undefined | Better HN

0 pointsXorNot1y ago0 comments

Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish.

There isn't going to just be "a war" in Germany - there never was. A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war, and thus "what if the nuclear powerplant is hit" is rather mundane compared to "our cities and citizens have been incinerated".

0 comments

qwertox1y ago

> A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war

Nuclear war is only one option of many, and the last one among all of them. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.

Also, a nuclear war does not automatically mean the end of humankind, as some like to portray it. Most will still be alive, even lead a healthy, unaffected life. The negative effects of a broken internet and broken supply chains would be the bigger problems.

ekianjo1y ago

> m. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.

of course it would end up in a nuclear war. NATO is encircling Russia and if Russia feels cornered you should expect them to use anything available to them.

Gud1y ago

Russia is encircling themselves with NATO by bullying everyone around them.

1 more reply

littlecranky671y ago

Just look at the explosion of the north stream pipelines. Whether this were government actors, terrorists, or a rogue military interest group independent of government decisions is unknown. But the very same can happen with nuclear plants. Yes they are protected against terrorist attacks (to some extend), but once you factor in military grade capability, the security assumptions crumble. No need for a full-blown nuclear war to happen at all, NPPs are a risk to national safety.

gizmo1y ago

That argument is exclusively used for nuclear. Hydroelectric is far more vulnerable to bombing, but we don't pearl clutch about that risk. And yes, a capable military can -- if they so choose -- turn a nuclear plant into a dirty bomb with sufficient explosives. But why go through that trouble when you can just drop a dirty bomb directly on top of a city center? That's a far more effective way of spreading nuclear radiation. However, capable militaries don't use dirty bombs because they make no strategic sense.

littlecranky671y ago

You asume intent. A NPP is a threat if it is in an active warzone, even if no party intents to damage it. It is just in the chaotic nature of war.

cedws1y ago

Europe is already engaged in a hybrid war. The next escalation isn't necessarily nuclear. It would most likely look like mutual sabotage to infrastructure, including energy and water supplies. Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, neither side will be eager to launch, and especially not before intense conventional warfare.

>Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish

Foolish is not being prepared for the worst.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

qwertox1y ago

> A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war

Nuclear war is only one option of many, and the last one among all of them. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.

ekianjo1y ago

> m. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.

of course it would end up in a nuclear war. NATO is encircling Russia and if Russia feels cornered you should expect them to use anything available to them.

Gud1y ago

Russia is encircling themselves with NATO by bullying everyone around them.

1 more reply

littlecranky671y ago

gizmo1y ago

littlecranky671y ago

You asume intent. A NPP is a threat if it is in an active warzone, even if no party intents to damage it. It is just in the chaotic nature of war.

cedws1y ago

>Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish

Foolish is not being prepared for the worst.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse