Is Zaporizhzhia the first active nuclear power plant to be seized by a hostile military force?

[Shermann]

I believe so. These are dangerous times.

I wonder how Russia will keep it operational. You can force captives do manual labor indefinitely, but nuclear engineers running a complex facility? Not so much. They're going to need some freedom and autonomy.

It will be interesting to see how Russia manages this. They could bring in their own people. It was built by the USSR, and they will have knowledge of the reactor design. But time marches on and by now there are surely a lot of custom systems in place requiring tribal knowledge to operate. I'm guessing they will have to make it worth their while. There are seriously bad optics if that plant shuts down.

[onecaliberal]

1. Yes, but they are closing in on another one in the southern part of Ukraine.

[JanMichael]

2. Sounds like they want to control the power grid.

[onecaliberal]

4. Yes. That's they're play for sure. It's a very dangerous game.

[Nevilledog]

3. Saw that Ukrainians had taken it back.

Link to tweet

Tweet posted 13 hrs ago

[Nevilledog]

7. I really think it's Ukrainian people running it, but grounds around under Russian control

[EndlessWire]

5. Shuts down??

I guess it could be taken off line, if that is their intent. But, the greater danger is that it will explode.

I read up on this. There are many articles and questions answered on this issue. For instance, they said that this model of plant is upgraded over Chernobyl, and that there are technical considerations which make this plant way safer than Chernobyl. But, if this were damaged, or that were damaged, it could still blow up. Part of this plant was damaged, but apparently not the part that was necessary for this to blow up.

These stupid Russians are shooting at (in violation of the Geneva Convention--Part 52?) a ticking time bomb. If this is the way that they plan to gain control of all the rest of the nuclear plants that are in Ukraine (about four,) they might be in for a nasty surprise.

My next question is, how can we tell the difference between a horrible accident, and a deliberate nuke? By sheer location? I think that we need to have satellite images of the fighting in any fight over nuclear facilities.

[Shermann]

8. Sure, that's low-risk though and well-covered by the MSM

I'm interested in what happens if it doesn't melt down.

[EndlessWire]

9. Low risk?

I wouldn't risk even a smidgen of chance that they could damage one enough to make it blow up. The consequences of that are enormous. How dare they do that!

[Shermann]

10. Well, the risk of something occurring and the severity if it does are two separate things nt

[EndlessWire]

11. I don't mind speculation

but this is not how risk works. The risks are too great to take such a chance. Not unless Putin just doesn't give a damn about his troops, the rest of Ukraine, or the rest of the world, including his own people.

Russians, take note. Putin will not be squeezed by sanctions, but you sure will be, unless you, too, have $600 billion bucks. Also, he doesn't care if his troops, your sons, set off a nuclear reactor. Perhaps he is disappointed that they couldn't even do that cluster f*ck right.