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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not quite the worst case scenario - it was that combined with the meltdown and runaway fire at Chernobyl that is largely responsible for spreading large amount of contaminated material over a wide area (1000s of miles) - the explosion deposited some material into the atmosphere but most was spread within 20 miles.

The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl overheated, developed a dangerously high internal pressure and exploded when they put the control rods in (neutron flux actually went up due to a design fault). RBMK reactors used a huge graphite matrix as their moderator, which caught fire at Chernobyl and so released more fission products and transuranics into the atmosphere in the smoke. The fragments of fuel rods contaminating the 1,000 square mile exclusion zone around the reactor created "hot spots" which people still have to avoid. Everyone who visits that area has to carry a Geiger counter and watch out for hot-spots.

The effect of breaching a reactor core (from the outside with explosives) at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant would not be as severe as the Chernobyl disaster because they use a PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor) design. (Although, interactions between hot steam and zircalloy cladding can produce hydrogen from the cooling water leading to secondary hydrogen explosions which could damage the containment building and release more radiation.) Nevertheless, you would have to be mad or evil to deliberately do it.

the effect would be prety much the same as chernobyl i.e there isn't going to be radiatin blowing into poland to trigger article 5 or anything.

Actually, radiation did blow into Poland, Romania and Sweden etc thanks to the Chernobyl disaster. We also detected its radioactive cloud when it blew over our school here. When news of the disaster came out our Physics teacher set up a Geiger counter on the roof and linked it to a BBC computer (so it could collect readings every 5 minutes and store them then plot the data). We also detected the cloud when it had been around the world and came over again!

Putin could wait for the wind to blow easterly before he blows up the reactor to minimize the fallout reaching NATO members but then he contaminates his own backyard. Although, given that he is clearly a psychopath I doubt he would care about the suffering of his own people anyway.
 
"It wasn't that bad".

Oh my. Wasn't that bad but they sealed the whole thing in concrete, and have a massive exclusion zone. You can still get radiation poisoning from food or water, and can dig up radioactive sediment if you aren't careful. It's all fine... Wasn't that bad... /Facepalm.

You can't live there, and all life there was impacted. Please, be careful with your wording, because the elephant in the room is looking at you
 
The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl overheated, developed a dangerously high internal pressure and exploded when they put the control rods in (neutron flux actually went up due to a design fault). RBMK reactors used a huge graphite matrix as their moderator, which caught fire at Chernobyl and so released more fission products and transuranics into the atmosphere in the smoke. The fragments of fuel rods contaminating the 1,000 square mile exclusion zone around the reactor created "hot spots" which people still have to avoid. Everyone who visits that area has to carry a Geiger counter and watch out for hot-spots.

The effect of breaching a reactor core (from the outside with explosives) at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant would not be as severe as the Chernobyl disaster because they use a PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor) design. (Although, interactions between hot steam and zircalloy cladding can produce hydrogen from the cooling water leading to secondary hydrogen explosions which could damage the containment building and release more radiation.) Nevertheless, you would have to be mad or evil to deliberately do it.

The, likely worst case, scenario for the designs at ZNPP is as you said, not the worst case ever possible when you include RBMK reactors of the unmodified design or if Russia went to significant lengths to engineer a nuclear disaster beyond just using a moderate amount of explosives to breach the core. Which is why I'll be deeply suspicious if we get a wide scale disaster there as is being talked up in the media, etc. because if we get some kind of Chernobyl like outcome either someone is lying or someone has gone to very significant lengths to make it so.
 
Last edited:
After being deeply concerned an anxious regarding this nuclear plant fiasco, there seems to be several experts stating that the risk of their being a huge incident (i.e. something that would lead to Nato stepping in) is very low.




Obviously it would still be a bad event to happen, but hopefully this settles some anxiety on here.
 
After being deeply concerned an anxious regarding this nuclear plant fiasco, there seems to be several experts stating that the risk of their being a huge incident (i.e. something that would lead to Nato stepping in) is very low.




Obviously it would still be a bad event to happen, but hopefully this settles some anxiety on here.

There's two elements to an explosion there though, obvious radioactive fallout would be bad but that station generates 5,700 MW of electricity. If Russia wanted to harm Ukraines infrastructure, taking that offline permanently would be a good way to do it.
 
After being deeply concerned an anxious regarding this nuclear plant fiasco, there seems to be several experts stating that the risk of their being a huge incident (i.e. something that would lead to Nato stepping in) is very low.


Obviously it would still be a bad event to happen, but hopefully this settles some anxiety on here.

In the unlikely event that containment structures were breached, any potential release of radiological material would be restricted to the immediate area surrounding the reactors. In this regard, any comparison between ZNPP and “Chernobyl” or “Fukushima” is both inaccurate and misleading.

There is a risk though some of it might enter water sources especially the Dnipro causing varying levels of contamination.
 
I think it was suggested before but Bakhmut would be a decent place to breach the Russian lines at, if they can.

Cons are the Russians will have lots of troops there.
Pros are they won’t have exhaustive, mined, multi layered defensive lines to get through. After all the Russians would need to keep the ground behind them relatively clear.
Big psychological blow too, and given the one con of them having lots of manpower there that can be turned into a pro if they entrap them or take them off the field.

We’ll see but they do seem to be nibbling away around them.
 
Was a nuclear expert on the radio saying pretty much the same - if Putin blows the plant it won't be the disaster everyone is makng out it to be, and despite the size of the plant the effect would be prety much the same as chernobyl i.e there isn't going to be radiatin blowing into poland to trigger article 5 or anything. He got a bit technical but in essence he was saying it wouldn't really be "too" dangerous and would be a pretty stupid thing for Putin to do
Whether it's a total catastrophe or not it would mean the crossing of a red line that we could not allow to stand.
 
9/11 only time its been enacted (A5) as such NATO agreed it was classed as an armed attack.
NATO would IMO need to decide if they classify it as an armed attack, (it would seem weaponising a non weapon as such would apply) based on 9/11.

I think a member would have to request clarification and then if NATO deemed it an attack then A5 could be called.
 
would it meet the requirements of article 5 though if no NATO countries are affected?
My concern is if we let this slide it will embolden Putin further and who knows what he will try next, he is testing us. We have made clear to him that any use of nuclear weapons (which this effectively is) will result in severe consequences for him and his war.
 
Last edited:
Saw something yesterday that AFU had advanced 7.5km in one area. I will try and find the info.

Ok.. in the South..Berdyansk and Meltiopol (spelling) directions.

Unclear if this is total gain distance since CO start, or a recent report. Previously was 0.5 to 1km a day, so 7.5km would be incredible relatively speaking.
 
Last edited:
9/11 only time its been enacted (A5) as such NATO agreed it was classed as an armed attack.
NATO would IMO need to decide if they classify it as an armed attack, (it would seem weaponising a non weapon as such would apply) based on 9/11.

I think a member would have to request clarification and then if NATO deemed it an attack then A5 could be called.

My guess is that they *might* send in a contingency to secure the reactor and make it safe, on the grounds that it represents a real danger to Nato countries. They would not fire on Russians unless they fired first. They would demand Russian troops leave the area, but I doubt this would be a problem since the Russians would have course have no protective gear.
 
My guess is that they *might* send in a contingency to secure the reactor and make it safe, on the grounds that it represents a real danger to Nato countries. They would not fire on Russians unless they fired first. They would demand Russian troops leave the area, but I doubt this would be a problem since the Russians would have course have no protective gear.

Doubt it.

Can't see NATO troops in Ukraine IMO.

As said the risks to NATO countries are very very minor in reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom