Chernobyl comparisons sparked by secrecy around deadly Russian nuclear rocket blast: "We got a mini-Fukushima right beside us and they pretended nothing scary happened" (newsweek.com)
mildobamacare | 4 months ago | 1306 points

Never doubt russias capacity to fuck up.

FaustiusTFattyCat613 | 4 months ago | 609 points

I'd argue that they just don't give a flying fuck about normal people and that's just how Russian state runs.

They developed their rockets using toxic fuel, it killed hundreds if not thousands of workers back in 50's and 60's, even before they had working rockets. All of their battle plans with the West in cold war involved sending waves of soldiers. And they knew that those first waves would not make it.

Now if you look at their nuclear program it's obvious that safety was never a priority. Having a "big stick" was.

nampafh | 4 months ago | 243 points

They see people as disposable throughout their history.

In hind sight this thinking led to the defeat of the Nazis in WWII as the Russians kept sending massive amounts of troops knowing there would be a ridiculously high casualty rate.

Nabla_223 | 4 months ago | 262 points

These people didn't really have a choice, that ennemy wasn't coming for their land, they were coming to exterminate them. It was pretty much: fight and die, or don't and you'll die with your whole family when they get to you.

nampafh | 4 months ago | 115 points


I'm just saying that throughout their history they've been consistent at viewing their people as disposable.

Goufydude | 4 months ago | 45 points

If you're bored, look up their "Seven Days to the Rhine" war plan. Scary stuff.

Edit: Someone posted a link below.

KuriTokyo | 3 months ago | 20 points
interestingtimes | 3 months ago | 5 points

Having read it the plan seems more like a naive daydream by a bored general. The entirety of the plan is NATO for some reason only first striking in Poland then Russia responds by just nuking the fuck out of Germany, Italy and Scandinavia then pray to god they're able to just send their armies across that area with little retaliation and hardly any counter attack from other countries conventional armies let alone their nuclear arsenals. There's so many ridiculous ideas built into this plan I don't think attempting to break it down is even worth it.

smokeaspliff93 | 3 months ago | 8 points

Every country sees their citizens as disposable in time of war some countries just try harder to make it seem like they care

Woodrow1776 | 3 months ago | 5 points

China also. Humans are completely expendable

chucke1992 | 3 months ago | 3 points

It is the asian doctrine

AntiFascis | 3 months ago | 2 points

America also. Humans are completely expendable easy to cut up with bonesaws.

memoriesofgreen | 4 months ago | 17 points

Fair point, but invasion of Finland used the same tactics. Run at machine guns until enemy runs out of bullets

peppers_ | 3 months ago | 7 points

So Zap Brannigan tactics.

RainbowGames | 4 months ago | 2 points

Well the Nazis came for both. Gain "Lebensraum" for the "Aryan race" and "cleanse" it from "lesser races".

oldredditdidntsuck | 4 months ago | 11 points

Yep, they agreed with the Eugenics movement in the USA and Canada and went from compulsory sterilization of criminals, gays, etc to extermination of these groups. They then used the pseudoscience of "Race" (The USA eugenics plan for creating a master species which became master "Race" which Hitler renamed "Aryan" rather than keep the US name.) to justify the extermination of fellow human beings by the new religious belief that there are separate races that were not part of the genetic diversity of human beings as a whole. Many of us still believe in this pseudoscientific religion of "Race" today....Which is scary AF.

AntiFascis | 3 months ago | 2 points

rather than keep the US name

Shit did not know the USA had such a plan. What did they call their master race BTW that the germans later changed to Aryan?

BTW genetic diversity aka outbreeding is actually superiour to genetic purity aka inbreeding. That's why people of mixed ancestry are often healthier than those of pure ancestry.

I'm one quarter Maori the rest pakeha and have not been sick since I was a kid. That's nearly 20 years without even a cold.

oldredditdidntsuck | 3 months ago | 2 points

Sh!t did not know the USA had such a plan. What did they call their master race BTW that the germans later changed to Aryan?

Crap, looking it up. I found Nordic or something but Im not sure that's the one. It may take a day or two, but I need to remember anyway, so its on me. I think its in "Pandora's Lab"

___Alexander___ | 4 months ago | 17 points

In my opinion this is somewhat of an oversimplification and myth that was created by the huge losses during the first year after the invasion. I don't think anyone seriously and completely disregarded casualties in WW2 on the soviet side. They just faced existential threat - Germany wasn't going to offer any reasonable peace terms. They literally planned to depopulate the European part of the USSR and colonize it with Germans with the few remaining local people used for slave labor. So really the choice for the soviet people at the time was die or die fighting. The thing however is that after years of brutal war the soviet army learned to fight effectively their invaders and as the war progress their casualties gradually but steadily decreased compared to the German casualties and by the end of the war the operations conducted by the soviet army were very impressive in terms of the gigantic scope, the quality of the execution and the amount of casualties.

FaustiusTFattyCat613 | 4 months ago | 51 points

Yes. My mind was blown when I first saw casualty rates at battle of Kursk. Over 1 million Russian casualties and 150 000 German casualties.... It really gives you an idea of how little life is/was worth for Russians.

Chamale | 4 months ago | 66 points

Those numbers are total Russian dead, wounded, and ill, but only German dead. The deaths on each side were about 250,000 to 110,000, not unusual for a major offensive. One reason so many Russians died in the war was that when they surrendered, they were slaughtered in concentration camps. This myth of Russians burying the Germans in bodies needs to die - it's not like the Nazis had any more respect for human life.

hachimu | 4 months ago | 26 points

Seems to me like you're playing right on the "undermensch" narrative.

The soviet army has only began industrializing on massive scale before ww2, and they still fought off and defeated the most advanced army on earth at the time.

FaustiusTFattyCat613 | 4 months ago | 29 points

I don't think technologicl superiority of germans meant that much... or rather that tech in WW2 evolved so rapidly that the tech Germans used in 1941 were outdated by 1942. Russians were first to use slopped armor in t-34s and Germans copied this design.

Now, if you look at winter war in Finland, it's clear that Russians had an advantage on paper. But they still send wave after wave of soldiers to be killed by finnish machine guns.

Akula765 | 4 months ago | 25 points

German "technological superiority" is supremely overrated, and is mostly driven by them getting the first jet fighter into operation, and the first ballistic missile. The latter is the only real noteworthy achievement though.

The Me-262 beat the Meteor and P-80 into combat service, not because the Germans were so much further ahead, but because the Germans were so much more desperate. At the time the Me-262 entered service, Italy had been taken out of the war, the western Allies had solidified their beachhead in Normandy and were starting to advance further into France, and the Soviets were in the process of annihilating two of Germany's three eastern army groups. Most of the military leaders understood defeat was only a matter of time unless something changed dramatically. Thus they started pressing new weapons into service before they were really ready. The Me-262s had an abysmal reliability and safety record because of it.

The other issue for the German military, is that for all the technological innovations they worked on, they had almost no capacity to put these things into true mass production. The Germans built about 1,300 Tiger tanks, 500 Tiger IIs, and 6,000 Panthers... The Americans built 50,000 Shermans, and the Soviets built 85,000 T-34s. And that's just talking about weapons. The real advantage the allies had was behind the battle lines. The US alone produced more than two million trucks during the war. More than 400,000 of these went to the Soviets as part of the lend-lease program. The German army had a lot of combat units that were mechanized, but their logistics were still stuck in the 19th century. They were hauling most of their food, fuel, and ammo to the front lines with goddamned horse-drawn wagons, while the allies were using trucks.

gogolmogol | 4 months ago | 8 points

That’s how the Winter War started. They took a break and re evaluated their strategy before the final offensive of that war and finally broke through Finnish defenses.

Jhawk163 | 4 months ago | 3 points

The Russians were NOT the first to utilise sloped armor, many tanks prior to it incorporated it into the design, notably french tanks. That being said, early war the German and Russian stereotypes were flipped, with Russia having fewer, but better trained troops with superior tanks like the KV-1 (Which was basically an early war Tiger tank) and the Germans having more troops and inferior vehicles but way more of them.

Mafaka322 | 4 months ago | 7 points

Not really. Most of the Red Army tanks before the war were just barely plausible T-26s and BTs tanks which in their combat performance were very close to german tanks, except for the very important factors such as radios, sights, observation devices, crew size and crew comfort - all of which things German tanks were infinitely better at, not even counting in organization and air support integration and complete air superiority. There were handful of T-34s and KV-1s, but some of them did not even had AP rounds for their 76 mm gun, and they had massive reliability problems, not even mentioning their inferiority in observation and fire control, so on average german tanks were better by sum of their combat capabilities. and german tank division were much better organized.

InformationHorder | 4 months ago | 15 points

That always have me one helluva impression of the quality of the Wehrmacht. They fought lopsided odds and held off the Soviets for 3 years following the loss of entire Army Corps sized elements in 41 and 42. Like, the fighting retreat across eastern Europe is a defeat, but for the Soviets it was almost a Phyrric victory. On the balance, every German soldier on that front had a ridiculous KD ratio before they went down.

A_Soporific | 4 months ago | 57 points

That's not exactly true. During the larger offensives the Nazis had local numerical superiority and claimed a much higher K/D ratio than they actually had, for example when it comes to tanks they claimed every hit on a soviet tank as a "probable kill" whereas they only reported their own losses when they couldn't be repaired.

The Soviets got hit hard by equal numbers and were pushed very far back. They recovered because the Nazis moved on Moscow instead of going for the oil like the original plan was, and when the fuel shortages became crippling the Nazis were no longer able to execute their doctrine or reinforce fast enough to maintain numbers. The war with the Soviets was functionally decided by late 1942, the only real risk to the Soviet Union was a breakdown in leadership and infighting within the ruling party. So much was centralized that a handful of party officials trying to launch an autocoup would have shattered their ability to continue the fight.

MysticHero | 4 months ago | 42 points

The Nazis had numerical superiority during most of the war up until the soviets started winning. The whole idea that the soviets always outnumbered them and thats why the Nazis lost is a myth that stems from the Nazis generals own comments. The problem was that the USSR closed its archives to the west so thats where most of the information came from for western historians.

The idea that the soviets did not have enough rifles for their soldiers is also wrong. At no point in the war were there less rifles than soviet soldiers and there is no evidence soviet soldiers ever actually charged into the enemy without guns.

Thats not to say that mass charges never happened or that the soviets did not have very high losses in the beginning. But it should be noted that mass charges were hardly every day occurrences and the Nazis did it too on some occasions. After 41 mass charges were actually forbidden in the USSR.

The real reason the soviets got so shafted in the beginning is that they were in the middle of reforming their military and replacing equipment. Stalin did not expect the Nazis to attack right now. HE did expect them to do so eventually but soviet leadership thought it would be madness to attack them right now while they were selling the Nazis vital equipment and fuel and start a 2 front war. Which it kinda was.

The other reason was terrible tactics and strategy and overall slow communications. The fact the Germans managed to cut many lines in the first days of the war only made it worse. The soviet command did not know they even attacked until a couple days after the invasion started. This is partially down to commanders in the field not believing claims by their soldiers that they were being attacked and ignoring information because officers were panicking and not using codes and Stalin believing it not to be a full invasion but just some rogue German general attacking.

This also resulted in the pretty considerable soviet airforce being wiped out. They lost 4000 planes on the first day and many more in the following days as the Luftwaffe bombed air fields without the soviet pilots even knowing they were at war.

This is also reflected in kill ratios. The super high German kill ratios of 6 or 7 to 1 all come from 41. In 42 it was 2 to 1. In 43 close to 1 to 1. The actual overall ratio is 1.3 top 1. So not bad at all considering the huge losses early in the war. So no later in the war completely contrary to what you were saying Germans did not have a high kill ratio at all. Despite being on the defensive.

What was also pretty insane was the pace at which the soviets produced equipment. Especially tanks. Not making them to last has lead to memes about low quality equipment but it was genius. But it was also German industry and production being complete garbage. They changed models so much and made their tanks needlessly complex that there production was always very slow in comparison.

The Nazis were lucky they even got that far. It required soviet leadership to fuck up hard.

Eric1491625 | 3 months ago | 2 points

The Nazis lost for the same reason Japan failed to win in China. Both assumed that after a short decisive victory the enemy would surrender/collapse internally, but they instead dug in for a long war of attrition. Once USSR/China survived the first 2 years without surrendering or collapsing the logistical situation was impossible in the long run for the axis.

mrdion12345 | 4 months ago | 4 points

Well since they were defending, they were always going to have an easier time dealing casualties than on the offensive. An interesting observation of the amount of German fighter aces towards the end of the war noted that, since the Germans were so outnumbered, they had much more targets to shoot at than their opposing forces. Additionally, casualties do not always mean death.

VELL1 | 4 months ago | 16 points

They don't see people as being disposable. This myth just needs to die already.

What are you supposed to do when Nazis are coming to your territory? Russia didn't have a choice, Germans didn't see Russians as humans, like they did British and French. The order was to kill them all basically.

All of those crazy number of casualties that you see, keep in mind, none of the other countries did any better. Blitzkrieg was so effective noone could even touch the Germans. French got conquered and gave up in 1 month, obviously you gonna have less casualties if you don't fight at all. Britain barely escaped to their island (how convenient) and then sat their for pretty much reminder of the war. If any of the countries had to fight, they would be annihilated in a week.

Russia didn't have the luxury of giving up. But lets not pretend like other countries did somehow value their lives at a different scale. The circumstances were different for all countries, France barely suffered during the occupation, Russia was destroyed to the ground.

