Yawn. It causes nuclear war. It has already been inserted into Nato doctrine as a means of Nato entering. If it gets hit. It has already been approved by Dems and the Gop, senate, as entry. Nato has also suggest likewise. It ain't a dam. It's meltdown. It faster causes direct involvement.
There are grounds around it. Not many. To what extent depends on the disaster. But it will cause a reaction Nato commit.
It would be easier to turn it off. Eject the cores and shut it down. Removing it from the battlefield. Oh they'll moan it's supplying both sides. After this long it's a risk that should have seen it shutdown. Rather then a propaganda tool where both sides assume it will. Not that easy injecting the cores, it needs a whole team of monkeys, and measures. But it might've been smarter then it being blamed.
In either event there's a risk it remains contentious. A means of escalation.
The problem was also shutting it down, it was called a warcrime, I believ3 certain subststions were artempted, it brought inspectors. It's supplying both. America also accused Russia of tampering with any upgrades they added on it. Hasn't it got like 6 cores?
But somehow it seemibgly would've been smarter to turn it off. At what point is it still in operation in a warzone? Tempting something.
Yawn. It causes nuclear war. It has already been inserted into Nato doctrine as a means of Nato entering. If it gets hit. It has already been approved by Dems and the Gop, senate, as entry. Nato has also suggest likewise. It ain't a dam. It's meltdown. It faster causes direct involvement.
There are grounds around it. Not many. To what extent depends on the disaster. But it will cause a reaction Nato commit.
It would be easier to turn it off. Eject the cores and shut it down. Removing it from the battlefield. Oh they'll moan it's supplying both sides. After this long it's a risk that should have seen it shutdown. Rather then a propaganda tool where both sides assume it will. Not that easy injecting the cores, it needs a whole team of monkeys, and measures. But it might've been smarter then it being blamed.
In either event there's a risk it remains contentious. A means of escalation.
Yawn. It causes nuclear war. It has already been inserted into Nato doctrine as a means of Nato entering. If it gets hit. It has already been approved by Dems and the Gop, senate, as entry. Nato has also suggest likewise. It ain't a dam. It's meltdown. It faster causes direct involvement.
There are grounds around it. Not many. To what extent depends on the disaster. But it will cause a reaction Nato commit.
It would be easier to turn it off. Eject the cores and shut it down. Removing it from the battlefield. Oh they'll moan it's supplying both sides. After this long it's a risk that should have seen it shutdown. Rather then a propaganda tool where both sides assume it will.