Ukrainian War Thread III: The Horrors

[Port Caverton]

I can think of a single reason right now off the top of my head: why?

If your grand plan can be defeated by literally anyone asking "Why?" then it wasn't as smart as you think it was.

There's a cursed parallel universe where Trump is still president and this same conversation is happening between the leader of the world's most powerful country and his advisors begging him not to do it.

This is canon.

[Herador]

I can think of a single reason right now off the top of my head: why?

If your grand plan can be defeated by literally anyone asking "Why?" then it wasn't as smart as you think it was.

because this is what would happen. Russia claims Ukraine did it, they always say it was Ukraine attacking, China doesn't believe them, either war is declared or Chinese troops are moved to the border. Russia is then forced to focus on China more than Ukraine.

...know what? Sure. You're a New Type for Real Politik, go hog wild on the world bud.

[Christian Confederation]

Hopefully America increases production soon. It will help them too.

What would really help is Europe getting itself off the Russian energy. We have a few gasfields here and there that aren't being used, and coal is always that faustian pact we have in abundance. But what would be great would be shaking ourselves out of this fear of nuclear power. Or launching the green energy manhattan project that the world has needed since the 1980s.

Nuclear is definitely our best option for the time being. We're set to harness the same type of Nuclear reaction that powers sun in the next 10-50 years giving us abundant cheap and clean energy. Other than waste storage it's an amazing plan. And the waste storage issue will be solved as reactors running on recycled spent fuel are developed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What would really help is Europe getting itself off the Russian energy. We have a few gasfields here and there that aren't being used, and coal is always that faustian pact we have in abundance. But what would be great would be shaking ourselves out of this fear of nuclear power. Or launching the green energy manhattan project that the world has needed since the 1980s.

Nuclear is definitely our best option for the time being. We're set to harness the same type of Nuclear reaction that powers sun in the next 10-50 years giving us abundant cheap and clean energy. Other than waste storage it's an amazing plan. And the waste storage issue will be solved as reactors running on recycled spent fuel are developed.

We've been 10 years away from fusion for 60 years lol. Fission is more than sufficient for our energy needs.

[Senkaku]

What would really help is Europe getting itself off the Russian energy. We have a few gasfields here and there that aren't being used, and coal is always that faustian pact we have in abundance. But what would be great would be shaking ourselves out of this fear of nuclear power. Or launching the green energy manhattan project that the world has needed since the 1980s.

Nuclear is definitely our best option for the time being. We're set to harness the same type of Nuclear reaction that powers sun in the next 10-50 years giving us abundant cheap and clean energy. Other than waste storage it's an amazing plan. And the waste storage issue will be solved as reactors running on recycled spent fuel are developed.

The nuclear industry in the US has been dead for thirty years at least. Take a class on energy law sometime and read about the actual development and procurement timelines for all the startups marketing new reactor tech, it’ll be bitterly disappointing but very informative.

[Saiwania]

The nuclear industry in the US has been dead for thirty years at least. Take a class on energy law sometime and read about the actual development and procurement timelines for all the startups marketing new reactor tech, it’ll be bitterly disappointing but very informative.

Change the laws to pave the way for nuclear power. Even better if there were a political leader who had the power to demand it be done and to immediately have those that would say no to be punished or fired. We need a totalitarian leader or absolute monarch again to truly get certain things done quickly.

Nuclear power is what could've and should've been embraced globally from the 1950s onward, not coal, not oil, not gas, not natural gas, and certainly not biofuels. The world would've been in a much better state at minimum than it is now if nuclear had prevailed everywhere like in France. Which is why interfering with needed progress unnecessarily, should be considered treason.

Stalin got his country developed and didn't tolerate whatever slowed or put a stop to that as one example.

[Phoenii]

^ i could not teach about the topic, firstly because italy has quite nothing to teach other countries in terms of diversification since sixtiees (after years ‘60 passed) and secondly because it goes out of topic.

nevertheless, if i should have a say, seeing as railways and nuclear power plant being among few sectors in which americans struggle, it is plausible for me that large of its fault weights on lack of decent oil tax.

lack of heavy oil consumption tax evidently drives severe economic and technologic downfall. for italy, having high oil tax, the fault has roots in mismanagement instead, probably because of monopolistic rule.

reason why an economic model “built on” absence of oil tax shall let a country backward in diversification; or reason why a policy lead from monopolistic state-held corporation harms self, i will not explain.

i give the hint alone. because i feel such disgression would be fatiguing and demanding, and no person on this present thread would be willing nor at pace to follow it.

[Fahran]

Nuclear is definitely our best option for the time being. We're set to harness the same type of Nuclear reaction that powers sun in the next 10-50 years giving us abundant cheap and clean energy. Other than waste storage it's an amazing plan. And the waste storage issue will be solved as reactors running on recycled spent fuel are developed.

The nuclear industry in the US has been dead for thirty years at least. Take a class on energy law sometime and read about the actual development and procurement timelines for all the startups marketing new reactor tech, it’ll be bitterly disappointing but very informative.

Killing nuclear has been the biggest mistake made by activists.

[Umeria]

The nuclear industry in the US has been dead for thirty years at least. Take a class on energy law sometime and read about the actual development and procurement timelines for all the startups marketing new reactor tech, it’ll be bitterly disappointing but very informative.

Killing nuclear has been the biggest mistake made by activists.

This is absurd every time someone says it. If activists had the power to kill nuclear, they would have also killed coal and oil.

[Vistulange]

The nuclear industry in the US has been dead for thirty years at least. Take a class on energy law sometime and read about the actual development and procurement timelines for all the startups marketing new reactor tech, it’ll be bitterly disappointing but very informative.

Change the laws to pave the way for nuclear power. Even better if there were a political leader who had the power to demand it be done and to immediately have those that would say no to be punished or fired. We need a totalitarian leader or absolute monarch again to truly get certain things done quickly.

Nuclear power is what could've and should've been embraced globally from the 1950s onward, not coal, not oil, not gas, not natural gas, and certainly not biofuels. The world would've been in a much better state at minimum than it is now if nuclear had prevailed everywhere like in France. Which is why interfering with needed progress unnecessarily, should be considered treason.

Stalin got his country developed and didn't tolerate whatever slowed or put a stop to that as one example.

It's funny, folks like you who shower praise on their Führers, their Vozhds, or their Duces never seem to learn any lessons. And I don't mean how Mussolini got hanged on a meat hook beside his mistress; I mean how that awesome totalitarian leader Stalin was also responsible for setting the Soviet genetics discipline back by decades.

I may have summoned NSG's resident Lysenkoists here, but I can live with that.

[Fahran]

This is absurd every time someone says it. If activists had the power to kill nuclear, they would have also killed coal and oil.

Right. I'm not going to do a deep-dive on this. It suffices to say that there has been a sustained and influential anti-nuclear movement in the United States that has capitalized on accidental meltdowns and hysteria to effectively curtail the expansion of and diminish the availability of nuclear power since the late 1950s.

And coal consumption has dropped in the United States in favor of natural gas. This is perhaps one of the greater successes of the environmentalist movement in recent times. If they hadn't opposed nuclear so staunchly, it might have actually effected the elimination of our dependence on coal altogether.

[Umeria]

This is absurd every time someone says it. If activists had the power to kill nuclear, they would have also killed coal and oil.

Right. I'm not going to do a deep-dive on this. It suffices to say that there has been a sustained and influential anti-nuclear movement in the United States that has capitalized on accidental meltdowns and hysteria to effectively curtail the expansion of and diminish the availability of nuclear power since the late 1950s.

And coal consumption has dropped in the United States in favor of natural gas. This is perhaps one of the greater successes of the environmentalist movement in recent times. If they hadn't opposed nuclear so staunchly, it might have actually effected the elimination of our dependence on coal altogether.

Sustained, yes. Influential, no. What killed the nuclear industry is the fact that nuclear power is too expensive at a large scale. Policy makers might have used the activists' arguments, but profitability was the real reason. Environmentalists "capitalized on hysteria" against fossil fuels as well, but since those were still turning a profit, industry executives ignored them.

The switch from coal to natural gas proves my point. If it was actually the environmental movement calling the shots, coal would have been scaled down without a replacement. Instead, the energy industry followed the money as it always has.

[Senkaku]

This is absurd every time someone says it. If activists had the power to kill nuclear, they would have also killed coal and oil.

Right. I'm not going to do a deep-dive on this. It suffices to say that there has been a sustained and influential anti-nuclear movement in the United States that has capitalized on accidental meltdowns and hysteria to effectively curtail the expansion of and diminish the availability of nuclear power since the late 1950s.

And coal consumption has dropped in the United States in favor of natural gas. This is perhaps one of the greater successes of the environmentalist movement in recent times. If they hadn't opposed nuclear so staunchly, it might have actually effected the elimination of our dependence on coal altogether.

Quite reductionist to lay it all at the feet of the "environmental movement" and "activists" given the role that the fossil fuel lobby and general NIMBYism played in contributing to the collapse of the industry's fortunes. If "environmental activists" were powerful enough to singlehandedly bring down the nuclear industry since the '50s, you'd be living in a very different country-- the current state of affairs was brought about by a whole confluence of factors.

[Ifreann]

Right. I'm not going to do a deep-dive on this. It suffices to say that there has been a sustained and influential anti-nuclear movement in the United States that has capitalized on accidental meltdowns and hysteria to effectively curtail the expansion of and diminish the availability of nuclear power since the late 1950s.

And coal consumption has dropped in the United States in favor of natural gas. This is perhaps one of the greater successes of the environmentalist movement in recent times. If they hadn't opposed nuclear so staunchly, it might have actually effected the elimination of our dependence on coal altogether.

Quite reductionist to lay it all at the feet of the "environmental movement" and "activists" given the role that the fossil fuel lobby and general NIMBYism played in contributing to the collapse of the industry's fortunes. If "environmental activists" were powerful enough to singlehandedly bring down the nuclear industry since the '50s, you'd be living in a very different country-- the current state of affairs was brought about by a whole confluence of factors.

Pay no attention to the incomprehensibly vast wealth of the fossil fuel industry, the people really calling the shots are the hippies. That's why weed was legalised in 1967.

[Christian Confederation]

American Nuclear was killed when Nixon didn't push his plan to get America powered by nuclear by the turn of the century.
And when Carter didn't tell the Public that 3 mile island wasn't going to melt down and kill everyone on the east coast. Instead he said nothing and let the public fearmonger over a minor accident. For those of you unaware President Carter served on a nuclear Sub during his time in the navy and was very well informed about nuclear power, he knew as soon as he left the plant that there was no major threat to the public.

We've been trying to add 2 more reactors to one of our plants here in Georgia and are several billion over budget. The only reason nuclear isn't our primary power source is Oil/Gas and Coal lobbyists and fearmongering over 3MI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

[Fahran]

Quite reductionist to lay it all at the feet of the "environmental movement" and "activists" given the role that the fossil fuel lobby and general NIMBYism played in contributing to the collapse of the industry's fortunes. If "environmental activists" were powerful enough to singlehandedly bring down the nuclear industry since the '50s, you'd be living in a very different country-- the current state of affairs was brought about by a whole confluence of factors.

While you're right to point to a confluence of factors, including economic ones, the environmentalist and anti-nuclear lobbies, especially at the local level, have often succeeded in torpedoing proposed plants before they even get off the ground. They've also been a pretty consistent obstacle to adequate government subsidies reaching nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels. This was at its worst in the 1970s and 1980s. The fact that we could expect anti-nuclear protests any time nuclear power plants have been proposed in the past fifty years is pretty illustrative. The environmentalist movement just got this wrong and contributed to the problem.

[Perikuresu]

I'm confused, is this the Ukraine thread or the Nuclear Energy thread?

[Fahran]

Pay no attention to the incomprehensibly vast wealth of the fossil fuel industry, the people really calling the shots are the hippies. That's why weed was legalised in 1967.

Their fearmongering played a pretty massive role.

[Senkaku]

Quite reductionist to lay it all at the feet of the "environmental movement" and "activists" given the role that the fossil fuel lobby and general NIMBYism played in contributing to the collapse of the industry's fortunes. If "environmental activists" were powerful enough to singlehandedly bring down the nuclear industry since the '50s, you'd be living in a very different country-- the current state of affairs was brought about by a whole confluence of factors.

While you're right to point to a confluence of factors, including economic ones, the environmentalist and anti-nuclear lobbies, especially at the local level, have often succeeded in torpedoing proposed plants before they even got off the ground. They've also been a pretty consistent obstacle to adequate government subsidies reaching nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels. The fact that we could expect anti-nuclear protests any time nuclear power plants have been proposed in the past fifty years is pretty illustrative. The environmentalist movement just got this wrong and contributed to the problem.

“Contributed,” fine (although if you dive deeper you’ll be shocked at how many anti-nuclear environmental activist types have actually just been fronts for laundering the money and political priorities of fossil fuel majors). I will say it’s easy to forget that nuclear waste was genuinely a much bigger problem after the Cold War weapons buildup, so you can understand why the fear got a little out of control— like it or not, the plants have always been inextricably associated in the public imagination with the consequences of the weapons and the uranium mines.

[Perikuresu]

What does fearmongering over American nuclear energy have to do with Ukraine again?

[Senkaku]

I'm confused, is this the Ukraine thread or the Nuclear Energy thread?

Eh, we got a little off track, but Ukraine’s switching over to American uranium to supply its own large nuclear power sector, which is a big deal and at least tangentially related.

[Fahran]

“Contributed,” fine (although if you dive deeper you’ll be shocked at how many anti-nuclear environmental activist types have actually just been fronts for laundering the money and political priorities of fossil fuel majors).

Well, lots of movements have been fronts for money-laundering. BLM is pretty much a front for money-laundering at this point. It doesn't really change the fact that it was an element of the broader movement, was exceedingly stupid, and pretty much siphoned away public support from an option that would have put us in a much better situation to address both environmental issues and even our dependence on OPEC and Russia.

But we should probably focus on that last point given the subject of the thread.

[Umeria]

Here, I'll tie it back to Ukraine. If Russia stops the invasion and pulls out, that will not have been the result of the Russian antiwar movement.

[Fahran]

Here, I'll tie it back to Ukraine. If Russia stops the invasion and pulls out, that will not have been the result of the Russian antiwar movement.

Actually, given the last couple military withdrawals Russia has made, namely from the Soviet-Afghan War and the First Chechen War, that's probably not correct. Eroding morale on the home front and creating domestic opposition to the War in Donbas is almost certainly the best way to end the war. This is how the NVA and Vietcong effectively forced an American withdrawal as well.

[Umeria]

Here, I'll tie it back to Ukraine. If Russia stops the invasion and pulls out, that will not have been the result of the Russian antiwar movement.

Actually, given the last couple military withdrawals Russia has made, namely from the Soviet-Afghan War and the First Chechen War, that's probably not correct. Eroding morale on the home front and creating domestic opposition to the War in Donbas is almost certainly the best way to end the war. This is how the NVA and Vietcong effectively forced an American withdrawal as well.

It's true that a strong antiwar movement is the best way to end a war, but the current movement in Russia isn't strong enough, unless something has changed since the last time I checked (which admittedly was a few months ago).