The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
This is risky isn't it? If you take out a NPP's switchyard with a cruise missile strike the reactor will SCRAM. After it SCRAMS backup generators have to come online to keep pumping coolant into the reactor to prevent it from melting from residual heat and decay heat from short lived daughter products.
Ukraine's reactors are pretty old and I wouldn't put it at 100% that they will all survive such ordeal without melting. The infamous Chernobyl disaster was a test of this scenario exactly - when power to external grid is disconnected it will take some minutes for the backup diesel generators to get up to speed to generate enough power to power the coolant pumps, and the test was to see if the still spinning turbine could provide enough power to cover the few minute gap between connection to external power was cut and backup generators coming online.
Last edited:
you can hit the utility level distribution. that increases target numbers but is still a major target, and keeps the reactors connected to the grid - just nothing else. the sudden removal of the load will also cause the turbines to change frequency and lose synchronization, and cause physical damage in extreme cases. but it won't immediately harm the reactor. the operators will have the choice to drop rods or allow a meltdown.
It's not money laundering, it's normal behaviour. you probably want them to use their money to produce the latest weaponry and send it to Ukraine, while they are left with the old stuff?
Or are Caesars obsolete or what?
I wish there was more of that 'outdated' stuff.
In worst case they just pump out the full thermal energy to the river, instead the 65% of it.
Loose access to the transmission network doesn't matter, in worst case they keep one reactor on low power, and the others in cold shut down.
Not the typical scenario, but within the safe limits of the operation of the power plant.
The biggest issue is if they put into cold the reactors then the expected lifetime will decrease.
There are many consequences of a Russian attack at Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure that will bear negative cost for Russia but I don't have the time to explain it here at length. I'll mention just the most obvious and pertinent: per adopted NATO policy any disruption to nuclear safety in Ukraine caused by Russian military activity triggers article 5. All that is required is either for Poland and Romania to file the motion which I assure you will be automatic from our side.
The basic response that has been agreed is to "ensure that Russian attacks against Ukrainian nuclear sites do not constitute a radiation threat to NATO states".
Because apart from Enerhodar all other facilities are only vulnerable to air and missile strikes the measures undertaken will establish a de jure NATO-enforced no-fly zone over nuclear sites in Ukraine, which will effectively translate into a de-facto no-fly zone over all of Ukraine. It will be achieved through the following measures:
- destruction of Russian air defenses within the territory of Republic of Ukraine, including Crimea
- destruction of Russian air bases within the territory of Republic of Ukraine, including Crimea
- destruction of Russian Black Sea fleet at sea and within the territory of Republic of Ukraine, including Crimea
- destruction of any air defense assets defending against above actions regardless of their location
What's more important: points 1-4 will effectively ensure persistent NATO presence in the air over Russian forces for a period of at least 1-2 weeks which will effectively have a similar effect to NATO providing air support to Ukrainian forces on the ground during the time, even though the targets will be limited.
As such it is most likely that any offensive operation undertaken by Ukrainian forces at such time will not meet any meaningful resistance which will end with a total rout of Russian forces from Ukraine since two weeks is all that is necessary to clear the southern region of the front between Zaporozhia and Donetsk which will then result in the collapse of defenses on the right side of Dnepr, a disorganized rout into and out of Crimea.
Furthermore point 4 effectively makes it possible to attack Russian facilities in Syria simply by using the excuse that they constitute threat to USAF bombers from Diego Garcia and USAF will ensure it by flying bombers as close to Latakia as possible. It won't happen to demonstrate that it is "all about nuclear safety in Ukraine".
Russian air and naval capabilities were never a match for NATO even before the war. The problem was always ground forces and nuclear weapons. After eight months of war attrition and with the intelligence that NATO has gathered in that time it will be a repetition of Desert Storm that will cost Russia almost all of its naval and air assets in Southern Military District.
There is a thin line established through numerous crises in the past that both sides stay clear of which ensures that the war in Ukraine remains a proxy conflict convenient to both sides. If Russia crosses that line it will bear the consequences. All you need to remember is the Iranian missile strike on US forces in Iraq following the assassination of Soleimani. Those are the rules of the game that need to be followed if the game is to continue. New game, new rules and a lot of unpredictability and chaos.
Putin is many things but he is not an idiot. There is no miscalculation possible because NATO communicated its position clearly numerous times. He also knows the consequences if he gave the order to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent which will be the last order given by him as the President of Russia. Other than that Russia has nothing to counter points 1-4 and the immediate fallout. He also knows that there are many people in the Pentagon that secretly dream of the opportunity. And the fact that he will be seen as responsible for it, while the natural response (nuclear) will not be available will result in collapse of his regime, to be replaced by a de facto military dictatorship. Again this is down to GRU vs FSB dynamic within the Russian state security apparatus.
So unless someone is actively sabotaging Putin from within there will be no strikes that affect nuclear sites.
One more thing - the incidents at Enerhodar were likely caused by both sides as means of testing responses. It had nothing to do with whatever it was the media or "independent analysts" online were claiming. It was always about exploring and reinforcing the rules of engagement.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mate, this is rubbusih.
Ukraine bombed the safety critical systems of an NPP, did it trigered article 5 against Ukraine ?
No.
Attack on Russian assets by the USA most likelly will trigger automatic tactical /strategical answer to all USA bases outside of North America.
Be realistic, the threshold defined by you for a full scale USA attack on extraterritorial Russians assets won't be breached even if Warsaw nuked .
The playing rules easy : as soon as USA attack targets outside Russia then it is a fair play to attack USA assets outside mainland.
And the USA has magnitude more vulnerable assets, 90% without any air defence.
So, from USA side the rule is simple : don't thow stones if you live in a glass house.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't get Turkey and Hungary to agree on something as basic as Sweden and Finland's entry into NATO, gonna get them to Article 5 over Ukraine's NPP's just because Poland is gonna whinge about it?.
It's hypocritical to say the least when Ukraine keeps trying to fuck with the ZNPP.
It's hypocritical to say the least when Ukraine keeps trying to fuck with the ZNPP.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
As with a lot of things in the Russian military, there is a big difference between developed and deployed.
They have developed all the tools they need to make their job orders of magnitudes easier in Ukraine, and probably cut their casualties to a tiny fraction of what they have been taking. The problem is that the Russian military has not procured and deployed those new weapons and systems in operationally relevant numbers to have much impact on the battlefield.
It’s not just the Russians who are guilty of this, most countries, including most NATO members, are little better before anyone gets too excited about NATO triggering Article 5.
Because as soon as they do, they will have serious and massive problems even ruling out Russian nukes in a conventional war. Ironically, NATO declaring Article 5 and directly entering the war may make things much easier for Russia on the battlefield, since the first and most significant impact of that would be all the previously untouchable NATO ISR assets would become fair game and be forced to massively back off or get promptly destroyed by Russia.
Russia was caught short in Ukraine because it focused the lion share of its military modernisation on fighting the wrong kind of enemy, so most of their latest and best weapons are sitting on the bench not being used in Ukraine. Guess who and what all those Russian weapons were designed to fight?
NATO will not trigger article 5 short of a direct and massive Russian first strike against a NATO member. So I think we all need to effectively rule that out as any credible threat to limit Russian actions in Ukraine.