[littlecranky67]

Fully agreed. When the Ukraine war broke out, in Germany we had discussions how we could no longer rely on cheap russian gas and there we politicians actively demanding NPP to be reactivated. At the same time our government decided to spent 100 bilion € for the military and defense. This is surreal, when experts explain how "safe" NPPS are, the safety assumptions never asume a war going on around that NPP. If you factor this in all NPP would immetiately fall into the very unsafe category and all other energy sources would gain precedence.

[XorNot]

Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish.

There isn't going to just be "a war" in Germany - there never was. A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war, and thus "what if the nuclear powerplant is hit" is rather mundane compared to "our cities and citizens have been incinerated".

[qwertox]

> A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war

Nuclear war is only one option of many, and the last one among all of them. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.

Also, a nuclear war does not automatically mean the end of humankind, as some like to portray it. Most will still be alive, even lead a healthy, unaffected life. The negative effects of a broken internet and broken supply chains would be the bigger problems.

[ekianjo]

> m. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.

of course it would end up in a nuclear war. NATO is encircling Russia and if Russia feels cornered you should expect them to use anything available to them.

[Gud]

Russia is encircling themselves with NATO by bullying everyone around them.

[the_third_wave]

This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation;

1 - Nato was formed as a defence block against the "second Russian Empire" i.e. the Soviet Union and is still around to counter the budding "third Russian Empire".

2 - even since being conquered by the Mongol Empire Russia has been paranoid about the possibility of some conquering entity crossing its long border to rush into its vast territory. They want mountain ranges, sea or some other barrier between them and that potential enemy. If none of the sort can be had they want a buffer zone - they call it neutral states but in reality they mean vassal states, e.g. Belarus - between them and "the others". Those vassal states were gathered into a "counter-NATO" in the form of the Warsaw Pact.

3 - after the dissolution of the "second Russian Empire" and with that of the Warsaw Pact the former vassal states, fed up with being subservient to their oppressive neighbour bully took their chances and ran with it by joining NATO.

4 - Meanwhile Russia depopulated, was taken over by a new (old) gang of kleptocrats under first Yeltsin, then Putin while "the West" was busily "spreading democracy" by bombing and invading countries which were deemed to be essential for their economies by virtue of them being rich in natural resources. Some people and companies got richer, many people died and democracy was far to be found. This provided the Russian kleptocrats with a credible excuse for creating a new version of the old "us versus them" narrative: NATO is just like the Mongol Empire out on conquering our land to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. The recent flurry of "gender" and "alfabet soup" propaganda pushed by the current US regime just adds fuel to this fire and has given Putin a plausible (if false) cover of being the one who "defends traditional Christian values", going so far as to offer "asylum" to those who want to "flee corrupted Western values" [1].

5 - This gives the kleptocrats in "the East" the excuse they needed to make a push for creating the "third Russian Empire" to keep out the "new Mongol Empire" while their counterparts in "the West" have all the excuse they need to expand NATO to keep the "Russian bear" at bay.

6 - rinse and repeat

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-safe-haven-for-...

[pepa65]

It would be more complete if you would account for the kleptocrats in the West.

[rasz]

You seem to be missing some events between 13th century Mongols and USSR _collapse_. Last one happened somewhere between 1922 and 1941. Patton had the right idea to drop third nuke on Moscow and clean up WW2 mess for good.

[littlecranky67]

Just look at the explosion of the north stream pipelines. Whether this were government actors, terrorists, or a rogue military interest group independent of government decisions is unknown. But the very same can happen with nuclear plants. Yes they are protected against terrorist attacks (to some extend), but once you factor in military grade capability, the security assumptions crumble. No need for a full-blown nuclear war to happen at all, NPPs are a risk to national safety.

[gizmo]

That argument is exclusively used for nuclear. Hydroelectric is far more vulnerable to bombing, but we don't pearl clutch about that risk. And yes, a capable military can -- if they so choose -- turn a nuclear plant into a dirty bomb with sufficient explosives. But why go through that trouble when you can just drop a dirty bomb directly on top of a city center? That's a far more effective way of spreading nuclear radiation. However, capable militaries don't use dirty bombs because they make no strategic sense.

[littlecranky67]

You asume intent. A NPP is a threat if it is in an active warzone, even if no party intents to damage it. It is just in the chaotic nature of war.

[cedws]

Europe is already engaged in a hybrid war. The next escalation isn't necessarily nuclear. It would most likely look like mutual sabotage to infrastructure, including energy and water supplies. Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, neither side will be eager to launch, and especially not before intense conventional warfare.

>Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish

Foolish is not being prepared for the worst.

[entropyneur]

In Ukraine alone, there have been two major instances of military destruction of hydroelectric dams (Dnieper Hydroelectric Station during WWII and Kakhovka Dam during the current war) with the number of casualties far greater than that of all nuclear power incidents in history combined. Somehow, nobody's using that as an argument against hydro power.

If anything, Germany's reliance on Russian gas did a lot more to put the country in danger of war.

[berkeleynerd]

I wonder if it would make sense to house these reactors in underground facilities to the extent possible to harden them against at least accidental threats?

[the_third_wave]

This was already done in Sweden [1] and is something the Swedish defence forces have suggested for the coming nuclear expansion in the country.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85gesta_Nuclear_Plant

[ekianjo]

how do you cool them if they are underground?

[ttepasse]

That was a weird thought I had when the Japanese had problems actively cooling the destroyed Fukushima reactors: :Could one build reactors underground, so that in the case of need you can cool them by gravity alone without futzing around with diesel generators and high volume pumps?

(I'm sure there are 500 reasons why that’s a bad idea)

[cedws]

Much easier to target one NPP than thousands of windmills and solar panels distributed throughout the country too.

[rasz]

Weird thing to say considering russians didnt bomb any NPPs yet, but did actually brick Viasat disabling "remote monitoring access to over 5,800 wind turbines"

.. in Germany of all places

https://cyberconflicts.cyberpeaceinstitute.org/law-and-polic...