Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.

▲

throw0101d 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.

The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom:

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper

* https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...

	▲	RandomLensman 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		An adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now). Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.