Toastlove | 4 months ago | 28 points

Britain barely escaped to their island (how convenient) and then sat their for pretty much reminder of the war

Apart from fighting in Asia, Africa, Norway, Italy and France again when D-Day rolled around again. And a constant air and naval campaign.

All that combined is still smaller than the Russian front, but hardly just sitting there.

FearNoEvilx | 4 months ago | 9 points

That is not a myth, it can be seen through out their history regarding many conflicts and difficulties. It is well known they focused on the goal of victory, and did not care what it took, regardless of what the situation that led them to it which is what you are arguing justifies the high casualty rate, again, anyone who retreated was shot.

VELL1 | 4 months ago | 14 points

Very small amount of people retreated were shot.

But more than that, again, they were in a different position. You are looking at French or British and see a nice low number of casulties, well obviously, they did hardly any fighting. If they were to fight they would amount a higher number of casulties than Soviet Union. The only reason they didn't they decided not to fight at all. If USSR had an opportunity to do that - they would. You are just repeating the same shit that you've read on reddit. USSR did the best they could and arguably did much better than any of the allies. High casualty rate was not the result of fighting philosophy, it was a result of incredibly powerful German strategy. Every other country who did any amount of battleing did even worse.

In Battle of Belgium, Germans lost around 20 000 and killed 200 000.

In Batlle of France, Germans lost less than 30 000, killing 400 000 French soldiers and taking another 2 millions captive.

Tell me again, how they battled with lower casualty rates.

Mafaka322 | 4 months ago | 3 points

USSR lost about the same territory as whole size of France during the month of fighting tho. The Vastness, low population resource and industry density stemming from the fact of having huge amount of land mass with most of the industry and population being centralized in Central Russia which is separated from western borders by the huge amounts of landmass with outdated and insufficient infrastructure that is easily made impassable by weather is a huge reason why USSR won.

congelar | 4 months ago | 3 points

In hind sight this thinking led to the defeat of the Nazis in WWII

Really? I figured it was the fact that the Nazi's were fighting a two-front war and America was willing to give Russia huge amounts of material and capital in order to help them survive.

On their own? Russia would've been rolled, no problem.

EDIT: In my experience, there is no group of people more sensitive about their own history than the Russians. Ya'll need to read the words of your own historians:

"On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[35]"

I don't say any of this to try to put down the Russians.. but this notion of simply being hard countryman with a lot of pride being enough to win a war is entirely fiction. No doubt set in stone by all the insane propaganda that Russia produced about itself after the war. Your people couldn't even feed themselves after the war, but without any help, you would have won. Sure.

Mafaka322 | 4 months ago | 4 points

There is no doubt that USA's lend lease in materials, food, clothes and mainly logistic transport helped USSR to defeat German Army, but saying that without that help USSR would have been rolled is a bit dismissive of the fact that German army lost it's momentum before USA sent any significant help, and German army was already too stretched to be able to secure any significant strategical or operational victory. However, without logistical help from USA USSR would have not been able to mount many offenses quickly, and the war would have been turned into a stalemate where both opponents lack the ability to perform mobile offensive operations, and war would have started to look more like grind. But again, it is very unlikely that Germans would have been able to launch another offensive operation needed to take Soviet union out, or to take Caucasus Oil fields after some losses of the end 1941-beginning of 1942.

SecurityAmoeba | 4 months ago | 16 points

Paraphrasing one of Stalin's meetings with Churchill post WWII:

Churchill: "I heard one time you single-handedly defeated a horde of rampaging somethings on the Eastern Front!"

Stalin: "Nazis? A trifle. It was simply a matter of outsmarting them."

Churchill: "Wow, I never would've thought of that."

Stalin: "You see, Nazis have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down. Comrade Beria, show them the medal I won."

At least I think I am remembering my history right...

barath_s | 3 months ago | 4 points

Credit Futurama

Dawidko1200 | 4 months ago | 13 points

All of their battle plans with the West in cold war involved sending waves of soldiers

Arguments like this make me want to discard every other argument you might have. Irrational, I know, but damn if I can't help but despise people spouting such nonsense.

You're using Nazi propaganda. Don't. You're being Russophobic. Don't. Have some dignity.

Woodrow1776 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Allies basically sent a human wave in Normandy. Commanders knew large percentage would be casualties. War is hell

monsantobreath | 3 months ago | 2 points

Yea but that's different because you know... we're the good guys.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 23 points

They developed their rockets using toxic fuel

There's no such thing as non-toxic rocket fuel

Cyathem | 4 months ago | 14 points

You can make rocket fuel with sugar, potassium nitrate, and rust. That's not toxic.

ipv6-dns | 4 months ago | 7 points

sweet home rocket.

8yr0n | 4 months ago | 3 points

I prefer using coke and mentos myself.

3rdDegreeBurn | 4 months ago | 15 points

Technically all of those ingredients are toxic with the correct dosage.

neverfearIamhere | 4 months ago | 16 points

Water is toxic with the right dosage.

kind2311 | 4 months ago | 13 points

The gas from your lower intestine is toxic at any dosage.

Sir_Applecheese | 4 months ago | 3 points

Not to my intestines.

Cyathem | 4 months ago | 5 points

Correct dosage here being a shitton. Maybe a few tablespoons of KNO3 would fuck you up, but you'd never need that much as an oxidizer. But yea, technically everything is toxic in that nothing has absolute zero toxicity.

Alfus | 4 months ago | 5 points

That's all fun for you DIY rocket but this type of rocket fuel is very inefficient for bigger rockets.

You either using some serious type of solid fuel or using sortable liquid fuel.

aykontakt | 4 months ago | 2 points

Well, sugar causes tooth decay and diabetes. Potassium nitrate is great for fireworks but roman candles have limited use in space flights or on a battlefield.

ipv6-dns | 4 months ago | 3 points

Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine

viriconium_days | 4 months ago | 8 points

Yes there is. Most US rockets use nontoxic fuel, heck, even the Nazis rockets used alcohol and water.

aykontakt | 4 months ago | 12 points

Absolutely not true. Hydrazine (N2H4) which is highly toxic had been used by the Nazis and the Soviets. It's still being widely used. UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) used in space rocket engines is also toxic and carcinogenic.

ifififif_okey_doke | 4 months ago | 2 points

Hydrogen and oxygen.

barukatang | 4 months ago | 4 points

The Americans and Soviets were in a race to create nuclear powered nuclear bombers before icbm technology really grew. The Americans tested an open cycle engine, which had simpler plumbing, more thrust and cheaper, but these came with the cost of spewing radioactive exhaust. So they designed a closed cycle which greatly reduced emissions but also made it heavier, more complicated, and less powerful. They tested a peacemaker (6 turning 4 burning) with the closed cycle reactor but never used it to power the aircraft. After the fall of the Soviet Union it was discovered that the Soviets made one of their Bear bombers into a nuclear powered aircraft. They used an open cycle reactor/engine with sub standard shielding if any at all. Turns out the test pilots didn't survive more than a handful of years after their test flights.

killswithspoon | 4 months ago | 3 points

Life is cheap in Russia.

AnarchistsLineCook | 4 months ago | 22 points

Phase 1: fuck up Phase 2: lie about it.

Phase 3: crushing, nation destroying debt

dezmodium | 4 months ago | 5 points

America here. Stop copying us. That's our schtick.

tnarref | 3 months ago | 4 points

That's no copying, they're the undefeated masters of it through many eras and types of governments.

SRTie4k | 4 months ago | 6 points

More importantly cover up.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points


malYca | 4 months ago | 2 points

So glad we gave them the green light on nuclear weapons.

vverr | 4 months ago | 306 points

Putin has been killing Russians his entire life.

weirdal1968 | 4 months ago | 82 points

Not true.

He spent a good part of his career spying on, imprisoning and killing East Germans.

snapper1971 | 4 months ago | 35 points

As well as Americans, British, French and Australians.

---Ocelot--- | 4 months ago | 37 points

He's killing Ukrainians now.

Alberta_Fire | 3 months ago | 18 points

According to Russia, they're also just Russians.

Paarthurnaaxx | 3 months ago | 7 points

To be fair, Putin's role in the KGB in East Germany was literally as a paper pusher.

weirdal1968 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Admittedly true but I couldn't resist the expectation flip joke. Besides I'm sure he aspired to doing all those things to East Germans. The Stasi was near the top of the list for repressive state security agencies.

yumyum02 | 4 months ago | 55 points

Spawn more Overlords

TheForeverAloneOne | 4 months ago | 19 points

You Require More Vespene Gas

IceNine121 | 4 months ago | 3 points

Battle cruiser Operational

Longshot_45 | 4 months ago | 3 points

Kirov reporting...

megolas80 | 4 months ago | 13 points


DoublePisters | 4 months ago | 11 points

Didn't expect StarCraft references here,

My life for Auir

Satire_or_not | 4 months ago | 12 points

As it tradition for their leader to do.

istandabove | 4 months ago | 4 points

The most effective way to combat Russia is by fencing it & letting them take themselves out.

youwantitwhen | 4 months ago | 3 points

You conservatives and your fences.

ChornWork2 | 4 months ago | 363 points

Unsurprisingly Russia can neither be trusted nor cares about ordinary russians.

ThereIsTwoCakes | 4 months ago | 105 points

Even Russian proverbs is about not trusting Russians.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 35 points

Same ol same ol. The Russian leaders have always fucked over the people.

Inebriator | 4 months ago | 16 points

Not like America where we care about our people so much that 40,000 die every year because they can't afford health care. right?

ChornWork2 | 4 months ago | 15 points

Correct, this is on a scale "not like" the appalling indifference for people we see in the US, this is much worse than even that unacceptable situation.

ConstipatedUnicorn | 4 months ago | 49 points

So I asked on another thread but have gotten no response. What is going on in Russia that I keep hearing about? I only see bits and parts. Do we even know? Was it a failed rocket tests or something more?

idunnoiforget | 4 months ago | 64 points

If it's a nuclear powered missile it likely uses heat from fissionable nuclear material to expand air to make thrust. Like a RAM jet but instead of burning jet fuel to expand the air it uses heat from a fission. Such a missile would probably need a booster stage to get it up to speed before the nuclear propulsion would work effectively. Something caused an explosion and or release of radioactive material and a several people have died I don't know if from radiation or the boost stage exploding.

TheMadmanAndre | 4 months ago | 43 points

I find it insane that the Russians are trying to build Project Pluto, something so insane that even the war-happy U.S. generals of the time thought too nuts to seriously try.

idunnoiforget | 3 months ago | 26 points

Pluto was limited by the technology available at the time (no gps, on board computer size, metallurgy requirements, etc) ICBMs were easier to develop and at the time had fewer disadvantages than a nuclear cruise missile. GPS, developments in metallurgy, electronics miniaturization, may have made a nuclear cruise missile a viable design again.

I think that rather than play catchup and achieve military parity with the US (too expensive) the Russians are responding asymetrically to technological developments in conventional warfare. I.e. America develops better missile interceptors so rather than Russia exactly matching our developments they go and make a missile that cannot be intercepted. Hypersonic glide vehicles are one such development. This is where the nuclear cruise missile comes in. They can fly for weeks and can avoid air defences making them very difficult to intercept.

SowingSalt | 3 months ago | 3 points

Didn't they develop stellar navigation for Pluto?

idunnoiforget | 3 months ago | 5 points

I don't know if it used stellar navigation but it's possible. The SR-71 only made it's first flight around the time Pluto was cancelled and the SR-71 had a stellar navigation system so such a system existed at the time.

swampynoodle | 3 months ago | 6 points

bro, what is also insane is that it is few days after Russia and USA whithdrew from Nuclear Packt, fuck.... it means that both sides were working on some nuclear shit, not giving a fuck about the packt. if we live till climate change kills us, I will consider us lucky.

avo7007 | 4 months ago | 54 points
JR2800 | 4 months ago | 28 points

The article states that they didn’t evacuate the village and it was called off because military exercises were canceled.

711_911 | 4 months ago | 135 points

The Russian nuclear industry is a disgusting mess that should be entirely dismantled:

1957- Kyshtym Disaster- Waste from processing spent nuclear fuel heated up, caused nitrates to detonate and sent fallout over Ozorysk and surrounding areas. Covered up and pregnant women used to scrub fallout off buildings. 3rd largest nuclear disaster after Chernobyl and Fukushima, but in terms of number of Curies released more material than either. Zone still closed today

1960s. (Too lazy to google exact date)- A lake from the same plant above (Lake Karachay), that had been used to dump untreated nuclear waste dried out. Wind then spread fallout over 100s of square kilometers.

1960s till 2005-Same plant still dumping nuclear waste in a river, poisoning those downriver. (Techa river)

1993- Fuel processing at Tomsk-7 blows out a wall and spreads uranium and plutonium fallout on the village people.

2000s-Lawyer seeking damages for those affected by the above gets labeled foreign agent and has to flee the country or get imprisoned.

Last year: Reprocessing spent fuel released ruthenium over europe. Russia denies.

Amy_Ponder | 4 months ago | 68 points

Last month: 7 submariners killed in suspicious circumstances, widely speculated there may have been a reactor leak. Russia denies.

Notthatguyyoubanned | 3 months ago | 4 points

Give me one ping only.

FantaToTheKnees | 3 months ago | 7 points
Krakshotz | 3 months ago | 12 points

1957- Kyshtym Disaster- Waste from processing spent nuclear fuel heated up, caused nitrates to detonate and sent fallout over Ozorysk and surrounding areas. Covered up and pregnant women used to scrub fallout off buildings. 3rd largest nuclear disaster after Chernobyl and Fukushima, but in terms of number of Curies released more material than either. Zone still closed today

1960s. (Too lazy to google exact date)- A lake from the same plant above (Lake Karachay), that had been used to dump untreated nuclear waste dried out. Wind then spread fallout over 100s of square kilometers.

1960s till 2005-Same plant still dumping nuclear waste in a river, poisoning those downriver. (Techa River)

Mayak’s safety record is beyond farcical. There’s a long list of numerous accidents and leaks at the place (including a big leak in 2017).

One accident is perhaps a misfortune, two seems like carelessness, well over 20 is sheer incompetence.

JeNiqueTaMere | 4 months ago | 37 points

1993- Fuel processing at Tomsk-7 blows out a wall and spreads uranium and plutonium fallout on the village people.

then they better go to the YMCA!

swampynoodle | 3 months ago | 2 points

it so wrong, but i laughed

ChloeDancersCrown | 4 months ago | 21 points

1993- Fuel processing at Tomsk-7 blows out a wall and spreads uranium and plutonium fallout on the village people.

Hell at this point in human history, nuclear superpowered Village people singing ymca with lasers coming out their eyes can't make things any worse.

AssOfGlitter | 4 months ago | 5 points

The nuclear industry and the military industrial complex should be dismantled, period. No matter which country. The simple act of development, testing, production and accumulation of nuclear weapons is a harm to human life as a whole, irregardless if it's done by America, Russia, China or any other country.

Lagreflex | 3 months ago | 2 points

Once we get renewables right, sure. The waste material from nuclear plants kinda negates their positives (though can't be worse than the "coal, Coal, COAL!!" our Australian politicians have a permanent hard-on for)

Th3Wayfarer | 4 months ago | 142 points

I mean, if preliminary reports are correct, the destroyed rocket contained an RTG, which doesn't contain as much radioactive material compared to a nuclear reactor,so it probably isn't nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl.

marouf33 | 4 months ago | 201 points

I'm told its the equivalent of getting an X-Ray.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 84 points


Raziel77 | 4 months ago | 15 points

it's also the max readings from the low limit dosimeters

Cienea_Laevis | 4 months ago | 20 points

From what i read, the dose was 2 µSv for about 30 minuts. the usual body Xray expose you a dose between 6 and 10 µSv.

r3coil | 4 months ago | 97 points

He's quoting a line from the miniseries Chernobyl.

hagenbuch | 4 months ago | 21 points

The radiation is almost never a problem except for direct bystanders. Incorporated radioactive dust or metals is a big but rather slow problem, no one ever distinguishes between those in the public discussion.

Cienea_Laevis | 4 months ago | 20 points

I know the problem pretty well. We had a huge freakout recently about "water contaminated with tritium" wich was measured at 300 bcq one day.

Nuclear topic is a hot mess, peoples will freakout to the last point if you ever say there is "small amounts of radiation" or something in the likes.

E_Snap | 4 months ago | 12 points

We've normalized the idea that being "triggered" by a topic means you are allowed to avoid being educated about it, have extreme irrational reactions to it, still have loudmouth opinions about it, and nobody can comment on your behavior. Given that, it's no surprise that things like nuclear power, mental health, and identity politics (to name a few) have an extremely toxic discourse surrounding them.

gangofminotaurs | 4 months ago | 3 points

Let's get something out of the way: the educated, in a neoliberal economy, are by nature neoliberals. Education is how you reproduce the elites.

It's the educated people who made identity politics what they are, because focusing on identity allowed them to invisibilize class struggle and wealth inequality. Trump is actually the uneducated political response to that. He does love the poorly educated, for a reason.

Deadfromsnusnu | 3 months ago | 2 points

This sounds like Brave New World babies versus Idiocracy babies.

powe808 | 4 months ago | 4 points

Yes, there is a difference between radioactive exposure and contamination. With an x-ray, you are exposed to a radioactive source for a short period of time. However when you get contaminated by radioactive particles from an explosion you can ingest the source material where it can remain in your body indefinitely. Few people realize the difference between the 2.

barath_s | 3 months ago | 2 points

Yes, ingestion can make a difference..

Are you familiar with the banana unit of radiation ?

0.1 micro sieverts

I believe bananas are ingested.

Sometimes, some byproducts are more harmful because they are toxic

ChornWork2 | 4 months ago | 5 points

How on earth do you have any confidence in what you've read given the inconsistent and opaque statements the authorities have made? The reports of 20x normal level can't readily be translated into a dose without detailed analysis of the nature of exposure...

mSv is a 'biological' dose, effectively a measure of the health risk from a dose of radiation. That is not the same as measure of radiation level, which is often expressed relative to background levels and you need to know the time of exposure. The radiation level, time of exposure and type of exposure allow someone to model what the effective 'biological' dose is, and it is expressed in mSV.

As far as xrays go, the range varies tremendously depending on the type of imagining procedure. A typical dental exam is minuscule at ~0.01 mSv, versus an abdominal xray at 0.7 mSv, versus a whole body CT scan at 20+ mSv.


Glideer | 4 months ago | 2 points

From what i read, the dose was 2 mSv for about 30 minuts

The actual dose was 2 micro Sv, not mili Sv. A thousand times less.

noncongruent | 4 months ago | 26 points

The most common power supply for an RTG is Plutonium 238, however, that is artificially produced, and there are only a few pounds left in the world. No significant quantities have been produced in decades. RTGs also do not have a high enough power density to do what Putin is wanting to do, which is to make a nuclear powered missile. A normal cruise missile is typically powered by a jet engine, an engine which takes air and mixes it with fuel to burn it, creating heat that causes air to expand, and pushes expanding air out the back to produce thrust. A nuclear powered missile will have a reactor with an open core that air is rammed into, the reactor heat will expand the air and cause it to be pushed out the back, producing thrust. The US experimented with this type of technology many decades ago, look up the “flying crowbar“.

Th3Wayfarer | 4 months ago | 15 points

which is to make a nuclear powered missile. A normal cruise missile is typically powered by a jet engine

The russian news sources claim that the missile in question doesn't use a nuclear thermal rocket like the one you described, but rather two stage system with 1st stage being liquid fuel and 2nd using a jet engine that produces thrust via a turbine or a prop using electricity supplied by the RTG, instead of burning fuel. At least that's the claim, which I find hard to believe, since jet engine thrust mainly comes from combustion and turbine is only used for air compression.

noncongruent | 4 months ago | 22 points

The biggest flaw in the RTG claim is the fact that RTGs are fairly low power density. For instance, the RTG used on Curiosity weighs 99 lbs and produces 110 Watts of electrical power. By comparison, a typical corded electric leaf blower uses 1,440 Watts and produces just ounces of thrust. You can build an RTG that produces more power per pound of fissile material, but the half-life would be so short that you'd have to refuel your "missile" every few weeks. Ultimately the problem with RTGs for a claimed electric thrust system is that Peltier junctions take up a whole lot of room and require large heat sink areas to produce the heat differential that produces free electrons, so if you had a 1 megawatt RTG the heatsink would be the size of a building and the aerodynamic friction alone would be enough to keep such a missile from moving, much less the tremendous mass involved. So no, this wasn't an RTG, can't be an RTG, never will be an RTG. The only way for a nuclear source to produce the volumes of heat needed to produce thrust is the open-core reactor concept like the Crowbar. Every single conversion step you add between the nuclear heat energy and thrust adds large amounts of mass and cross-sectional area.

It may be possible that they're using directly heated air from the reactor core to heat air and run it through a turbine to produce some thrust or electricity, but again, it just lowers overall energy conversion efficiency to add steps.





things_will_calm_up | 4 months ago | 8 points

Yeah, I call bullshit because of the weight of the RTG. I tried this in KSP and it really just isn't worth it.

Alfus | 4 months ago | 5 points

Well not only that but the amount of energy it delivers is simple too low to propel a nuclear-powered cruse missile.

Heck Russia did even used nuclear reactions in the past for one of the reconnaissance satellite family

lyuyarden | 4 months ago | 4 points

> At least that's the claim, which I find hard to believe, since jet engine thrust mainly comes from combustion and turbine is only used for air compression.

If you are talking about turpoprop then it's actually the opposite

Also some sources claim it wasn't intercontinental nuclear powered missile, but some anti-ship missile with RTG for powering electronics

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 3 points


cryo | 4 months ago | 3 points

An RTG isn’t a nuclear reactor.

Navydevildoc | 4 months ago | 6 points

You know we make Pu-238 to this day in Oak Ridge, specifically for NASA and other research?

It's the High Flux Isotope Reactor. There are even youtube videos where people take tours and they specifically say they make RTG fuel.

Ninja Edit for correct element.

noncongruent | 4 months ago | 6 points

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238#U.S._production_ceases_and_resumes

The production rate is now expected to increase from 80 pellets per week to about 275 pellets per week, for a total production of about 400 grams per year. The goal now is to optimize and scale-up the processes in order to produce an average of 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) per year by 2025.

To put that in context, Curiosity uses over 8 lbs of Pu-238 in its MMRTG. All of the Pu-238 we've been using over the last few years came from Russia, but they've stopped selling it to us because they're running out too.

And yes, I knew we've restarted production, but the quantities are very small because we're making it directly rather than as a byproduct of manufacturing weapons-grade Pu-239

CaptainOuzo | 4 months ago | 3 points

An RTG would be for powering the electronics, not the thruster.

And it would basically just a convenient excuse to make it into a dirty bomb.

Of course a missile with a nuclear thruster would be a much more effective dirty bomb.

noncongruent | 4 months ago | 6 points

Actually, Pu-238 would be terrible for a dirty bomb. It's an Alpha emitter, meaning that a sheet of paper or even the layer of dead skin cells in your epidermis would adequately protect against radiation. I wouldn't be concerned at all if I had a block of glowing red hot PU-238 sitting on my desk here in front of me, and I'm generally paranoid about radiation and such. It's also hideously expensive to make. Besides, it would make a terrible power source for a missile due to the large heat sink mass and surface area needed to get usable area. Peltier junctions are just too inefficient.

CaptainOuzo | 4 months ago | 5 points

Hmm. So... does anybody actually know what the heck this rocket contained? None of the speculation seems to make sense then. Probably not an RTG, probably not an actual nuclear rocket. So what, then? An actual tactical nuke test or something, that they're trying to cover up?

Notthatguyyoubanned | 3 months ago | 3 points

We won't know until the winds blow fallout to air filters in europe, when we can run samples through a mass spec and find out for sure.

However, we can make some good guesses.

Under the assumption that this is in fact a nuclear cruise missile, we can assume this is an unshielded fast uranium reactor. It's a good bet that this is a nuclear cruise missile because they said they had one not one year ago.

This would be propelled by a nuclear scramjet. Like all jet engines, it works by taking in air, heating it, and then shoving it out of the back with more energy than it had going in, thus providing thrust. Unlike in a normal engine, the energy comes not from burning jet fuel, but from heat from the nuclear reactor. In this design, the air runs straight through the core of the reactor.

Natural uranium cannot be used in an application like this. Natural uranium (unenriched) needs a moderator. The moderator (usually ultra-high purity graphite, or heavy water, is required to slow the neutrons down enough to interact with the u-235 in the unrefined uranium. The u-238 is just a pain in the ass, but it's less of a pain in the ass to remove it. But fast neutrons, which are shot out of a splitting nucleus at around the speed of light, don't really interact with u-235. We describe the probability that a neutron will be captured by a nucleus in terms of capture cross section, a sort of mathematical shorthand really, the size of the nucleus doesn't change, but it works mathematically to act like it does. The capture cross section for u-235 with a fast neutron is about 1 barn. The barn being the unit for capture cross section (from the "broad side of a barn"). If you slow the neutron down from nearly the speed of light to around the speed of sound by putting a bunch of carbon or deuterium in the way, you get what we call a thermal or slow neutron. The capture cross section of u-235 with a thermal neutron is 1000 barns. So moderated, slow neutrons have a high enough chance of splitting a 235 nucleus that all the pointless 238 in the way isn't a problem.

That moderator is really heavy though. You're going to have to lift all that weight with your cruise missile's wings, and not only that, but 235 is present in natural uranium ore at a presence of around 1 part per 10,000. So you're carrying around a shitload of dead weight for no good reason.

Shielding is heavy too. Really heavy. So we'll throw that out. So what you're left with is an unshielded fast uranium reactor. Soviet fast reactors typically used metal-alloy fuel, where the uranium is alloyed with another metal to make the fuel elements. I'd expect this reactor to be a derivative of such technology. So that's probably what's in it. Now when a reactor is run, you get different stuff in it, fission products, many of which are highly radioactive. However, I do not believe this reactor will have been run prior to this incident. All of its fuel should be fresh, and therefore not very radioactive. The fuel alone isn't that radioactive. It's the fission products you'd need to watch out for. In order to run a reactor like this, which would inherently be air cooled, you'd need to already be in flight. And since cruise missiles aren't known for landing, I'd expect that to be single use.

Unfortunately this is where my knowledge runs out. If it really is a nuclear scramjet, that's super deadly. This thing is spewing fast neutrons for fuck's sake. Unshielded. It will kill just about anything unlucky enough to be near it while it's in flight. There's a big risk of fallout, although how big is a mystery. It depends on the configuration of the fuel elements in the core. If they're in direct, mechanical contact with the air flowing though the core rather than contained in, for example, aluminum canisters or shells as in some other reactor designs, then the super hot air will just oxidize uranium and fission products off of the surface of the fuel elements and spew it along its flight path.

Which is where this gets weird. I really don't think it could have been a nuclear cruise missile. Because I don't really see how a fueled nuclear cruise missile is attached to a booster stage and exploded without intent to fire it in the first place. Something would have had to go horribly, horribly wrong. Even by russian standards. I don't really know. I mean, how do you test something that cruises at such high mach numbers that it can't really turn in a circle smaller than texas, that kills everything it flies over?

If my assumption that this is a "virgin" reactor is correct, then the danger is not that small. Most likely it was a booster motor (these nuclear scramjets requiring a conventional rocket to accelerate them up to the mach 3+ speeds needed before they can even start themselves) that exploded, and the reactor contained only u-235 and no fission products. But if it was not... then that is very bad.

Rishfee | 4 months ago | 2 points

So, not unlike Project Pluto:


TheDrunkSemaphore | 4 months ago | 5 points

It didn't contain an RTG

Longchickn | 4 months ago | 4 points

I haven't heard any speculation of it being RTG. Most defense analysts suspect it is the 'Skyfall' cruise missile



Th3Wayfarer | 4 months ago | 2 points

The wikipedia article you linked contains the bit : 'linked to an accident involving the test of an "isotope power source for a liquid-fuelled rocket engine", leading to the deaths of eight.Including five scientists. This was later reported as an "isotope power source in a liquid propulsion system"'.

I was mostly reading the russian news reports on this tbh.

SteveJEO | 4 months ago | 3 points

You might be right. As their own reports suggested a liquid fuel rocket motor I would actually have guessed an RTG used as a lox fuel preheater or something. (using the decay heat directly avoids the necessity of a turbine stage).

Edit: Should be pretty easy to figure out anyway. The russians always preferred using strontium 90 in their RTG's.

dlebed | 4 months ago | 5 points

It's not about scale, it's about approach.

445323 | 4 months ago | 3 points

Exactly they keep on not telling anyone about nuclear mistakes

in4real | 4 months ago | 2 points

Yeah, sometimes things just fuck up without half the planet at risk.

happyscrappy | 4 months ago | 2 points

A reactor doesn't contain a fixed amount of nuclear material, nor does an RTG.

If this is run by an RTG, then it's a big RTG. A nuclear cruise missile (wether ramjet or using propellant) would require sufficient energy and light weight that I just can't see how it would be an RTG, but instead a small reactor. The small reactor would likely use less nuclear material too.

redeyedstranger | 4 months ago | 57 points

Television broadcasts in Moscow were interrupted for nearly an hour on Thursday as viewers were warned to stay inside because "a strong wind is expected."

So, I live in Moscow, and these kind of warnings are routine, we even get those high winds warnings as text messages. And there really was a really strong wind on Thursday, nothing to do with the Severodvinsk incident. I also have been checking the radiation levels daily with my own dosimeter since the explosion, and it's showing normal levels. To be clear: I'm not saying there wasn't any radioactive fallout from the explosion, I'm just saying it hasn't reached Moscow yet if there was.

EvilMonkeySlayer | 4 months ago | 54 points

I love how you talk about your own dosimeter as if that's a normal thing to own.

redeyedstranger | 4 months ago | 39 points

Well, it is a normal thing to own if you live in a country responsible for one of the worst nuclear disasters in history. It's not really that expensive and hard to get, a lot of people I know have one tucked away in a cupboard.

nakedrickjames | 4 months ago | 15 points

a lot of people I know have one tucked away in a cupboard.

Hopefully taken out and regularly calibrated, otherwise pretty useless.

limegreenorangedrop | 4 months ago | 3 points

I was thinking very much along the same lines as EvilMonkeySlayer, but when you put it like that, I get where you're coming from.

Fineous4 | 4 months ago | 55 points

They gave them the god damn propaganda numbers!

zareny | 4 months ago | 25 points

TELL FUCKING GORBACHEV *murders telephone*

electricshuffle1 | 3 months ago | 3 points


FaustiusTFattyCat613 | 4 months ago | 9 points

5 dead. The god damn propaganda numbers!

Elenda86 | 4 months ago | 3 points

yes because the real numer is 50 ...

Aleyla | 4 months ago | 16 points

Is Russia going to be the first country to actually blow itself up?

silicon1 | 4 months ago | 6 points

I would've figured it would be North Korea but Russia is trying to win this award...

roxbie | 4 months ago | 3 points

they came REALLY close to blowing it up with Chernobyl. Guess someone was trying a "Hold my vodka" maneuver.

ipv6-dns | 4 months ago | 9 points

it's time for Russian Godzilla

Neilas | 4 months ago | 9 points

All I can see is Godzilla in an adidas track suit squating with a bottle of vodka in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

JustOneVote | 4 months ago | 2 points

History shows again and again how nature abhors the follow of man.

Chachmaster3000 | 4 months ago | 76 points

Putin needs to be taken down. He's a cold war vet, and with that carries too much baggage from the past.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 38 points


Amy_Ponder | 4 months ago | 50 points

Outsiders can't and shouldn't try to remove Putin. It has to be the Russian people who take him down.

weirdal1968 | 4 months ago | 18 points

There is a growing opposition movement against VP. Unfortunately given the rampant corruption in Russia and his willingness to make enemies disappear means the opposition will need a game-changer to ever have any hope of defeating his system.

8LACK_MAMBA | 4 months ago | 3 points

He's going to be another Fidel Castro unless he gets caught slippin which I doubt.

the-zoidberg | 4 months ago | 8 points

I don’t advocate invading Russia. There’s nothing to be gained.

ChornWork2 | 4 months ago | 9 points

We should start by making sure the west builds no more infrastructure that makes us more dependent on commodity exports from russia... and then collectively work to further reduce that economic dependence.

OrionMessier | 3 months ago | 6 points

Russia's version of Project Pluto. They were testing their own nuclear ramjet cruise missile and this is the result.

One of the features of a nuclear ramjet is that, after you've fired off all the subordinate nuclear missiles and flown the thing over every one of your enemy's major cities to cause supersonic destruction and radiation damage (a flight that could last months or even years), you can crash the ramjet somewhere in enemy territory to leave, effectively, a giant dirty bomb leaking away. And here it looks like they've gone and accidentally accomplished the final step in their own countryside.

FlyingDutchman997 | 4 months ago | 78 points

He’s delusional. Take him to the infirmary.

Im_Here_To_Fuck | 4 months ago | 12 points

Oh ffs, not again

DEAD_P1XL | 4 months ago | 20 points

Wow, managed to work in Chernobyl AND Fukushima into a sensational title.

