| ▲ | mrs6969 17 hours ago |
| So russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us can in iran ? What am I missing ? |
|
| ▲ | zorobo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Ukraine has not been saying death to Russia for 40 years straight.
Ukraine did not sponsor terrorism in Russia and other countries.
Ukraine does not install and arm suppletive militia in other countries.
Ukraine does not physically eliminate opposition at home and abroad.
Ukraine does not hang homosexuals.
Ukraine does not have a supreme leader for life.
Etc. |
| |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This argument basically boils down to "because I think they're bad" as being the differentiating factor. That's not a strong argument when every country has a rap sheet of horrible things they've done. Half the damn world has a legitimate moral claim to nuke the US into dust based on what we've done/continue to do
to them. Trying to moralize actions that are simply in the strategic interest of the US and our allies will lead you nowhere. | |
| ▲ | mrs6969 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When iraq attacked iran, the major funding came from us, about 5b dollar. Not to mention, all of these years iran has been sanctioned, and showed as a terror regime. İt is not like; us was doing nothing and iran was saying death to us out of nowhere… So us has been funding the death of iran 40 years ago, and iran has no right to say anything about it? This is far more than supporting terrorism. This is supporting your neighboring country to attack you. Rest of your arguments are irrelavant. Biggest ally of us is saudis, and they are doing pretty much everything iran does, in a highly totaliter regime. They kill opponent, hang homosexuals, have a supreme regime, yet us loves them. I am just saying, there is bit of an inconsistency here. | |
| ▲ | justsomehnguy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.uaportal.com/ukr/section-mixed/news-moskalej-na-... And it's quite amusing what you just confirmed with your own words what Russia isn't a genocidal fanatical society hellbent on eradicating everything they don't like. |
|
|
| ▲ | 15155 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > nuclear facility in ukraine Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways > us can in iran Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers |
|
| ▲ | jiggawatts 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| a) Russia plans to conquer Ukraine and use its resources. Nuclear power plants are very expensive and critical to industry. Russia wants to capture these for their own use, not blow them up and irradiate the countryside that they wish to be a part of their own country! b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation. |
| |
| ▲ | mrs6969 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So if russia do not want it as part of their country, and if it was not that level of radioactive, that would justify such attack ? So, attacking a nuclear facility is valid if they are not that radioactive (since you are attacking you are not planning to use it anyway) Did I get your answer correctly ? | |
| ▲ | tgv 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My knowledge in these matters is limited, but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? At least, it can't produce the classical chain reaction, as there's not enough U235 to sustain it, I think. | | | |
| ▲ | jwilk 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium [citation needed] |
|
|
| ▲ | bufferoverflow 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
