It's an awfully effective way to distract people from focusing on defending the perimeter of whatever city they're trying to defend
Maybe the steam just vents? Or bypasses a turbine? Hopefully it can operate without being connected to the outside, but I’m not sure.
The same as any other power plant: the generator is automatically shut down by its safety systems (if it didn't shut down, the generator would overspeed and violently break apart). Once the generator shuts down, the safety systems for the reactor itself should either automatically shut down the reactor too, or somehow bypass the steam to the generator and reduce power to idle (I thought they would always shut down, but recently there was a failure on the generator of the nuclear power plant near where I live, and the reactor went to idle instead of shutting down, so it seems nuclear power plants have this mode too).
The issue is what happens after a shutdown; as seen at Fukushima, the cooling pumps in the reactor need external power for a couple of days until the decay heat reduces enough that passive cooling is sufficient. Without power from the outside, the emergency generators take over; if these are damaged or out of fuel, and backup generators can't be brought by truck from outside after a couple of hours, disaster happens.
What rubbish. This looks like Putin found a way to tactically deploy dirty nukes within the West’s red lines.
The time between Russia being the second country to use nuclear weapons and our current concept of countries becoming totally irrelevant would be measured in minutes.
Having said this he might still do it.
AFAICT, the person you were responding to wasn’t talking about a nuke being used against NATO forces.
If "tactical" nukes are a thing why hasn't anyone used them since 1945? Seems like they could have been handy in Syria or Afghanistan. There's no shortage of examples of nuclear powers going to war with non-nuclear non-NATO countries in the last 77 years. None of them involved nukes in any capacity.
You say that nobody will went crazy when a tactic nuke will be used against RF army. Right?
Can you draw the line, please? When this war between two nuclear states will be nuclear, if even use of tactical nuke is not enough for you?
No idea what salami tactics means.
A tactical nuke used against Kharkiv would certainly lead to either a Ukrainian dirty bomb strike against Moscow and or a NATO intervention. Why would Russia stop at one nuke when fighting NATO? For each tactical nuke against NATO you would expect at least one in return, or worse a megaton +x% for megaton exchange.
This spirals into full nuclear war very quickly once one side believes that they are going to lose without strategic weapons, or one side believes they have been or will be the victim of a strategic attack.
Speaking of, how long until the country with all of the old Soviet weapons facilities decides to re-enter the nuclear club?
[1]Budapest Memorandum was not fulfilled, so Ukraine regain their status of nuclear state.
If Putin decides to escalate to nukes as a final act of failure then the de-escalation would be the complete annihilation of Russia as a country. In minutes.
The idea of getting away with a tactical nuke strike is insane.
to strengthen their negotiation position "We give you back X, you give back Mariupol"
> complete annihilation of Russia as a country
you think US would die for some village in Ukraine? They were plenty of US politicians and generals which were against nuclear umbrella for West Germany.
If the Ukrainians can push Russians back why wouldn’t they do the same everywhere? Crossing the border becomes an act of aggression, only Russia has acted aggressively here. Everyone else is trying to avoid conflict.
If Russia detonates a nuke in Europe the entire country will be obliterated immediately.
Given the widespread reports during this war of Russian equipment in poor condition, I've been thinking about this possibility for a while:
* Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might.
* The weapon is a dud.
I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ukrain...