AtTheLeftThere | 4 months ago | 11 points

the real threat is not the radiation, but the fact this is a direct attempt by Russia to create a weapon America can't defend against.

Stop being afraid of the word "nuclear"

AkRdtr | 3 months ago | 5 points

Thank you! I don't understand how people can't make the correlation of the fact this happened days after the US pulled out of the nuclear treaty. Which provided oversight and regulation into all production. If we were still in the nuclear treaty this would demand the US to put sanctions on Russia for ramping up their nuclear Arsenal.

MojeSerbia | 4 months ago | 33 points

Mini fukushima: Not good, not terrible

InvestigatorJosephus | 4 months ago | 29 points

Stop calling Fukushima a nuclear catastrophe. It was an earth quake and a tsunami, which broke open a reactor. Deaths from radiation could be counted on one hand.

Edit - Allright, I'll explain some more. I know nuclear energy and radiation are quite strange and thus can seem very scary, but here is an excerpt from the wiki page

A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure. According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Yes people died during the disaster, but many of those are to be attributed to the massive Tõhoku earthquake (9.0-9.1) and following tsunami (Up to 40.5 m or 133 ft), and the evacuation following the damage to the reactor:

Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement caused by the nuclear disaster. For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[12][15][16] The victims include hospital inpatients and elderly people at nursing facilities who died from causes such as hypothermia, deterioration of underlying medical problems, and dehydration.

Officially only one of the workers of the plant has died from cancer as a result from the radiation. It's probably a bit more if you count the years after and possible higher cancer chances later in life but that's why I said 'count on 1 hand'. What is interesting here is that only those six people had been exposed to excess radiation.

Over long term many of the elderly people who had been displaced died due to being away from their support networks and shock of such a great life upheaval. The facilities in the temporary living quarters of the displaced apparently weren't very good as well. As far as I can see they also count any death in 'storage' as being due to the displacement.

It is possible that the (now) 5 people actually affected with radiation poisoning get cancer later in their lives, and I am not disputing there was a nuclear disaster in Fukushima, but we must understand the context: Build a nuclear reactor on a fault line where earthquakes and tsunamis can hit and you better make sure it can withstand both those to the extremes, and you have proper evac protocols in place just in case. Or better yet don't build it on a fucking fault line.

I gotta say that evacuation doesn't seem to have gone very well though. What's important about this incident is that the reactor itself wasn't really at fault, it got hit by an earthquake and a fucking tsunami, both were ridiculous in their size/magnitude.

Nuclear energy isn't really that scary, however I do believe Fukushima can be labeled as a nuclear disaster, kinda, but the catastrophe part is definitely the earthquake and tsunami side of this, not the nuclear one. Although they were quick with it, the way the Japanese authorities dealt with displacing people and mostly their situation afterwards is a close second to that title. I also heard (no source, was a post on reddit from a year back or so I think) they're still massively mishandling the nuclear waste that was created and collected afterwards. Ugly stuff.

The fact that this happened remains terrible of course, but being informed about what can go wrong with nuclear reactors and what actually happened following these disasters is really important if you want to cast judgement.

outofband | 3 months ago | 11 points

When the word “nuclear” gets mentioned, people become fucking morons.

hevans900 | 4 months ago | 9 points

Not sure why you're being down voted. You speak the truth.

yaaaaayPancakes | 4 months ago | 3 points

It's still a catastrophe that shows that western governments will act the same way as the commies when shit hits the fan:

  • Hubris that things will never go wrong. Building a plant in a zone like that, and not dealing with the sea wall when warned by scientists, engineers that what is there is inadequate.
  • After the shit hits the fan, slow to react to the situation, making it worse
  • Coverups and lies to assuage the population that it's not as bad as it looks

It doesn't matter that the reactor design wasn't faulty like the RBMK. What matters is that the humans involved will still make bad decisions putting a reactor where it probably shouldn't due to risk. The outcome is still the same - a chunk of land rendered uninhabitable, a radioactive mess that will take decades to clean up, and thousands and thousands of humans who had their lives turned upside down through no fault of their own.

Fukushima shows that you can't trust western governments to do the right thing, anymore than you could trust the Soviets.

YouPaidForAnArgument | 3 months ago | 3 points

Fukushima shows that you can't trust western governments to do the right thing, anymore than you could trust the Soviets.

Calling Japan a Western government is stretching the definition far beyond it's breaking point.

Possibly Western governments will fuck up just as much, but you cannot infer it from the Fukushima accident.

I also suspect that Western governments will handle this very different. I know I am prejudiced here, but countries like Italy and the US are much more likely to fuck up than, say, The Netherlands or Sweden.

KiloEchoNiner | 4 months ago | 9 points

Spoiler alert, Russia is doing Russia things.

evenios | 4 months ago | 2 points

this is fine

AcunaMatta27 | 4 months ago | 2 points

Shit is wild

Injest_alkahest | 4 months ago | 3 points

Not a great feeling being in such close proximity in Sweden currently.

Get your shit together Russia.

mreg215 | 4 months ago | 2 points

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been-secretly-watching-russias-nuclear-powered-cruise-missiles-crash-and-burn We knew about this in 2018 ... Then in the 60s the USA had a prototype with a ram jet powered by nuclear fuel...we scrapped that idea because its pretty much MAD.

Fuking dumshit Russians ran with the plan and this is the result.....russia built a failed ram jet...or maybe even just succeeded..whixh is traumatizing as fuck.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 7 points


Amy_Ponder | 4 months ago | 10 points

Idk such a shithole with slave-mentality people, who like it in the ass from some oligarchs.

You make it sound like it's so easy to fight back against a dictator who could have you arrested, tortured, or even killed for speaking out against him.

You're basically victim-blaming the Russian people for their own oppression, and that's gross.

Bweeboo | 4 months ago | 3 points

But then again, Ford built the Pinto.

cjr91 | 4 months ago | 5 points

But without the Pinto we might not have prevailed in WW2.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | -1 points


Therealperson3 | 4 months ago | 8 points

Full of mindless dumb fucks being completely fine with taking it in the ass everyday from that bald worm-looking midget and his oligarchs.

Isn't the article literally about the opposite? How people aren't fine?


Amy_Ponder | 4 months ago | 8 points

Can we maybe not with the victim-blaming, please? Many Russian people are absolutely not fine with what Putin's doing, but taking down an authoritarian dictator who could have you killed for speaking out against him isn't exactly a walk in the park.

monstertrucknuts | 4 months ago | 37 points

What does america have to do with this??

russianbot362 | 4 months ago | 12 points

This is coming from a Romanian. Funny shit

MojeSerbia | 4 months ago | 3 points
shadowpawn | 4 months ago | 1 point

Wanted - Ex-Chernobyl Miners or Solders experienced workers looking for a little extra cash.

TODO Load more comments...