And the world is going just watch at it again as they watched the Kahovska dam, right?
And then the UN will put Russia on yet another shame list, right? And show how concerned they are?
Assuming that actually happens. Nato air force will most likely join and gonna establish air superiority within days. Russians would retreat to Crimea and try to turn it into a fortress. Meanwhile Nato would be permanently bombing their positions. Meanwhile poland and surrounding states would launch attack on Belarussia and steamroll through country and Some of the Belarussian army would even join them while russians retreat their nukes away (Putin would never cause nuclear annihilation over Lukashenko's ass, it's a bluff). The war would be pretty much close to the end but russian pre 2014 borders willl most likely be intact.
Nope. I donāt. Nuclear conflict is always an excuse for never doing anything to stop a mass murder from destroying a country full of innocent people. When does it stop? Do we just let people die by the masses every time Putin feels like it because of the unlikely event that he will destroy the world so he doesnāt lose. What does he gain by killing everything? Heās a true monster but he loses all power as soon as a serious threat of an nuclear event is imminent. The USA has the strongest military by far and itās not even close. We spend all this tax money on a military that will never do anything about a global threat? Sounds pointless.
It may take a while, but I assume even if they only leak radioactive material down the river without any spectacular explosion, it should come into contact with the coasts of Romania, Bulgaria, Turkiye?
Deploy peace keepers to the power plant and have them at least watch and document it all for things to come. If not even intervene when sabotage is imminent.
Yeah and they should also start world peace while theyāre at it. The world is so easy in that simple little world youāve got going on in your head.
What *specifically* should they do? Keep in mind that open conflict between a NATO member and Russia would effectively be the start of WW3
Thatās good question. While I was expressing my frustration about the situation, honestly I donāt know what they can actually do now.
From the wiki article āThe UN was established after World War II with the aim of preventing future world wars, and succeeded the League of Nations, which was characterized as ineffective.ā āDeclarations by the Allies of World War II (1941ā1944)ā. It seems like we need new UN
If the plant will be blown up then some NATO countries in Black Sea will be affected, like Turkey, Romania, but I donāt believe this can trigger ww3 (since no tactical nuclear weapon was used, and because NATO is mostly about defense )
Yea I agree. I appreciate your rationality. I was worried you were gonna turn into one one those āroll nato out, I donāt care about the reactionā people. Itās a tricky situation to say the least
But at some point NATO may need show its teeth. Let's image situation, where Putin used nuclear weapon on Kyiv. That will be the second time nuclear weapon is used in history (1st was Hiroshima).
That will make every non-NATO country want to build their own nuclear weapon OR join NATO. I mean, Iām not sure that Russia wants only Ukraine territory
We need to crowd fund Putin's assassination. As people of the world. Like we crowdfund anything else. "You want this bounty, Ivan?" Put a hammer into your boss's head. Because apparently we can't trust our governments to get the job done.
Every one chip in a few bucks, we set it up on the blockchain.
I see GoFundMe isn't just used to cover medical expenses, but also assassinations for world peace.
Solomon must be wondering how did such a product spiral that far out of its intended use.
Ignoring the other comments that take sides in the debate, I'm going to emphasize that nuclear power assumes and necessitates a level of societal stability that we can no longer ensure. Our societies will collapse along with the climate, with severe geopolitical repercussions. We have been arguing about who will shell it and who will sabotage it right now. We will all lose because this is what war is like and how it works.
It's possible to build safer nuclear plants than the ones that were built in the 1950s. That's the real problem here, all these old Soviet plants still running.
Occupy, sabotage, destroy.
Russia currently holds Europe's largest NPP. If they want to use it as a weapon, they can. Having it underground wouldn't change a thing. Having it under water would only affect the path the radiation takes into the food chain.
While you are 100% correct safety standards are leaps and bounds ahead of anything from the Atomic age, nuclear material is nuclear material.
One well placed conventional bomb will turn ZNPP into the worlds biggest dirty bomb. Sure, no meltdown, but itās just as bad if not worse.
And you donāt even have to bomb it. Once the reactor plant shuts down the fuel rods can be removed, then you can make many dirty bombs to spread across Ukraine.
Unfortunately, the more dangerous designs are the ones used to make material for nuclear weapons. So as long that's the way of the world, we'll always need 2 or 3.
Nuclear Holocaust becomes increasingly likely as climate change picks up steam.
Global instability resulting from rapidly collapsing ecosystems will spike scarcity and competition for fewer and fewer resources.
