| If we look at the situation through the lens of news headlines and tail risks in an active war zone — I completely agree. Drones over the Zaporizhzhia NPP do indeed create a powerful media picture. But let's look at how Big Tech assesses the risks. Hyperscalers employ top-tier analysts; they perfectly see the difference between media noise and actual damage. Attacking an NPP is fundamentally unprofitable. It’s an asset worth tens of billions of dollars, and any rational capital (just like a state) will protect it. What we’re seeing right now — and I’d like to point out this isn't the first time — are strikes on non-critical external nodes. It’s a tool for informational pressure, not an attempt to trigger a second Chernobyl. In reality, a direct strike on the reactor's containment is a taboo. In military doctrine, it’s equated to the use of radiological weapons, which instantly triggers protocols for uncontrolled escalation. None of the key actors want that. Has Big Tech already poured money into nuclear? Fact? Fact. Not because they’re blind to geopolitics, but because the math of deterrence works: the risk of deliberately destroying an NPP equals the risk of starting World War III, at which point nobody is going to care about the fate of AI investments anyway. Let's also take this fact into account: the risk of an attack on an NPP in an active war zone (Ukraine) is simply not comparable to the risk for an NPP in Pennsylvania or Texas. Personally, I have nothing against green energy, but economics and physics are harsh realities. |
I'd love to trust this, I really do, but there are political leaders publicly threatening to erase civilisations. I live in Europe. It is still forbidden here to harvest wild mushrooms. Dead animals are burned, not eaten. To us, this is a possible reality