Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
potatogate said:
The Russians would be mad to agree to a demilitarised zone at the plant.

It is far more use as a fortress with armour of international concern +3.
Click to expand...

I'm calling the whole situation stupid, it doesn't matter if it's a good or bad strategic decision, it's a stupid decision, full stop.

Note that when the plant fell, Ukraine was not holding it to ransom like this.

There is really no justification for this except that Russia are being cowards.
 
StriderX said:
It's also a stick to beat Ukraine and the West with by pretending we're the aggressors who want to destroy the world.

Putin got elected partly due to a bombing campaign the FSB undertook against it's own people, so their definition of what is rational and ours are just not the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a potential propaganda gift. It's also a very solid fortress.

That's one thing that always gets me riled: people who think the Russian Leadership think like us.

They'd blow up a children's ward if they thought it was in their favour to do so. Hell, they have...
 
HungryHippos said:
Again, it's not a fortress, it's a Nuclear Plant.

It's like calling this war a "Special Military Operation". Let's call things what they are? :)

Edit - I'll allow "Fortified Nuclear Plant" if you wish to use the word Fort somewhere and can't hold back!? :cry:
Click to expand...

You'll allow?

It is a nuclear plant being used as a fortress. It's probably also going to be an ammo dump, if it isn't one already.

I don't see the Russian Leadership have any concept of shame. They will exploit that for all it's worth. Arguing semantics with me is missing the point.

I'm quite happy to call it a war, or an invasion. Don't think I called it a "special military operation"?
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC it's still connected to the grid but the Russians have been threatening to shut that off, which would be an "interesting" choice, as in "we live in interesting times" (which depending on how it's said can be a curse), given that most nuclear facilities rely on their multiple grid connections for at least some part of their own power needs (the idea being that if the reactor output drops things like cooling can pull from the grid*). It wouldn't be a meltdown or anything that bad, but it would remove a very important part of the safety system for it say the reactor had to be shut down.
Click to expand...
The Zaporizhzhia plant has a triple redundant backup for the cooling system of each reactor, which is a fancy way of saying that each reactor is connected to three diesel generators located in separate parts of the facility each of which is capable of powering its cooling system indefinitely in the event that a reactor had to be shut down and the connection to the grid had been severed. If there was an attack on the plant and a reactor (or multiple) required taking offline then as long as at least one of the generators assigned to that reactor was still operable the cooling system for that reactor would continue to function for as long as required (Well, assuming the Russians haven't looted all the diesel fuel for the backup generators that is >.>), it's a much better designed plant than Fukushima.

The reactors are also capable of powering each others cooling systems, so basically to cause an accident like Fukushima's it would require all six reactors going offline, plus one or more reactors losing all three of it's backup generators, plus disconnection from the grid.

A deliberate attack on the plant substantial enough to cause a disaster is definitely not something Russia could attempt to pass off as a false flag attack or an accident on their part, given the inaccuracy of their artillery it would require quite a sustained attack to do that much damage (I.E the walls of the containment building are nearly two meters thick and made of "earthquake proof" fortified concrete).
 
ubersonic said:
The Zaporizhzhia plant has a triple redundant backup for the cooling system of each reactor, which is a fancy way of saying that each reactor is connected to three diesel generators located in separate parts of the facility each of which is capable of powering its cooling system indefinitely in the event that a reactor had to be shut down and the connection to the grid had been severed. If there was an attack on the plant and a reactor (or multiple) required taking offline then as long as at least one of the generators assigned to that reactor was still operable the cooling system for that reactor would continue to function for as long as required (Well, assuming the Russians haven't looted all the diesel fuel for the backup generators that is >.>), it's a much better designed plant than Fukushima.

The reactors are also capable of powering each others cooling systems, so basically to cause an accident like Fukushima's it would require all six reactors going offline, plus one or more reactors losing all three of it's backup generators, plus disconnection from the grid.

A deliberate attack on the plant substantial enough to cause a disaster is definitely not something Russia could attempt to pass off as a false flag attack or an accident on their part, given the inaccuracy of their artillery it would require quite a sustained attack to do that much damage (I.E the walls of the containment building are nearly two meters thick and made of "earthquake proof" fortified concrete).
Click to expand...

A really helpful contribution.

Do you know if that plant is supplying electricity to Ukraine?
 
Russia has already lost virtually any hope of international "good will" by invading their neighbor.

They have nothing to gain by trying to look like the good guy with respect to the nuclear plant. They have found a way to shoot at their enemy from a position that the enemy is unwilling to return fire.

I would not hold out any hope that they would give up such an advantage on the battlefield.
 
Twinz said:
Russia has already lost virtually any hope of international "good will" by invading their neighbor.

They have nothing to gain by trying to look like the good guy with respect to the nuclear plant. They have found a way to shoot at their enemy from a position that the enemy is unwilling to return fire.

I would not hold out any hope that they would give up such an advantage on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

It looks like an act of childish desperation on the part of the Russians...

nah nah, cant bomb me because I'm hiding in your nuclear power station so if you bomb me it will kill everyone in a 300 mile radius

The Ukrainians need to keep doing what they are doing.. cut off the enemy logistics to the plant, and starve the russians out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom