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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rroff said:
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.
Click to expand...

RBMK reactors were dual-use (for civilian/military purposes) as they were originally designed to produce Plutonium-239 for atomic bomb cores and then modified to generate electricity for the civilian population. Because of that they used a very large mass of slightly enriched Uranium in order to bombard the maximum amount of Uranium-238 with moderated thermal neutrons and produce Neptunium-239 which rapidly decays into Plutonium-239. Therefore, RBMK reactors held a huge amount of highly radioactive material, so if the core was breached there was far more radioactive material to release into the environment compared to a PWR.

The PWR was originally designed to generate electricity onboard nuclear submarines and naval vessels. Hence it is more compact and uses a much smaller volume of more enriched Uranium than RBMK reactors. Thus, there is far less radioactive material to release if the core is exposed. The Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 involved a PWR reactor and its containment structure was not breached by an explosion so its partially melted down core was never exposed. A crudely engineered accident with explosives at ZNPP would probably be far worse than that accident.

The fact that Putin's government could even contemplate deliberately causing a nuclear accident at ZNPP proves that they have absolutely no regard for the lives/welfare of Ukrainian civilians or indeed that of their own loyalists in DPR, LPR and Crimea. They truly are selfish vermin.
 
SpellowHouse said:
Don't worry, Jeremy Corbyn will stand up in parliament and question whether we can absolutely prove it wasn't a Ukrainian cleaner that dropped her bucket on the core of the reactor.
Click to expand...

well there is little doubt the Israelis 'invaded' Janine with a scorched earth policy - so his allegiances are not all misplaced
 
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...
They should have done this a year ago, but probably impossible given there has to be an actual attack on nato and a united nations peacekeeping force is toothless given that Russia has a veto on any UN decisions
 
Orangeade said:
I thought cluster bombs were banned/ a very bad look? They have high rates of sticking around long after the war and end up killing a load of civilians etc? I remember we routinely chastised gaddafi and assad for using them?
Click to expand...
They're not banned but their use is highly unpopular, a number of countries (like the UK) have signed up to never use them but as long as the USA, Russia and China are spamming them whenever the opportunity arises they won't disappear anytime soon :(

On the positive side (if you could call it that) the US made cluster bombs Ukraine are using seem to be much more effective/reliable than Russia's.
 
With the talk of possible disasters involving the ZNPP, four really important things really need to be kept in mind.

Firstly, much of the media seem to be treating this power station as no different than Chernobyl, just another crappy Soviet design, but in reality it's a completely different design, sharing about as much with an RBMK power station as a Tesla does with a '69 Mustang. It is technologically superior than any plant in the UK or USA, although this is mostly due to both countries having abandoned nuclear power before the USSR (although the UK did continue an under construction plant into the 90s).

Secondly, while Chernobyl was based on a flawed design from the 50's which had seen shockingly little improvement (as beating Britain and America to building a nuclear power station was a massive symbol of pride for the Soviets and so they were extremely opposed to adding any improvements based off of western designs). That disaster was primarily caused by ridiculous levels of operator incompetence and negligence (this is often missed by people who only "learned" of the events via HBO's dramatization series, which played very fast and loose with the facts). A disaster like that is impossible at the ZNPP because the safety systems and plant design simply will not let any operator run the plant in such a suicidal state, they simply do not have the overrides to do it post Chernobyl.

Thirdly, when you factor in both of the above, the only way a serious disaster could take place at the plant is by deliberate action, there will be no plausible deniability (not that Russia have cared to much about the plausibility of their denials thus far).

Fourthly, none of this conversation would be taking place had Putin not invaded Ukraine, so even if a HIMARS rocket malfunctions, flies to the plant, opens the doors, get in a lift and proceeds to fill the entire control room with Monster Munch it would still be 100% Russia's fault.
 
Can NATO sustain a war with Russia or China? Is the wests production capabilities especially for modern military hardware up to the job? Not an argumentative question just curious for answers from people with more knowledge of these things.

EDIT: conventional war, remove nuclear option.
 
Last edited:
S.A.S said:
Can NATO sustain a war with Russia or China? Is the wests production capabilities especially for modern military hardware up to the job? Not an argumentative question just curious for answers from people with more knowledge of these things.

EDIT: conventional war, remove nuclear option.
Click to expand...

The U.S could do it on their own.
 
S.A.S said:
Can NATO sustain a war with Russia or China? Is the wests production capabilities especially for modern military hardware up to the job? Not an argumentative question just curious for answers from people with more knowledge of these things.

EDIT: conventional war, remove nuclear option.
Click to expand...
You only need sign up to twitter that's where all the knowledge in here is sourced from.
 
S.A.S said:
Can NATO sustain a war with Russia or China? Is the wests production capabilities especially for modern military hardware up to the job? Not an argumentative question just curious for answers from people with more knowledge of these things.

EDIT: conventional war, remove nuclear option.
Click to expand...

www.reuters.com

Rheinmetall eyes boost in munitions output, HIMARS production in Germany

The arms-maker, known for the 120mm gun on the Leopard 2 tank, is looking to satisfy strong demand in Ukraine and the West, and may start producing HIMARS multiple rocket launchers in Germany, its CEO said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Germany can produce enough on its own, let alone the USA
 
Harlequin said:
I thought all 6 cores at the reactor were already in cold shutdown - 5 since the invasion and the 6th when the russians blew the dam?
Click to expand...
There in a shutdown cycle/lower power stage but the uranium rods need to be kept in cold water for several years before there safe enough to be taken out (at which point they get encased in concrete and put in large drums).
 
Last edited:
Interesting article, it's claimed that Ukraine now has more tanks in it's armed forces then Russia does in no small part due to the colossal losses Russia's tanks force has suffered thanks to poor leadership, lack of training and poor tactical abilities.

Balace-of-Amrs.jpg


www.bloomberg.com

Ukraine Has Caught Up With Russia’s Tank Numbers, Data Signal

New data on military aid to Ukraine highlights a significant change in the balance of heavy weapons on the nation’s battlefields after more than 16 months of war.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

(err Bloomberg last time I checked I'm not a robot)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom