Putin’s War Isn’t Setting the World on Fire
While it is correct that an enormously high temperature under the right conditions could potentially set off a chain reaction that would light the atmosphere on fire, calculations had shown that these temperatures and conditions are simply unattainable by a nuclear bomb or a nuclear disaster involving the atomic reactor in a nuclear power plant.
Putin seems to be playing with fire by conducting bombing runs and continuous artillery attacks dangerously close to the largest nuclear power facility in Europe.
There are six nuclear reactors at the site. Nuclear power plants are not designed or constructed to exist in the middle of a war zone…
It is unlikely that he will set the world on fire, despite his apparent desire to do so…
The largest atomic bomb ever detonated was the Soviet Union’s 1961 behemoth, ‘Tsar Bomba’. It was powerful enough to shatter windows more than 500 miles away, farther than Washington, D.C. is from Detroit. It was 1,500 times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined. Its glowing fireball looked like a miniature sun rising above the horizon.
‘Tsar Bomba’ did not set the world on fire…
Putin’s war won’t either…
09/08/2022 @ 12:53 pm
Radiation doesn’t look like it would hit any NATO countries. That might trigger a bigger war. But as many PR problems as Russia has now, if they destroy a nuclear reactor in a civilian area it will get worse.
09/10/2022 @ 6:34 am
I guess it was about 8 years ago now, slightly more, that I predicted that Putin’s intent was to move west. At that time I said, how he proceeds will depend on how he reacts to what will likely be crushing economic sanctions. I thought, and I think still, that those would determine, for interested parties, whether or not Putin is seeing this ambition of his rationally. It has been disputed whether or not Putin’s state of mind was relevant to this war in Ukraine.
This issue regarding the nuclear power plant in Ukraine, and Putin’s prosecution of his war in its vicinity, brings the question of his state of mind into question again, and perhaps more clearly. Putin’s initial aim of having Ukraine capitulate quickly failed long ago. His secondary position of capturing eastern provinces appears to be failing now. The supply of weapons to Ukraine by NATO countries is increasing in number and sophistication, and Russia’s Army is having trouble filling in behind its more than 80,000 casualty losses. At a minimum, this presents a triggering humiliation for Putin personally, and at worst, a devastating loss politically. To mitigate or prevent either or both of those, Putin’s mindset is of increasing importance. The original question involved how Putin would react to rejection by the wider world? The question now is, how will Putin react to losing everything?
With the new focus in mind, we have the issue of the nuclear power plant. Is this Putin’s suicide vest? Is this his booby trapped body on the trail of retreat? He has already used nuclear threats as a form of saber rattling, which loses strategic value if the opponent engages. The opponent has now engaged, so Putin is lobbing artillery shells toward 6 nuclear reactors. This is measurably less rational amplification of a bad strategy, given that the opponent has already engaged. Is Putin psychologically willing, or able, to back away? Freedom, democracy, and self determination can not afford to.