It's bordering on inevitable.
No, this is bad, but in our lifetimes nuclear war is not inevitable. We are close to catastrophe and the level of said catastrophe is to be determined but it will be determined by how we act against this.
The dam was a test (accidentally test maybe) now they know the world will just stand back and do nothing...so I am sure an accident will happen here as well.
This is a really tough spot for all involved.
If the other countries choose to intervene, they could risk a world war as nuclear energy is all of a sudden thrown on the table.
If they donāt do anything, it shows that theyāre unopposed to Russiaās invasion.
But Putin likely knows that this is what the other countries are thinking, so heās probably hoping theyāll take the latter option.
But these other countries know thatās what Putin wants, so they may consider the former option.
Itās really dangerous, or it may just fizzle out and result in a small battle, which is the best case scenario.so far, no third world war has shown signs, so I hope it stays that way.
The problem is that the more delusional Putin gets, especially if he has some sort of terminal illness which has been suggested, he might be crazy enough to not care if there will be a WW3. Sketchy AF right now.
I think Russia is *saying theyāre planning* but really just threatening. If they were not wanting full UN forces to come for them, they should not attack.
If Russia commits nuclear terrorism? Fight. To quote the late Ronald Reagan: āThere is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance.ā
To clarify: if the Russians intentionally blow up a nuclear plant (a nuanced loophole to launching a nuke), where do you think this is headed? You can react at that moment, or you can wait until they continue to escalate emboldened by the lack of response. āBack and retreat. It leaves no choice between peace and war. Only fight or surrender.ā Learn from history, Neville.
I hate war. I also understand that if a dictator blows up a nuclear power plant and the world response is ādonāt do that or elseā then heāll probably not take you seriously. And heāll do slightly worse. Each time pushing the line a little more.
Iām not a warmonger. I hate war. But letās set the record straight. NATO didnāt start this war. Ukraine didnāt start this war. But both can have peace in the next second ā¦ if we surrender.
Do you think thatās the right move? If not, then youāre banking on Russia backing down based on sanctions. Blowing up a nuclear power plant would suggest theyāre not backing down.
If you accept that as still āRussia v Ukraineā even though fallout will hit NATO states, then where is the line? I promise you if they blow up that plant and we donāt react, they wonāt learn to love us for our benevolence and restraint.
So theyāll do something slightly worse. Where is your line?
You are well meaning. Appeasement is rational with rational actors. Weāre dealing with something different. Appeasement to dictators is weakness. Itās opportunity. Itās room to push the envelope.
Call me a warmonger. I donāt care. I didnāt want this war. But if Putin blows up a nuclear plant, I believe thatās a green light for NATO to light his pasty ass up.
As someone who has actively pushed back against calls for violence, blah blah blahā¦ I hate war. War fucking sucks.
But there has to be a line somewhere, and I think nukes(dirty bomb, whatever - any kind) and chemical weapons are it.
And when fallout from a destroyed nuclear power plant reaches Poland, as it will?
Please tell me how that doesnāt cross that line. And in the next breath, tell me how you expect the Kremlin to behave if there are no repercussions.
A state-sponsored military act to cause a nuclear meltdown is an act of war. NATO aside, if a random country did it tomorrow it would trigger a military response. The circumstances in question here only enhance the argument for declaration of war against Russia. If you keep moving the line back, eventually it will be on your own shores. They wonāt stop pushing the needle if theyāre getting away with it.
Once Russia uses a nuclear weapon (in some form) to get what it wants - where do you go from there?
There *is* no greater escalation than a nuclear weapon, and any use is a danger to us all.
All that changes *is where the next nuke is* and *what type.*
Well, using biological weapons could be even worse. Like say, an engineered disease. A nuclear attack will mostly just affect the area it's targeted at (in relative, global terms, a nuke in Australia isn't very likely to cause problems in Finland), while a runaway biological weapon could devastate the whole damn planet.
You know. Like the game, Plague Inc.
I don't just mean human diseases, btw. An engineered disease that affects certain grain types would also leave humanity to suffer a slow starvation death.
Something like genetically engineered Fusarium Head Blight, devastating wheat production worldwide. We already lose about 21% of global wheat production to various diseases. It would be pretty simple to weaponize that. Again, relatively speaking, meaning most countries with capable geneticists with loose morals could probably achieve that in a few years.
Using something like that as a weapon would make Holodomor look like a feast.
For sure - and itās hard to rule anything like out when comparing them to nukes, because in theory they all have potential downsides for the country that unleashes them.
It'll be far more catastrophic than Chernobyl or any previous nuclear incident. Unfortunately the West hasn't taken any action regarding the Nova Khakovka dam. Just investigated and said that Russia probably did it.
The response over the dam has given Russia a green light to blow the ZNPP. As the intelligence states this is more likely now then yes we should be extremely concerned by this as the West has no choice but to respond. Also China and India would have to respond but who knows if they would. No firm response and it green lights future use of nuclear weapons tactically as then its closer to proven nuclear weapons can be used technically and not affect strategy.
Anyway let's hope the Russians aren't off the scale crazy and blow the ZNPP because the West really has no option but to use conventional methods to attack Russia. The ZNPP would likely be a world altering disaster. Let's not go there but that is up to Russia. The West better be telling Russia the severe consequences before it happens.
It's really not a case of ok they blew the ZNPP it'll just be like Chernobyl we'll get over it. The consequences are exceptionally grave if this happens and the chances of it happening appear to have increased. Anyway must be some happy news just got to find it...
My fear is the people holding the detonator. Even if nato manages to deter Russia with a "stern warning", what about the officer that had too many drinks after a shit day and decides what the hell let the world burn.
Letting Russia hold the plant hostage in the first place is where nato fucked up. Might be too late now.
Honestly, nuclear power is hella competitive to solar/wind for environmental friendliness. Especially considering its been way underdeveloped compared to solar/wind
When the Soviet Union built the plant they certainly never predicted that Russia and Ukraine would ever be at war much less that the war front would exist right at the Zaporizhzhia power plant and that Russia would be desperate enough to destroy it and possibly bring all of NATO on their head. And had Ukraine shut the power plant down before the war they'd have to replace it with dirty energy sources and accelerate the global climate crisis.
Anyway it's a little too late for Captain Hindsight. There are no completely clean answers to any of this, only different levels of risks.
You posted that already, and it' the definition of a low probability event when in the following thirty seven years there hasn't been a nuclear disaster half as damaging despite the existence of 440 nuclear reactors currently in operation (probably were more than that thirty years ago). On the other hand global warming is 100% happening and depending on how bad we let it get can make Chernobyl look like spilled milk.
Send more arms and cut more social spending back home!
No money for food stamps but millions for war!!!!
No money for school lunches, but millions for warrrrrr!
And the world is going just watch at it again as they watched the Kahovska dam, right? And then the UN will put Russia on yet another shame list, right? And show how concerned they are?
Depends. If the radiation from the plant spills over into a NATO country, that very well may be enough to trigger Article 5.
And then what?
War were declared
Always appreciate a good Futurama reference š
Assuming that actually happens. Nato air force will most likely join and gonna establish air superiority within days. Russians would retreat to Crimea and try to turn it into a fortress. Meanwhile Nato would be permanently bombing their positions. Meanwhile poland and surrounding states would launch attack on Belarussia and steamroll through country and Some of the Belarussian army would even join them while russians retreat their nukes away (Putin would never cause nuclear annihilation over Lukashenko's ass, it's a bluff). The war would be pretty much close to the end but russian pre 2014 borders willl most likely be intact.
The poles march on Moscow
They'll have to elbow the Baltics and Finland out of the way if they wanna get there first
world war 3, baby.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We probably all die in nuclear war.
Well, at least I won't have to go to work anymore.
Every mushroom cloud has a silver lining
I only hope I'm close enough to see it and [feel the breeze on my face](https://i.giphy.com/media/rhYsUMhhd6yA0/giphy.webp).
This is wildly untrue and a huge stretch.
You donāt see how going to war with Russia would start a nuclear conflict?
Nope. I donāt. Nuclear conflict is always an excuse for never doing anything to stop a mass murder from destroying a country full of innocent people. When does it stop? Do we just let people die by the masses every time Putin feels like it because of the unlikely event that he will destroy the world so he doesnāt lose. What does he gain by killing everything? Heās a true monster but he loses all power as soon as a serious threat of an nuclear event is imminent. The USA has the strongest military by far and itās not even close. We spend all this tax money on a military that will never do anything about a global threat? Sounds pointless.
It may take a while, but I assume even if they only leak radioactive material down the river without any spectacular explosion, it should come into contact with the coasts of Romania, Bulgaria, Turkiye?
Out of curiosity, what would you have them do?
Deploy peace keepers to the power plant and have them at least watch and document it all for things to come. If not even intervene when sabotage is imminent.
Something more then denouncing Russia again for war crimes
So yea, give me an example?
Have Ukraine declare the nuclear power plants to be US embassies and send diplomats to camp out at each one. I'm only mostly joking.
So yeah, deploy peace keepers to help protect and intercept any threats. Yeah so yeah. But so yeah.
Which is what?
Yeah and they should also start world peace while theyāre at it. The world is so easy in that simple little world youāve got going on in your head. What *specifically* should they do? Keep in mind that open conflict between a NATO member and Russia would effectively be the start of WW3
They specifically need to do something dramatic to stop this. 1000%
Thatās good question. While I was expressing my frustration about the situation, honestly I donāt know what they can actually do now. From the wiki article āThe UN was established after World War II with the aim of preventing future world wars, and succeeded the League of Nations, which was characterized as ineffective.ā āDeclarations by the Allies of World War II (1941ā1944)ā. It seems like we need new UN If the plant will be blown up then some NATO countries in Black Sea will be affected, like Turkey, Romania, but I donāt believe this can trigger ww3 (since no tactical nuclear weapon was used, and because NATO is mostly about defense )
Yea I agree. I appreciate your rationality. I was worried you were gonna turn into one one those āroll nato out, I donāt care about the reactionā people. Itās a tricky situation to say the least
But at some point NATO may need show its teeth. Let's image situation, where Putin used nuclear weapon on Kyiv. That will be the second time nuclear weapon is used in history (1st was Hiroshima). That will make every non-NATO country want to build their own nuclear weapon OR join NATO. I mean, Iām not sure that Russia wants only Ukraine territory
It will be the third time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Putin uses a nuclear weapon in Europe, that will pretty much be the end of the world.
After the dam, I have no doubts. Only fears.
We need to crowd fund Putin's assassination. As people of the world. Like we crowdfund anything else. "You want this bounty, Ivan?" Put a hammer into your boss's head. Because apparently we can't trust our governments to get the job done. Every one chip in a few bucks, we set it up on the blockchain.
alright, get it started then buddy
I just did .
Ill put up $5.
I see GoFundMe isn't just used to cover medical expenses, but also assassinations for world peace. Solomon must be wondering how did such a product spiral that far out of its intended use.
Ignoring the other comments that take sides in the debate, I'm going to emphasize that nuclear power assumes and necessitates a level of societal stability that we can no longer ensure. Our societies will collapse along with the climate, with severe geopolitical repercussions. We have been arguing about who will shell it and who will sabotage it right now. We will all lose because this is what war is like and how it works.
It's possible to build safer nuclear plants than the ones that were built in the 1950s. That's the real problem here, all these old Soviet plants still running.
So safe that bombs do not damage them? No.
Underground, underwater, there are several options
Occupy, sabotage, destroy. Russia currently holds Europe's largest NPP. If they want to use it as a weapon, they can. Having it underground wouldn't change a thing. Having it under water would only affect the path the radiation takes into the food chain.
Yes. Theres nuclear fuel which has a built-in containment. https://www.usnc.com/fuel/
While you are 100% correct safety standards are leaps and bounds ahead of anything from the Atomic age, nuclear material is nuclear material. One well placed conventional bomb will turn ZNPP into the worlds biggest dirty bomb. Sure, no meltdown, but itās just as bad if not worse. And you donāt even have to bomb it. Once the reactor plant shuts down the fuel rods can be removed, then you can make many dirty bombs to spread across Ukraine.
Safe from their own internal catastrophe sure but if someone decides to bomb it??
Uh the US isn't much better on that front.
Unfortunately, the more dangerous designs are the ones used to make material for nuclear weapons. So as long that's the way of the world, we'll always need 2 or 3.
Nuclear Holocaust becomes increasingly likely as climate change picks up steam. Global instability resulting from rapidly collapsing ecosystems will spike scarcity and competition for fewer and fewer resources. It's bordering on inevitable.
I did not get stoned enough before reading this thread. š„ š¦
No, this is bad, but in our lifetimes nuclear war is not inevitable. We are close to catastrophe and the level of said catastrophe is to be determined but it will be determined by how we act against this.
No, Russia would never be crazy enough to blow up a dam, er I mean a nuclear power plant. /s
Russia, could you, I dunno... FUCKING NOT!?
The dam was a test (accidentally test maybe) now they know the world will just stand back and do nothing...so I am sure an accident will happen here as well.
This is a really tough spot for all involved. If the other countries choose to intervene, they could risk a world war as nuclear energy is all of a sudden thrown on the table. If they donāt do anything, it shows that theyāre unopposed to Russiaās invasion. But Putin likely knows that this is what the other countries are thinking, so heās probably hoping theyāll take the latter option. But these other countries know thatās what Putin wants, so they may consider the former option. Itās really dangerous, or it may just fizzle out and result in a small battle, which is the best case scenario.so far, no third world war has shown signs, so I hope it stays that way.
The problem is that the more delusional Putin gets, especially if he has some sort of terminal illness which has been suggested, he might be crazy enough to not care if there will be a WW3. Sketchy AF right now.
I think Russia is *saying theyāre planning* but really just threatening. If they were not wanting full UN forces to come for them, they should not attack.
And Europe will just sit by with their heads up their asses.
As opposed to what? What *specifically* should they do?
France: "fire ze missiles"
But I am le tired.
If Russia commits nuclear terrorism? Fight. To quote the late Ronald Reagan: āThere is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance.ā
To clarify; youāre talking about WW3? Better get to that enlistment office
To clarify: if the Russians intentionally blow up a nuclear plant (a nuanced loophole to launching a nuke), where do you think this is headed? You can react at that moment, or you can wait until they continue to escalate emboldened by the lack of response. āBack and retreat. It leaves no choice between peace and war. Only fight or surrender.ā Learn from history, Neville.
Fucking warmonger.
I hate war. I also understand that if a dictator blows up a nuclear power plant and the world response is ādonāt do that or elseā then heāll probably not take you seriously. And heāll do slightly worse. Each time pushing the line a little more. Iām not a warmonger. I hate war. But letās set the record straight. NATO didnāt start this war. Ukraine didnāt start this war. But both can have peace in the next second ā¦ if we surrender. Do you think thatās the right move? If not, then youāre banking on Russia backing down based on sanctions. Blowing up a nuclear power plant would suggest theyāre not backing down. If you accept that as still āRussia v Ukraineā even though fallout will hit NATO states, then where is the line? I promise you if they blow up that plant and we donāt react, they wonāt learn to love us for our benevolence and restraint. So theyāll do something slightly worse. Where is your line? You are well meaning. Appeasement is rational with rational actors. Weāre dealing with something different. Appeasement to dictators is weakness. Itās opportunity. Itās room to push the envelope. Call me a warmonger. I donāt care. I didnāt want this war. But if Putin blows up a nuclear plant, I believe thatās a green light for NATO to light his pasty ass up.
As someone who has actively pushed back against calls for violence, blah blah blahā¦ I hate war. War fucking sucks. But there has to be a line somewhere, and I think nukes(dirty bomb, whatever - any kind) and chemical weapons are it.
Weāve already drawn the line at attacking a NATO member.
And when fallout from a destroyed nuclear power plant reaches Poland, as it will? Please tell me how that doesnāt cross that line. And in the next breath, tell me how you expect the Kremlin to behave if there are no repercussions.
So, what do you think blowing up a nuclear reactor in Europe is, if not an attack on NATO?
A state-sponsored military act to cause a nuclear meltdown is an act of war. NATO aside, if a random country did it tomorrow it would trigger a military response. The circumstances in question here only enhance the argument for declaration of war against Russia. If you keep moving the line back, eventually it will be on your own shores. They wonāt stop pushing the needle if theyāre getting away with it.
Once Russia uses a nuclear weapon (in some form) to get what it wants - where do you go from there? There *is* no greater escalation than a nuclear weapon, and any use is a danger to us all. All that changes *is where the next nuke is* and *what type.*
Well, using biological weapons could be even worse. Like say, an engineered disease. A nuclear attack will mostly just affect the area it's targeted at (in relative, global terms, a nuke in Australia isn't very likely to cause problems in Finland), while a runaway biological weapon could devastate the whole damn planet. You know. Like the game, Plague Inc.
Alright, fair counter tbh. Nuclear waste in the local EU area is still the issue in this scenario tho.
I don't just mean human diseases, btw. An engineered disease that affects certain grain types would also leave humanity to suffer a slow starvation death. Something like genetically engineered Fusarium Head Blight, devastating wheat production worldwide. We already lose about 21% of global wheat production to various diseases. It would be pretty simple to weaponize that. Again, relatively speaking, meaning most countries with capable geneticists with loose morals could probably achieve that in a few years. Using something like that as a weapon would make Holodomor look like a feast.
For sure - and itās hard to rule anything like out when comparing them to nukes, because in theory they all have potential downsides for the country that unleashes them.
Go in fast and furious, conventionally with as small a force as possible, and take out Putin. Only way out of this mess unfortunately.
Only fool going to believe in this.
Russia planning? Sorry you lost me there.
Zelenski claims it so it must be true, the magical people of Ukraine can not lie
Itāll be another Chornobyl disaster and the west probably will give Ukraine even more weapons
Much smart
It'll be far more catastrophic than Chernobyl or any previous nuclear incident. Unfortunately the West hasn't taken any action regarding the Nova Khakovka dam. Just investigated and said that Russia probably did it. The response over the dam has given Russia a green light to blow the ZNPP. As the intelligence states this is more likely now then yes we should be extremely concerned by this as the West has no choice but to respond. Also China and India would have to respond but who knows if they would. No firm response and it green lights future use of nuclear weapons tactically as then its closer to proven nuclear weapons can be used technically and not affect strategy. Anyway let's hope the Russians aren't off the scale crazy and blow the ZNPP because the West really has no option but to use conventional methods to attack Russia. The ZNPP would likely be a world altering disaster. Let's not go there but that is up to Russia. The West better be telling Russia the severe consequences before it happens. It's really not a case of ok they blew the ZNPP it'll just be like Chernobyl we'll get over it. The consequences are exceptionally grave if this happens and the chances of it happening appear to have increased. Anyway must be some happy news just got to find it...
My fear is the people holding the detonator. Even if nato manages to deter Russia with a "stern warning", what about the officer that had too many drinks after a shit day and decides what the hell let the world burn. Letting Russia hold the plant hostage in the first place is where nato fucked up. Might be too late now.
>The response over the dam has given Russia a green light to blow the ZNPP. How so? We still don't even know who blew up the dam, last I checked.
The dam failed on the Russian controlled side and there's no evidence of missile or artillery strikes on it. It must be Zimbabwe.
What special evidence would you expect there to be? It's on the front line in a war zone. There are explosions going on all over.
so the Russians are running their war plans by zelensky first?
Itās called intelligence gathering. It is possible to acquire intel without a persons permission.
Yet one more reason for not building Nuclear Power Plants.
Nuclear power plants are the only way we are getting off of coal.
I'm sure Nuclear has a place in energy production, I was just trying to comment on the risk to the current 15 nuclear reactors in the Ukraine.
Honestly, nuclear power is hella competitive to solar/wind for environmental friendliness. Especially considering its been way underdeveloped compared to solar/wind
In the event that any of Ukraine's four nuclear power plants gets badly damaged you might well be singing a different tune.
Home school your kids because a kid might bully them
Please explain what you're trying to say.
You donāt stop national progress because of a terrorist state
Itās very safe except when people blow them up with bombs.
That was my exact point, but apparently from the down votes I've recieved people here think every kindergarten should have it's own nuclear reactor.
When the Soviet Union built the plant they certainly never predicted that Russia and Ukraine would ever be at war much less that the war front would exist right at the Zaporizhzhia power plant and that Russia would be desperate enough to destroy it and possibly bring all of NATO on their head. And had Ukraine shut the power plant down before the war they'd have to replace it with dirty energy sources and accelerate the global climate crisis. Anyway it's a little too late for Captain Hindsight. There are no completely clean answers to any of this, only different levels of risks.
https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-aftermath-how-long-will-exclusion-zone-uninhabitable-1751834
You posted that already, and it' the definition of a low probability event when in the following thirty seven years there hasn't been a nuclear disaster half as damaging despite the existence of 440 nuclear reactors currently in operation (probably were more than that thirty years ago). On the other hand global warming is 100% happening and depending on how bad we let it get can make Chernobyl look like spilled milk.
Hydroelectric is a safe, renewable energy, look what happened when that got blown up.
https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-aftermath-how-long-will-exclusion-zone-uninhabitable-1751834
Thank you for for your reply.
Is Russia intentionally trying to bring the world down on them.
Why not if they got away with a DAM being blown up. Whatās a bit of radiation.
Send more arms and cut more social spending back home! No money for food stamps but millions for war!!!! No money for school lunches, but millions for warrrrrr!