I'm afraid I'm gonna have to poke some holes in this narrative :
1- Dirty bombs are devices meant to spread radioactive material over a great area to deny acess to it. Aside from the explosive charge used on distraction, they barely do any damage initially. The true damage would come from the exposure of the environment to the radioactive substances ( search for "Goiania cesium incident" for a case where such a thing happened in a much smaller scale).
2- There is simply no reason to waste regular (fission) tactical nuclear warheads and have to deal with both the radioactive and political fallouts of such an act for a couple of power plants
3- Even if there was a major explosion on the power plants, the reactor cores would never go on meltdown mode like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island due to the fact that, as far as we know, they are in cold shutdown, thus rendered innoperant.
For what little I know about geopolitics and brinksmanship, I argue that this post from TGP is fake and gay. If there is going to be nuclear fuckery afoot in that area, I'd expect major population or military centers to be either dirty nuked or for the nuking itself to be faked as a false flag to force WW3 to begin in its earnest.
Feel free to offer counter arguments to everything I pointed out.
Tactical nukes can be small, theyre ment to act as a missle barrage but with the impact (and hassle to coordinate) of only one strike.
And nuclear power plants(or a LNG ones, honsetly) are worthwhile targets.
But still that would begin ww3...
3.. The actual molten uranium of chernobyl mostly sank into the basement (elephants foot), but the true danger emerged when the steam explosion released tiny fuel particles.
A powerful enough bomb on inactive (still potent) uranium can cause a chernobyl event.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to poke some holes in this narrative :
1- Dirty bombs are devices meant to spread radioactive material over a great area to deny acess to it. Aside from the explosive charge used on distraction, they barely do any damage initially. The true damage would come from the exposure of the environment to the radioactive substances ( search for "Goiania cesium incident" for a case where such a thing happened in a much smaller scale).
2- There is simply no reason to waste regular (fission) tactical nuclear warheads and have to deal with both the radioactive and political fallouts of such an act for a couple of power plants
3- Even if there was a major explosion on the power plants, the reactor cores would never go on meltdown mode like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island due to the fact that, as far as we know, they are in cold shutdown, thus rendered innoperant.
For what little I know about geopolitics and brinksmanship, I argue that this post from TGP is fake and gay. If there is going to be nuclear fuckery afoot in that area, I'd expect major population or military centers to be either dirty nuked or for the nuking itself to be faked as a false flag to force WW3 to begin in its earnest.
Feel free to offer counter arguments to everything I pointed out.
Yep
Tactical nukes can be small, theyre ment to act as a missle barrage but with the impact (and hassle to coordinate) of only one strike. And nuclear power plants(or a LNG ones, honsetly) are worthwhile targets. But still that would begin ww3...
3.. The actual molten uranium of chernobyl mostly sank into the basement (elephants foot), but the true danger emerged when the steam explosion released tiny fuel particles. A powerful enough bomb on inactive (still potent) uranium can cause a chernobyl event.
Misdirect as the Ukraines past history gets shut down. And possibly approaching the precipice now.
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-human-traffciking-416319