You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Badly trained orcs not being serious about shoot and scoot?
Like this perhaps:
I think petit_bateau said it well:
@CatB: IMO it is absolutely 100% possible to reach "the best answers" without engaging with a pacifist that adheres to pacifism.
Since electricity is not being generated, are the ponds important to nuclear safety ?
I can only hope.
It's not hard to imagine drunk orcs.
And I would not be surprised if the towed artillery is slower to scoot compared to mobile artillery, is restricted to roads, and is operating on a static front line. Becoming predictable sounds deadly for artillery, and UKR has learned to respond quickly and accurately.
It would warm my heart to learn that Russian artillery will be silenced.
I agreed with petit_bateau. I disagree with your definition.
I know many people who consider themselves pacifists, who wouldn't argue with US involvement in WW2, but feel perfectly justified in opposing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
- One who loves, supports, or favours peace.
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the world's most famous pacifists.- One who prefers to avoid violence.
- One who opposes violence and is anti-war.
(Edited to delete duplicated quote)
Ok...
I'll admit that is this appears to be more nuanced than the position I've held this far...
This guy as an example – Malcolm Nance former US intelligence officer and Ukraine Foreign Legion fighter – labels himself as a Pacifist at 4:16 in this clip...
A major part of my previous reasoning was based on the views publicly expressed by this group:
Their chairperson has periodically been interviewed in segments aired on Swedish Public Service Radio during the Dictator's War of aggression. And from memory, about a month ago they still opposed sending any weapons at all to Ukraine...
Cold shutdown just means the cooling ponds are at less than 100° C. They require cooling water circulation for years to keep the reactors from boiling off all the water in the cooling pools. C.F. Fukushima. It is typically 5 yrs or more after cold shutdown before defueling operations can begin for decommissioning:
Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants | U.S.NRC, update 17 Oct 2022
It's mind-boogling that the IAEA doesn't require that at least one onsite reactor be kept online at all times to provide electricity for local critcal needs. It's like these REMFs never ever CONSIDERED that the grid might be unavailable for extended periods over the 50+ yr lifespan of the reactor. smh.
You'd think they'd have designed the ZNPP with some redundancy such that a complete breach of the dam wouldn't present an immediate threat of reactor meltdown.
Why do you think they have cooling ponds. But they are not of sufficient volumetric capacity to last forever. But restoring water supply in the event of the a full-on main dam breach is unlikely to be a quick/easy operation in the sort of circumstances that are being envisaged here. Again, if one thought that a nuclear reactor would become involved in a war, one would never build any at all anywhere, including for that matter in the USA. (The last major land war in the USA was only 160 or so years ago, so not exactly long enough to conclude that the area is safe from conflict).
Why do you think they have cooling ponds. But they are not of sufficient volumetric capacity to last forever. But restoring water supply in the event of the a full-on main dam breach is unlikely to be a quick/easy operation in the sort of circumstances that are being envisaged here. Again, if one thought that a nuclear reactor would become involved in a war, one would never build any at all anywhere, including for that matter in the USA. (The last major land war in the USA was only 160 or so years ago, so not exactly long enough to conclude that the area is safe from conflict).
Lol!Ok...
I'll admit that is this appears to be more nuanced than the position I've held this far...
This guy as an example – Malcolm Nance former US intelligence officer and Ukraine Foreign Legion fighter – labels himself as a Pacifist at 4:16 in this clip...
A major part of my previous reasoning was based on the views publicly expressed by this group:
Their chairperson has periodically been interviewed in segments aired on Swedish Public Service Radio during the Dictator's War of aggression. And from memory, about a month ago they still opposed sending any weapons at all to Ukraine...
I was involved in NRC proceedings in the 70s when the risk assessment for airplane crash into the facility involved proximity to an airport (and flight paths) and possible intentional crash of a light private plane. It was assumed that pilots of large planes like airliners would avoid the facility, obviously pre 911. But to be fair no one thought about using a candle to detect air leaks at Browns Ferry NP either. Like the back end of the fuel cycle assessing long term risks when coupled with public perception, whether realistic or not is a difficult task.The US is pretty much immune from foreign invasion, though it is vulnerable to intercontinental ballistic missiles and civil war is a possibility too.
Since we're into history here in this thread, maybe my perspective will add some depth to this particular conversation. It may also bring some depth to discussion around how best to respond in Ukraine.
I agreed with petit_bateau. I disagree with your definition.
I know many people who consider themselves pacifists, who wouldn't argue with US involvement in WW2, but feel perfectly justified in opposing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
- One who loves, supports, or favours peace.
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the world's most famous pacifists.- One who prefers to avoid violence.
- One who opposes violence and is anti-war.
(Edited to delete duplicated quote)
However he might be stretching the definition of pacifist a bit
From February 20th – 22nd, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will travel to Poland. He will meet with President Andrzej Duda of Poland to discuss our bilateral cooperation as well as our collective efforts to support Ukraine and bolster NATO’s deterrence. He will also meet with the leaders of the Bucharest Nine (B9), a group of our eastern flank NATO Allies, to reaffirm the United States’ unwavering support for the security of the Alliance. In addition, President Biden will deliver remarks ahead of the one year anniversary of Russia’s brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, addressing how the United States has rallied the world to support the people of Ukraine as they defend their freedom and democracy, and how we will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.
That's correct. Many Quakers and Mennonites served during WW2 despite being pacifists. They recognized that when confronted with true evil, exceptions could be made to their non violent beliefs.Pacifism is not black and white, it is clearly a spectrum. I suspect that the vast majority of people view violence as only justified as a defense. The problem of course is that 'defense' is in the eye of the beholder. E.g., Putin is very clear in framing his 'limited operation' in UKR as a defensive move forced on Russia by the West.
A very difficult, YMMV grey-area variant is aggression as a pre-emptive defense. As an Israeli, I made personal choices. I have no problem with Israel conducting aggressive strikes against Iranian nuclear installations based on military intelligence, but I left my Paratrooper unit when it was tasked with a quasi-permanent invasion of Lebanon to set up a buffer zone.
'Turn the other cheek' type pacifism is uncommon, although it is often heard in the context of people telling **others** how to behave.
They recognized that when confronted with true evil