Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    There were of course multiple factors but Chernobyl was by far the biggest.

    Many forget that the USSR died not as a result of conquest or some violent uprising, but by a democratic referendum. the people of the Ukrainian SSR voted to leave (with Chernobyl playing a big part in that) and Russia decided that with the number two player leaving the party they didn't wanna stay and hang with what was left (A comparable event would be Scotland leaving the UK and England deciding it didn't fancy bankrolling Wales/N Ireland by itself and pulling the plug).
    It was (in no particular order)

    - Chernobyl, which lead indirectly to glasnost.

    - The world seeking alternative sources of oil and gas outside the middle East after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo finally yielding runaway production by the mid 1980s, that caused prices to fall through the floor. This led directly to a Russian Depression. Perestroika indirectly caused the Soviet economy to enter hyperinflation.

    - The Soviet War in Afghanistan and US operations against it there.

    - Competing against the US in the 1980s arms buildup, something the Soviets count not afford and could not counter technologically or industrially.

    - Brezhnev finally dying, and then in the span of just three years (1982 to 1985) going through Andropov, Chernenko and then Gorbachev. So political instability at the highest level. Most of the legacy Soviet leaders expired by then too.

    The "killing blow", I think... not the one that is the biggest factor but the one that finished it off, is the US's revolutionary in the Gulf War, at a time the USSR as at it's nadir, illustrating that it wasn't really a peer-level power anymore, except in the nuclear dimension. The post-Vietnam rebuild created a military power that could readily defeat a Soviet-style force in the field in a conventional conflict.

    Chernobyl was the biggest one probably, but I think all of these (and some other things) put together in just a few years, is what did it. If they were over two or three decades, maybe the USSR would have survived. But the USSR had a lot of really bad things happen to it from all angles, in about 8 years, with no good news in between.

  2. #102
    Pit Lord Vorkreist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    ATVI Board Room
    Posts
    2,383
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    There were of course multiple factors but Chernobyl was by far the biggest.

    Many forget that the USSR died not as a result of conquest or some violent uprising, but by a democratic referendum. the people of the Ukrainian SSR voted to leave (with Chernobyl playing a big part in that) and Russia decided that with the number two player leaving the party they didn't wanna stay and hang with what was left (A comparable event would be Scotland leaving the UK and England deciding it didn't fancy bankrolling Wales/N Ireland by itself and pulling the plug).
    The fall of USSR was the accumulation of many other different factors. There were plenty other communist countries in the region that cut ties with Kremlin before that. There was no number 2 or 3 or 4. Everything was controlled by the central russian party which lost more power and influence slowly decade by decade.
    In the end it was the russians that got fed up with that dying system. The problem is that it remained a contained garbage system where corruption flourished and those that had power in the old systems kept that power = everything past 1990 to today's Putin old KGB fart playing CIV VII IRL while the country decays in poverty .
    Netflix Chernobyl might not be a 100% rendition of the chernobyl facts but its a great picture of how everything actually ran in those times in all the countries influenced by USSR and the joys of communism.
    Last edited by Vorkreist; 2019-06-09 at 11:42 PM.
    "I just don't want to pay taxes." - Bobby Kotick

  3. #103
    So they're saying they were so incompetent that they let the Americans sabotage one of their nuclear power plants?

    Damn Mother Russia, what a bunch of losers.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Incase you have been living under a rock Russia has played this shifting the blame game for a looong time.
    I'm sure it wasn't the only one.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Jesus, if the Russian inferiority complex would be any greater it would collapse into a blackhole.
    Thats as true for America sadly.

  6. #106
    CIA? What happened, we think, was human error, was nothing wrong with plant, but a bunch of dumb ukrainians fucking up everything

    Considering the shit US & Israel pull with Iran's plant, I wouldn't dismiss the idea though with CIA n Cernobyl

  7. #107
    The Patient DevilTrigger1989's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Jasmond, Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    326
    Everything happened is American to blame,and you can change the country to any nation,haha

  8. #108
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    NJ US
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Synros View Post
    I'm sure this whole theory is just bullshit, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the CIA was in fact behind it. They do have a long history of assassinating foreign leaders, staging coups, and secretly experimenting on people. So blowing up a nuclear power plant wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them.
    Yea but promoting an objective/focus point 30 years later is just elementary to anyone with a sense of operations and logic. Sadly this will stick with some people, mostly rookies...

  9. #109
    I think we might have some form of 'lost in translation' problem here. I'm looking at this from kind of the 'Overlord' angle (D-Day with Zombies); a fictional storyline in a real event. I'm pretty sure the makers of the show it to be taken seriously.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    CIA? What happened, we think, was human error, was nothing wrong with plant, but a bunch of dumb ukrainians fucking up everything

    Considering the shit US & Israel pull with Iran's plant, I wouldn't dismiss the idea though with CIA n Cernobyl
    There was plenty wrong with the RBMK-1000 reactors.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    CIA? What happened, we think, was human error, was nothing wrong with plant, but a bunch of dumb ukrainians fucking up everything

    Considering the shit US & Israel pull with Iran's plant, I wouldn't dismiss the idea though with CIA n Cernobyl
    That's something completely different. What the US and Israel did, as part of Operation Olympic Games, was to have malware (Stuxnet) dramatically spin up then down then up the Iranian IR-1 centrifuge, used to produced enriched uranium. This caused the centrifuges to break.

    The centrifuges are not part of any nuclear power plant. They are part of the fuel cycle (namely, to make the fuel), but it's a different facility and there is no risk whatsoever the anyone's lives. It's not even "ruining" the uranium involved. It just wrecked the centrifuges, forcing I ran to get more of them and thus delaying fuel production.

  11. #111
    There were Americans at Chernobyl on the day of the accident, but they weren't CIA, they were tourists who were visiting Pripyat Cathedral with its tallest spire in the USSR

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Synros View Post
    I'm sure this whole theory is just bullshit, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the CIA was in fact behind it. They do have a long history of assassinating foreign leaders, staging coups, and secretly experimenting on people. So blowing up a nuclear power plant wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them.
    The US government / CIA was largely out of those businesses by the late 1970s. The high point of the US doing that sort of thing in the 1950s and 1960s faded to a couple Central American countries by the late 1980s. In Grenada and Panama the US government just sent the military in. But when's the last time there was actually a coup or assassination of a foreign leader that was hatched up in Langley? Probably before most people in this thread were born.

    The two foreign leaders the US did try and assassinate in recent times - Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein - were targeted by conventional military sources (aircraft with bombs) while active large hostilities were underway (the Libyan War, the start of the Iraq War).


    But ask yourself... why hasn't the CIA tried to kill Kim Jong Un? Why hasn't it tried to kill off hardliners whose names are not common place, within the Iranian regime. Why does Vladimir Putin walk the Earth?

    I've been saying since 2017 that the CIA needs to kill off as many Russian hackers involved with their 2016 interference as possible, as a form of deterrence. It needs to kill them in their beds, and send a message to the Russian hacker community that helping Putin with his mischief gets you shot to death in the middle of the night. But has the CIA done even this? Of course not.

    The CIA's assassinating people these days are limited to droning Taliban and Al Qaeda members in the mountainside. It hasn't even helped a major Chinese or Russian defector that's had a public profile since the mid 2000s.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    That's something completely different. What the US and Israel did, as part of Operation Olympic Games, was to have malware (Stuxnet) dramatically spin up then down then up the Iranian IR-1 centrifuge, used to produced enriched uranium. This caused the centrifuges to break.

    The centrifuges are not part of any nuclear power plant. They are part of the fuel cycle (namely, to make the fuel), but it's a different facility and there is no risk whatsoever the anyone's lives. It's not even "ruining" the uranium involved. It just wrecked the centrifuges, forcing I ran to get more of them and thus delaying fuel production.
    I know, I meant intention.

    I don't doubt though that Netanyahu would pull a "Chernobyl-strike" on Iran.
    Since he's a total prick n Israel did bomb Saddam's nuclear plant (french built).
    I know, it wasn't fuelled, but I don't think that would have given them pause had it been so.

    N the US, well, its still the only country in the world that used nuclear weapons.
    Last edited by Ihavewaffles; 2019-06-10 at 10:40 AM.

  14. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    I know, I meant intention.

    I don't doubt though that Netanyahu would pull a "Chernobyl-strike" on Iran.
    Since he's a total prick n Israel did bomb Saddam's nuclear plant (french built).
    I know, it wasn't fuelled, but I don't think that would have given them pause had it been so.

    N the US, well, its still the only country in the world that used nuclear weapons.
    That's not quite true either though. Israel's strikes on the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs over the last 30 years were done anticipating that if they were delayed, such a strike would lead to a radiation release. Both strikes were done before the reactors were fully built and fueled. Osirak didn't even have a completed roof, for example.

    Who knows what effect directly targeting a reactor that is fully fueled and producing energy with a bunker buster may have. It may be very much like Chernobyl. It may be completely different. But any country, including Israel, would want to make sure that the worst effects didn't happen. The most common "public sector" model of a US attack on the Iranian nuclear program, for example, involves many thousands of US ground troops arriving by air on improvised runways, to destroy the facility using people on the ground, from the inside, rather than just bombing it.

    Israel doesn't have the resources to conduct an operation like that. Might that lead them to attacking purely by air? Also unlikely, as that would stretch the maximum capability of their air power. They'd need a lot of tankers and a lot of aircraft, and they'd have to get the cooperation of, at the very least, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Jordan and Saudi Arabia would probably tacitly give it. No way Iraq does though.

    Yes. The US used nuclear weapons. And it is willing to use them again if it needs to. But it'll just use them. It wouldn't cause a rolling nuclear power plant catastrophe that goes on for months. If it is going to bomb something, it's just going to bomb something, over and done.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post

    The "killing blow", I think... not the one that is the biggest factor but the one that finished it off, is the US's revolutionary in the Gulf War, at a time the USSR as at it's nadir, illustrating that it wasn't really a peer-level power anymore, except in the nuclear dimension. The post-Vietnam rebuild created a military power that could readily defeat a Soviet-style force in the field in a conventional conflict.
    The actual deathblow to the USSR was the inability of the Russian state security apparatus to frighten the populace into submission (this was probably mostly inspired by the Fall of the Wall and the Romanian revolution, where they seen the dreaded uniformed police and military either helplessly watching on as the established social order collapsed or where despite using force they still got swept away) and by its inability to police the ambitions of regional politicians like those in the Baltic and in Russia, the likes of Boris Yeltsin.

    There was an attempt to "restore order" by force in the 1991 Soviet coup, but that failed due to the reasons mentioned above. Ironically this had unintended consequences for those who wanted to keep the USSR together. The fact that they placed Gorbachev under arrest and away from Moscow, without actually being able to install anyone else in power, dispelled whatever illusion of authority the central Soviet government had, regional politicians no longer feared or obeyed Gorbachev, and the KGB lost its authority and influence.

    After that, things just completely spiraled out of control for the USSR, which was defunct in 3 months.

    We in the West tend to have observation bias and somewhat overrate "our contributions" and missing a bit the internal developments within the USSR.

    If there was anything that specifically killed the USSR was most likely the success of the Romanian Revolution, where the infamous Securitate failed to hold things together.

    Of course the Cold War and international events contributed massively to the erosion of the actual power of Soviet state security, but once the myth was challenged it was all on the brink, then the establishment put the final nail in its own coffin when it tried to flex its muscles and failed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    I know, I meant intention.

    I don't doubt though that Netanyahu would pull a "Chernobyl-strike" on Iran.
    Since he's a total prick n Israel did bomb Saddam's nuclear plant (french built).
    I know, it wasn't fuelled, but I don't think that would have given them pause had it been so.

    N the US, well, its still the only country in the world that used nuclear weapons.
    Bombing or sabotaging nuclear power plants in adjacent countries requires a special kind of retardation that even the Netanyahu isn't capable of. It's like lighting your neighbors house on fire in an apartment building. You either burned yours to cinders too or just caused yourself and your whole building massive fire damage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground
    Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

  16. #116
    Not everything is the USA's fault, but a lot is.

  17. #117
    The Insane Aeula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Nearby, preventing you from fast traveling.
    Posts
    16,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Three soviet engineers died
    Actually they all survived, two are still alive today the other died from heart issues in 2005.

  18. #118
    ...While I wouldn't put it past the Cold War CIA, but the fact is, that could've affected all of Europe, who we were still on good terms with at the time.

  19. #119
    Sure it was the CIA.

    What could go wrong in a nuclear reactor ran by a country of alcoholics?

  20. #120
    It was the fault of the alt right and trump.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •