War

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
The good news is that Chernobyl was so long ago, the short hot isotopes are gone or much reduced. The heat load is no longer big. A Fukushima isn’t in the cards.
I read that earlier, no active cooling required as long as the ponds are full of water. The question I have is the accident was in 1986 but they restarted the other reactors and didn't shut them down till 2000. Are they talking about rods from 1986 or from 2000 being safe?

They also said the plant has emergency generators and two days worth of diesel, if the generators are undamaged they can just bring in more diesel.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I read that earlier, no active cooling required as long as the ponds are full of water. The question I have is the accident was in 1986 but they restarted the other reactors and didn't shut them down till 2000. Are they talking about rods from 1986 or from 2000 being safe?

They also said the plant has emergency generators and two days worth of diesel, if the generators are undamaged they can just bring in more diesel.
I don’t know.

(edit) But this is encouraging. If I read it right, the old fuel isn’t there any longer.

 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Not the best, but. Keep in mind we have had 20 more years to reduce the longer-lived bigs, strontium-90 and cesium-137. These provide almost all the residual radioactivity.

Thanks. When anybody hears "Chernobyl" an internal alarm sounds. Some additional info may be gleaned from the Wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster. Articles about power being cut mentioned cooling water is still needed. Maybe so that the isotopes have decayed to less harmful elements but nobody suggests they've morphed into vitamins.

How reckless this is. Russia took control of that site during the first day or two. They are responsible for it now. This feels like an act of terrorism.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Thanks. When anybody hears "Chernobyl" an internal alarm sounds. Some additional info may be gleaned from the Wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster. Articles about power being cut mentioned cooling water is still needed. Maybe so that the isotopes have decayed to less harmful elements but nobody suggests they've morphed into vitamins.

How reckless this is. Russia took control of that site during the first day or two. They are responsible for it now. This feels like an act of terrorism.
The isotopes that have decayed do not have big decay chains. They’re cold and harmless now.
The remaining issues are the isotopes with half-lives of 100 years to 24000 (appx half-life of plutonium fuel).
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Nuclear fallout respects no borders. Putin is creating a crisis for the west. They need a cease fire in order to get that facility back on line. What kind of deal does NATO accept?
how long will it take NATO to step in secure the reactor on it's own? russia is already threatening the security of the entire EU, if one of those reactors they're so cavalier about melts down, it's going to be almost as bad as them dropping a tactical nuke, because you know it'll melt straight to hell before the russians let anyone secure it...i'm starting to think that may be putin's plan, to create an unlivable death zone to secure his border, a uranium oxide - thorium curtain....it would kill a fair amount of russians close to the border, but peasants breed like ants, there will always be more ... and he'll just tell them the Ukrains are doing it, how will they know the difference?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
how long will it take NATO to step in secure the reactor on it's own? russia is already threatening the security of the entire EU, if one of those reactors they're so cavalier about melts down, it's going to be almost as bad as them dropping a tactical nuke, because you know it'll melt straight to hell before the russians let anyone secure it..
I'm thinking along the same lines, Roger. This feels like a deliberate act. If not deliberate then reckless.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
how long will it take NATO to step in secure the reactor on it's own? russia is already threatening the security of the entire EU, if one of those reactors they're so cavalier about melts down, it's going to be almost as bad as them dropping a tactical nuke, because you know it'll melt straight to hell before the russians let anyone secure it...i'm starting to think that may be putin's plan, to create an unlivable death zone to secure his border, a uranium oxide - thorium curtain....it would kill a fair amount of russians close to the border, but peasants breed like ants, there will always be more ... and he'll just tell them the Ukrains are doing it, how will they know the difference?
If NATO enters into a state of war, our best bulwark against a runaway nuclear exchange is gone.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
We are talking 1962. Short range missiles were a part of our nuclear posture.

From wiki wiki: Early ICBMs had limited precision, which made them suitable for use only against the largest targets, such as cities. They were seen as a "safe" basing option, one that would keep the deterrent force close to home where it would be difficult to attack. Attacks against military targets (especially hardened ones) still demanded the use of a more precise, manned bomber. Second- and third-generation designs (such as the LGM-118 Peacekeeper {deployed in 1985}) dramatically improved accuracy to the point where small point targets can be successfully attacked.


I fly drones and RC airplanes with FPV as a retirement hobby and for cheap thrills. :lol:

Have a look at this page and prices, add a $25 GPS and you've got the brains of a cruise missile and can fly it FPV till the signal dies, it will hit within 2 meters of it's target and uses multiple GPS systems, I fly with over 12 satellites frequently. You can also use them to make GPS guided bombs with some reprogramming. Look at the price and servos are cheap too!

 

zeddd

Well-Known Member
You are right in that I didn't understand Putin or his rationale. It was a test of my understanding and it highlighted that in the area of understanding psychopaths, I'm not knowledgeable. I can say from recent history that appeasing Putin led us to this point. What do you suggest, we continue to follow a path that leads us to a cliff?

I haven't heard put your chest out and say what should be done. I did see you post the nuclear bomb would be dropped on UK before now and that didn't happen either.

It mattered not that I was wrong. This is a lab where people can test their ideas without chance of causing damage. I'll wear your scorn with pride.
I didn’t give a timeline for a nuclear bomb attack but I did for tb bombs:
Ministry of Defence (@DefenceHQ)
The Russian MoD has confirmed the use of the TOS-1A weapon system in Ukraine. The TOS-1A uses thermobaric rockets, creating incendiary and blast effects.
#StandWithUkraine

this was confirmed 2 hours ago about the same time a maternity hospital was shelled.

as for “sticking my chest out” I have with the predictions I made based on my experience with dark triad Personality.
I have no military experience so I can only offer a psychological perspective, as you realise.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I didn’t give a timeline for a nuclear bomb attack but I did for tb bombs:
Ministry of Defence (@DefenceHQ)
The Russian MoD has confirmed the use of the TOS-1A weapon system in Ukraine. The TOS-1A uses thermobaric rockets, creating incendiary and blast effects.
#StandWithUkraine

this was confirmed 2 hours ago about the same time a maternity hospital was shelled.
Can I just say you are god and we stop arguing?

Nothing I say here matters. We can disagree about what NATO does, does not or might do and it won't matter.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
If NATO enters into a state of war, our best bulwark against a runaway nuclear exchange is gone.
i'm wondering exactly how many OPERATIONAL nuclear weapons putin has? how many can be put on launch alert at one time? in short, how many would we have to knock down to keep from being struck?
would he even attack the U.S. without direct provocation? he has a lot of shit to worry about right across his own borders.
is there no way to knock out his ability to launch missiles at the EU and other targets? are these zircon missiles i'm hearing about intercontinental? are they even real? did they actually develop the missiles like they told putin they would, or did they steal 90% of the funding to buy a new yacht? this is why i don't go to the casino, i hate gambling...
and just exactly how much of a bulwark against nuclear exchange is NATO? putin is either unhinged, or keeping a huge secret...or perhaps both. why does he care about NATO outside of a conventional war? if he feels pressured he will push that button, count on it, and won't give a fuck what NATO has to say about that, or anything else
 

zeddd

Well-Known Member
Can I just say you are god and we stop arguing?

Nothing I say here matters. We can disagree about what NATO does, does not or might do and it won't matter.
No we can’t agree that, you should stop using scurrilous techniques if you are arguing with me.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
hmmm

drone + gernade = killing troops

..one more better small mortar
They can be used in large drones powered by gas engines that can carry 100 KG warhead! They are not hard to make and they got RC plane people who know how. No need though, they will be flying NATO supplied drones. But this is what is possible these days for cheap.
 
Top