> ...Russians could sabotage nuclear reactors. They use such a remote possibility as an argument against all nuclear, seemingly forgetting that:
Germany is surrounded by other countries with nuclear power.
Russian sabotage would be an act of war.
If Germany is at the point where Russia is attacking its nuclear power plants, I sure hope it’s not in a position where it depends on Russian gas.
This is a purely legal argument in the original German report. I don't understand the legal aspect here, what the report says is that due to constitutional law an extension of the runtime of the nuclear reactors would require a risk/benefit analysis. And a higher chance of attacks or sabotage would increase the risk here.
The only thing the report says here is that this requires risk/benefit analysis would need to take these factors into account.
Russia recently attacked a nuclear power plant not that far from Germany, which happened to survive without serious issue. So, this isn’t meaningless speculation even if you personally don’t view it as a major issue.
In the end designing a nuclear power plant to survive shelling might not mitigate that much risk, but it is something being seriously considered in many circles.
Total war is less common than you might think. Ukraine for example isn’t a giant nuclear crater, yet they had a nuclear power plant being shelled. Meanwhile Ukraine isn’t shelling Russian civilians.
So it’s quite possible for war between nuclear powers to avoid that level of escalation.
Yes, it doesn't have nukes anymore. I fear that one sad bit of fallout from Russia's invasion will be that no country will ever voluntarily give up nukes again.
Moving the goalposts doesn’t actually solve this issue.
If you can’t conceive of a situation that having a nuclear power plant inside your country is dangerous you simply don’t know enough about them. Sabotage of a spent fuel cooling pond could get really nasty. It’s not the kind of risk anyone is taking that seriously for reasons I agree with, but it’s definitely possible.
Just because one concieved a fantastic scenario doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. There is no evidence of such sabotage being ever attempted or planned - and thats a serious problem for your argument because various agencies have tried all kinds of shit from hypnosis to investigating supernatural abilities during the cold war.
There are more straight forward ways to cause damage.
It is quite staight forward to poison food supply chain, water supply, a dirty bomb is easy to make amd acessible to many rogue states
Why would Russia go through the trouble of infiltration and covert ops of a well-secured and monitored installation that is in the middle of nowhere and will d9 minimal damage, if they have chemical weapons, Bioweapons, can make dirty bombs and have nukes at their disposal?
I was responding to someone that said: “there are no circumstances”
That’s an unreasonably high bar which invites “fantastic scenario” as such I referred to something I don’t consider reasonable, but it is possible.
> Why would Russia go through the trouble
If you want a more plausible scenario, causing immense harm in a deniable fashion is possible when a attacking a nuclear power plant that isn’t possible with widespread chemical weapons etc. Issue a public apology, have the guy ordering the attack executed, and yet the harm stays.
I am not suggesting it’s likely Russia is going to attack Germany in the next 50 years. All I am saying is nuclear power plants have one more failure mode that should be considered. These things are built tough, Ukraine’s only lost 1.3 GW of capacity after the attack that’s no big deal. That said, considering them as a military not just a terrorist target is no longer a fantasy scenario it’s part of the long term risk calculation.
To be clear, most people will likely run the numbers and say it’s an acceptable risk, which is fine as long as they actually run the numbers.
Having your adversary supply all of the fuel your factories, cities, tanks, trucks, and aircraft run on is also exceedingly dangerous, much more so than the threat of them sabotaging a nuclear reactor.
The scenario above was, russia attacks a nuclear plant on purpose, with the intention to destroy or damage it.
What happened in the Ukraine lately was no such thing, it was conquering a nuclear plant and the plant itself was not damaged in the process. Still irresponsible and criminal, (like the whole war) - but not the same as targeting a nuclear plant, with the intention to destroy.
What happened in Ukraine doesn't really provide much insight into what would happen in a war with Germany.
If Russia bombed Ukrainian nuclear plants and sent a cloud of radioactive fallout over Europe, that could be seen as a direct attack against NATO and get them involved in the war. So Russia has a big incentive to not attack nuclear plants.
But if Russia is already willing to attack a NATO country, then it's not clear that they would shy away from bombing nuclear plants, which would act as a distraction as Germany devoted resources to stop the radioactive emissions.
But that would almost certainly trigger nuclear retaliation... if they drop conventional bombs on nuclear plants, the retaliation level is is much less clear.
Same argument applies to dirty bombs and chemical weapons or anthrax. Which are much more readilly avaliable and could be used to attack cities - whereas a nuclear plant is the countryside is going to do comparatively little.
The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack.
As far as analysis goes you can’t limit things to exactly what happened. If attacking nuclear power plants is on the table then a single miscommunication means someone is attempting to destroy it. Even just destroying some water pipes or some generators could lead to very serious issues.
"During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage.[19]
As of 04:20 UTC on March 4, the IAEA said that the fire, which was in a training building, had been extinguished. It did not impact reactor safety or any essential equipment"
Your Wikipedia link includes this: “The plant lost 1.3 GW of capacity which then was compensated by additional 9 power units in the thermal power station nearby.”
"If the power plant was I damaged it wouldn’t have lost capacity."
The link stated it was not damaged, so another explanation would be it was partly shut down. Missing crew, safety precautions, who knows. It is a warzone.
They where very clear that damage occurred to the power plant not the physical reactor, while safety was maintained:
> In its statement the SNRIU said Zaporozhe's six power units "remain intact, the unit 1 reactor compartment auxiliary buildings have been damaged, which does not affect the safety of the unit. The systems and components important to the safety of the NPP are operational. At present, no changes in the radiation situation have been registered." https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-appeal-afte...
>The fire, in a training building a few hundred metres from the reactors, was extinguished at 06:20 local time, SNRIU said. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it had been told the fire at the site had not affected "essential equipment and plant personnel were taking mitigatory actions".
It’s however important to realize reactors need auxiliary systems outside the physical building for cooling. I guess it’s possible the attack was precise enough to avoid such damage, but I can only assume some good luck was involved.
You seem to be replying to something I didn't say.
> At the point where people are attacking something in Germany that line becomes meaningless.
Exactly my point. I'm not saying desperation and ego won't drive him (along with everyone else) into the abyss, I'm saying he's savvy enough to know that right now, that line is protecting him.
Let’s assume he’s extremely unlikely to attack Germany. What about his successor, and his successor’s successor? It’s unfortunate but many “crazy” people have ended up running dictatorships.
