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

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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
 
Maple Leaf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Statement from American Nuclear Society on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

www.ans.org www.ans.org

www.youtube.com

Seminar on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

This June 2023 talk on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine was prompted by recent concerns in the media about the status of the cooling system an...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

news.sky.com

Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy says Putin has got what he wanted after rare call with German leader

Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have spoken directly for the first time since 2022 - a move that has prompted anger from Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

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

Statement from American Nuclear Society on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

www.ans.org www.ans.org

www.youtube.com

Seminar on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

This June 2023 talk on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine was prompted by recent concerns in the media about the status of the cooling system an...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

news.sky.com

Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy says Putin has got what he wanted after rare call with German leader

Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have spoken directly for the first time since 2022 - a move that has prompted anger from Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

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

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.
 
Lima said:
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.

Statement from American Nuclear Society on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

www.ans.org www.ans.org

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

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.
Click to expand...

There is a risk though some of it might enter water sources especially the Dnipro causing varying levels of contamination.
 
bingham67 said:
Click to expand...
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.
 
rumple9 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
rumple9 said:
would it meet the requirements of article 5 though if no NATO countries are affected?
Click to expand...
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:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SpellowHouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doubt it.

Can't see NATO troops in Ukraine IMO.

As said the risks to NATO countries are very very minor in reality.
 
SpellowHouse said:
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.
Click to expand...
If that's possible then it's also possible to get running full speed to give Ukraine some headroom on their power needs as well as sell some of it to the rest of Europe whilst it's effectively invulnerable.
 
potatolord said:
I guess we get into plausible deniability.

The Russians will no doubt claim it was Ukrainian artillery fire, and then we're into he said/she said territory.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if we don't have that plant under constant surveillance right now. If anything goes boom, I think we will have video evidence that helps sort what's what.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom