NNE, at the moment, though it'd be poetic justice if it was blowing towards Belarus if/when failures and active interventions caused a limited release of various radionucleides.)

This is different from the malicious/incompetant acts that make more localised issues such as the bombardment of a maternity/children's hospital (I wouldn't care to rank the two for 'seriousness'), which I presume you also prefer not to hear about, in other calls for assistance.

Calls that will probably not (directly) be heeded, either way, so you can just ignore them and you really have nothing to complain about.

[Ulfarr]

I would make more sense, if you didn't assume that I complain "about the Ukrainians for not just dealing with the big regional bully in complete silence", because I never said anything even close to it. Their right to defend their homes, lives, properties etc is undeniable, as is their right to live their lives safe from such threats.

As I see it, these are the possible outcomes:

Option 1: The rest of world gets directly involved.
-Result 1A: The war is brought to a swift end. No nukes get involved.
-Result 1B: The war is brought to a swift end. Nukes get involved. Total world wide destruction .

Option 2: The rest of world doesn't get directly involved.
-Result 2A: The war drags on until it's no longer possible to continue. Ukrainian infrastructure is most likely completely destroyed. Russian economy is in ruins. Lots of dead on both sides, either directly from the conflict or from the aftermath.
-Result 2B: The war drags on until it's no longer possible to continue. Nukes get involved because they don't have anything more to lose.

Result 1A is unlikely, the people in power have too much to lose in that event, to not take everyone else with them.
Result 2A is a tragedy, but it lets the world to rebuild. Eventually.
Result 2B is probably unlikely. People with the power and will to launch nukes would either have already been removed from the relevant positions or have already struck deals to avoid getting in a "nothing more to lose" situation.

I understand why you might not agree with me on which result is the most preferable one, but I hope you can see why I'm not eager for the rest of the world to get directly involved.

[Strongpoint]

I would make more sense, if you didn't assume that I complain "about the Ukrainians for not just dealing with the big regional bully in complete silence", because I never said anything even close to it. Their right to defend their homes, lives, properties etc is undeniable, as is their right to live their lives safe from such threats.

As I see it, these are the possible outcomes:

Option 1: The rest of world gets directly involved.
-Result 1A: The war is brought to a swift end. No nukes get involved.
-Result 1B: The war is brought to a swift end. Nukes get involved. Total world wide destruction .

Option 2: The rest of world doesn't get directly involved.
-Result 2A: The war drags on until it's no longer possible to continue. Ukrainian infrastructure is most likely completely destroyed. Russian economy is in ruins. Lots of dead on both sides, either directly from the conflict or from the aftermath.
-Result 2B: The war drags on until it's no longer possible to continue. Nukes get involved because they don't have anything more to lose.

Result 1A is unlikely, the people in power have too much to lose in that event, to not take everyone else with them.
Result 2A is a tragedy, but it lets the world to rebuild. Eventually.
Result 2B is probably unlikely. People with the power and will to launch nukes would either have already been removed from the relevant positions or have already struck deals to avoid getting in a "nothing more to lose" situation.

I understand why you might not agree with me on which result is the most preferable one, but I hope you can see why I'm not eager for the rest of the world to get directly involved.

Option 3, Ukraine launches a counteroffensive and
Result 1 Russia uses nukes
Result 2 Putin is removed from power

 And this is far more likely than you think. All Ukraine needs to do this is to have a way of dealing with Russian Air Superiority.

Ukrainian ground troops are far ahead in training, morale, combat experience, infantry equipment and not that far behind in artillery and armor

[LordBaal]

Russia is going to crack economically way before militarly because "we have reserves tm".

[Starver]

You (@Ulf...) complain about "bullshit excuses", or so it was that I read the gist of three of your last four posts. And I'm also not overly keen on a nuclear(-weapon) hellscape future. But I remember the original cloud of debris being tracked circling around northern-Europe (before the USSR was openly admitting that there was any reason for one[1]), so I also know that it's not a bad thing to be cautious, and to make the neo-Soviet leaders of this invasion know that we're much more aware of things these days.

As to your (1|2)(A|B) thing, what that skewed Prisoners' Dilemma has to do with you telling the Ukrainian leadership to stop saying things that are actually correct, I don't know. If anyone is going to drag the rest of the world into this, it is Putin by his own actions, rather even than his own rhetoric. Jaw jaw does not itself lead to war war, although obviously it can indicate (or highlight, perhaps by omission) the thinking already happening behind the scenes.

So you confuse me with what you're arguing about.

Do I think there'll be any nuclear incident (weapon or civil)..? I think not, I hope not. Do I think NATO/EU/*everyone* will get properly involved in the conflict..? I think not, and that's probably what Russia is counting on. Is Russia going to continue to push its luck..? Unfortunately, yes, putting its own people, the Ukrainians and the wider world (regardless of official hostilities) at continuing and further danger, whether by singular incidents or 'death of a thousand cuts'. How do we deal with the situation..? I don't rightly know, but not by completely ignoring the situation.



[1] It was four days after the incident when a Swedish nuclear power station backtracked spikes in its locally-detected radiation warnings to actually be from 'somewhere in the Soviet Union', and even then the soviet authorities were reluctant to say anything about it, even to its own people (beyond Pripyat/etc and their 'temporary' evacuation).

 

[Ulfarr]

As to your (1|2)(A|B) thing, what that skewed Prisoners' Dilemma has to do with you telling the Ukrainian leadership to stop saying things that are actually correct, I don't know.

Are you the Ukrainian leadership? Because last time I checked, I was having a conversation with some random people in a (game's) forum.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt, what with the problems of text-only communications but you just keep coming after me for things that I either never said or you just misunderstood.

[Cthulhu]

Option 3, Ukraine launches a counteroffensive and
Result 1 Russia uses nukes
Result 2 Putin is removed from power

 And this is far more likely than you think. All Ukraine needs to do this is to have a way of dealing with Russian Air Superiority.

Ukrainian ground troops are far ahead in training, morale, combat experience, infantry equipment and not that far behind in artillery and armor

I would laugh for days if Ukraine crushed Russia militarily but I really don't see it happening.  I think Ukrainian military defeat is a foregone conclusion and we shouldn't draw overly optimistic conclusions from the botched invasion.  Especially when it comes to Russia's performance in a hypothetical full-on regional war.  It would not be the first time that people drew erroneous conclusions about Russia's large-scale capabilities from a boondoggle invasion (I'm talking about the winter war of course, which played into Hitler's confidence about an invasion, also of course relevant to note that despite their disproportionate performance against the Russians Finland lost the winter war)

The thing that lowkey really disturbs me is the nationalizing assets, including all their leased planes.  To me that looks like a step away from the status quo.  A lot of this shit could be an unintended or at least underestimated consequence of a plan that went horribly wrong, but just straight up stealing billions of dollars of assets is a very deliberate move away from re-establishing itself.  It's embracing pariah status.

[Starver]

Are you the Ukrainian leadership? Because last time I checked, I was having a conversation with some random people in a (game's) forum.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt, what with the problems of text-only communications but you just keep coming after me for things that I either never said or you just misunderstood.

I definitely am a random person[1], and it was in an effort to understand your stance that I tried to understand your comments. It seems I may not be the only one to misunderstand another person's position. Or at least be unable to work out what is trying to be said. (I took care to spell everything out, but I know this often puts me into TL;DR; territory, for many people. Which I'll excuse you for, if so.)

Especially as I think we're broadly on the same side, obscurity of specific arguments aside.


[1] As an example of the comprehension disjoint, I don't recall you telling me to shut up, so I had no idea you thought I was claiming to be those that you were. To be honest, I'd take less offence (practically none!) if you had asked me to do so directly, rather than carp on about your ideas of bullshit coming from others, which I still consider shown as not being so.

[martinuzz]

Meanwhile n Mariupol, civilian casualties fill mass graves and people are eating snow to stay hydrated.

[Strongpoint]

(I'm talking about the winter war of course, which played into Hitler's confidence about an invasion, also of course relevant to note that despite their disproportionate performance against the Russians Finland lost the winter war)

It is a weird example because without American lend-lease USSR had exactly zero chances to win against the Third Reich. Another side will be getting lend-lease in this war.

[Random_Dragon]

It is a weird example because without American lend-lease USSR had exactly zero chances to win against the Third Reich. Another side will be getting lend-lease in this war.

The "Nazi Germany had literally any chance of winning WWII" nonsense is alt-history fanwank by wehraboos. Lend-lease or not, Germany did not have the logistics to actually win the fights it was picking.

[Strongpoint]

It is a weird example because without American lend-lease USSR had exactly zero chances to win against the Third Reich. Another side will be getting lend-lease in this war.

The "Nazi Germany had literally any chance of winning WWII" nonsense is alt-history fanwank by wehraboos. Lend-lease or not, Germany did not have the logistics to actually win the fights it was picking.

WW2 no, war against USSR (lets imagine Great Britain singing peace treaty on June 22 1941), yes. At the very least there would be a stalemate  instead of road to Berlin

But my comment wasn't about alternative history it is about an argument that sounds like "Let's not conclude that the Russian army is crap after two weeks of fighting and don't repeat Hitler's mistake.". Hitler did no mistake, Red Army was bad and performed awfully. Only a huge size, millions of cannon fodder reserves and lend-lease (which filled gaping holes like trucks (nearly half a million) and locomotives (2K) and ammunition prevented a total collapse.

This time, huge size is of no help because Russia is the one who advances. Millions of cannon fodder can be achieved by full mobilization (something Russians aren't doing) and I doubt that China will bother providing lend-lease.

[Madman198237]

The USSR didn't have the logistics; an absolutely ludicrous percent of their logistics vehicles and a lot of their fighting machines were provided by the US. Germany wasn't going to really win a fight in the Soviet Union, but the Soviets weren't going to win anything themselves. Remember that the US propped up the Soviets while they took the time to shift most of their industrial base hundreds of miles away from the front lines.

Do realize that Germany did, in fact, pretty much manage to take over an entire continent. They had logistics capability to sustain offensives in thoroughly enemy territory. It was almost certainly not going to make for a total victory over Russia (partisans are effective and hard to get rid of) but they came close. Lend-lease really mattered, and saying otherwise disregards reality. Sure, Germany's goals stretched far further than its means in WWII, but Nazism notwithstanding, they won most of the fights they picked. They were far from unstoppable but no matter how much you might quite reasonable despise the Nazis, denying how far their war machine went is...well, not really accurate?


I would argue that Germany definitely could have won WWII; it just depends on time. After Barbarossa, it's unlikely; after Pearl Harbor, it's impossible.

[EuchreJack]

Vietnam
Afghanistan

A smaller, less sophisticated force defending it's homeland can fight on long enough for the invader to back down.

From what I understand, the difference arguably is geography. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were difficult terrain to cross and hold, whereas Ukraine is relatively flat.  Yet Ukraine has been built up with cities in way that Vietnam and Afghanistan in the time of their getting invaded never were. So the WW2 Battle of Stalingrad seems applicable.

Note that airpower is very important, but planes can't hold territory.

[Starver]

(lets imagine Great Britain singing peace treaty on June 22 1941)

Choral negotiations?