Octopus Overlords

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 6:59 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 3:25 pm Via an ABC reporter:

Enormous explosion outside Ukraine’s second largest city Kharkiv.
Kharkiv’s governor confirmed to us it was an ammunition dump, it seems hit by an Russian airstrike.

Turned out to be an ammo dump.

For some reason, I feel the urge to shout "Bam!" but I can't quite figure out why...

You’re probably thinking of an exploding ammo dump.

It appears that soon Russia's oil will supply only Russia (and China, I suppose).

Chraolic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 2:18 pm

Daehawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 12:58 pm I feel sad for the young Russian soldiers who are forced into Ukraine on lies and threats. Most were told it was just exercises or that the Ukrainians wanted them there. Worse others were told they would be imprisoned or shot if they disobeyed orders. Then on the Ukrainian side they are just defending their people and homes and are forced to kill the Russians. Seems a lot of these young Russians are simply left with nothing but to die on Ukrainian soil. Not saying all are this but many are.

The Ukrainians came to the same conclusion, so they've offered $50,000 in cryptocurrency and full amnesty to any invading soldier who lays down their arms and surrenders. $50,000 is about three or four years worth of salary for a Russian soldier, so I imagine they will have more than a few willing to take them up on the offer.

I wonder how concerned they have to be for their family if they did that.

I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Remember that Al Swearengen quote about little bighorn? About crazy horse and little bighorn and what it bought the natives?

I assume the same applies here. The Ukrane government could totally light up that convoy, they don't want to because there's no better way to harden a nations will towards a long war or occupation like sending literal tons of their boys home in boxes.

Right now Ukrane has the worlds heart. Hell, even the Russian soldiers don't know why they're there. That changes if you light up a convoy.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Ukraine's air power is greatly dispersed now (due to most of the air bases being flattened), and the convoy includes plenty of mobile AA/SAM units.

I imagine hitting it with a land force would involve pulling units away from where they're already engaged (or regrouping or whatever).

There are rumors (who knows?) that the convoy is moving slowly because Russian conscripts aren't motivated to push themselves. That's probably the best we can hope for.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:18 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Ukraine's air power is greatly dispersed now (due to most of the air bases being flattened), and the convoy includes plenty of mobile AA/SAM units.

I imagine hitting it with a land force would involve pulling units away from where they're already engaged (or regrouping or whatever).

There are rumors (who knows?) that the convoy is moving slowly because Russian conscripts aren't motivated to push themselves. That's probably the best we can hope for.

Or this. It could be this too.

I.... Still don't think Putin's calling the shots anymore.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:13 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Remember that Al Swearengen quote about little bighorn? About crazy horse and little bighorn and what it bought the natives?

I assume the same applies here. The Ukrane government could totally light up that convoy, they don't want to because there's no better way to harden a nations will towards a long war or occupation like sending literal tons of their boys home in boxes.

Right now Ukrane has the worlds heart. Hell, even the Russian soldiers don't know why they're there. That changes if you light up a convoy.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that sending tons of dead soldiers home in an unpopular war will make it popular? That's absurd.

Biden just accidentally said Iranian people intead of Ukrainian. Tucker is licking his chops.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

just need some A-10's to do a couple of fly bys.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

1). The convoy is bogged down, using supplies like fuel and food. There’s a certain incentive to let them make the logistics problem worse.
2). There’s a question as to whether the Russians have set any AAA defense to cover it. If they do, then you are just going to get your limited number of jets shot down to no gain.
3). I don’t know if it is within artillery range, and again, Ukrainian guns are probably limited. They’ll have to wait until it is in range. But then the Russians could disperse it as it gets closer.
4). Infantry are unlikely to be able to get close.

We need to remember - Ukraine isn’t the US - resources and capabilities are much more constrained and limited.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:13 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Remember that Al Swearengen quote about little bighorn? About crazy horse and little bighorn and what it bought the natives?

I assume the same applies here. The Ukrane government could totally light up that convoy, they don't want to because there's no better way to harden a nations will towards a long war or occupation like sending literal tons of their boys home in boxes.

Right now Ukrane has the worlds heart. Hell, even the Russian soldiers don't know why they're there. That changes if you light up a convoy.

Definitely not this. If they could turn the first few miles into a long flaming roadblock, they would. Then do the same at the rear. It's the Finnish playbook.

They have the moral high ground and defending their sovereign soil from the invasion force wouldn't change that.

I can only assume they either can't or are holding out for a last ditch diplomatic solution. The latter would be quite gamble because that's decisive force lined up.

We also need to realize that as much as the world is rooting for the Ukraine it is not going to win. I am very happy Ukraine is doing so well and hope they continue but let's face it....Putin the Russian Trump. He's completely insane when it comes to this issue. I suspect nukes are on the table if Ukraine does too well.

I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall. The expectation from the UK and US intelligence apparatus is that this war may go 10-20 years mostly in form of an insurgency.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:42 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:13 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:55 pm I'm being an armchair general, but I don't understand why Ukraine isn't bringing to bear everything they can on the apparently stalled 40 mile convoy. What better opportunity do they think there will be? Are they waiting to see if it breaks down on its own due to logistical and morale issues?

Remember that Al Swearengen quote about little bighorn? About crazy horse and little bighorn and what it bought the natives?

I assume the same applies here. The Ukrane government could totally light up that convoy, they don't want to because there's no better way to harden a nations will towards a long war or occupation like sending literal tons of their boys home in boxes.

Right now Ukrane has the worlds heart. Hell, even the Russian soldiers don't know why they're there. That changes if you light up a convoy.

Definitely not this. If they could turn the first few miles into a long flaming roadblock, they would. Then do the same at the rear. It's the Finnish playbook.

They have the moral high ground and defending their sovereign soil from the invasion force wouldn't change that.

I can only assume they either can't or are holding out for a last ditch diplomatic solution. The latter would be quite gamble because that's decisive force lined up.

I would lean more towards the latter then the former. I think that the Ukrainian government is trying to be as conciliatory as possible while arming their civilians for asymmetrical warfare.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall. The expectation from the UK and US intelligence apparatus is that this war may go 10-20 years mostly in form of an insurgency.

You think the Russian people have it in them to fight this kind of war with kith and kin? I mean maybe Putin is doing this to make Biden and the US look bad. Part of a long term strategy. I don't know anymore

Grifman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 2:51 pm The Russians screwed up and accidentally posted their justification and future intent for Ukraine. Interesting thread but I’ll sum it up as “The Empire Strikes Back”;

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm The expectation from the UK and US intelligence apparatus is that this war may go 10-20 years mostly in form of an insurgency.

No way. Even if Russia could endure the occupation, they couldn't survive 10-20 years of economic strangulation.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall.

Will inevitably fall without foreign boots on the ground.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:59 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall.

Will inevitably fall without foreign boots on the ground.

Possibly dumb question, but why is that? Just the sheer difference in manpower? Military equipment quality? And i assume that relies on the assumption that the Russians can sustain fighting under all the collective sanctions?

Not that I think that's wrong, I'm mainly just curious because the general assessment seems to be that Russia's military has shat the bed thus far. If they continue with the perpetual bed shitting, is there a real prospect that Ukraine could (even without an insurgency) at least fight to a draw?

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:24 pm Biden just accidentally said Iranian people intead of Ukrainian. Tucker is licking his chops.

I agree it will be fodder for the talking heads, but I don't think saying he accidentally said Iranian is fair. It was his speech impediment that caused it.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:49 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:59 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall.

Will inevitably fall without foreign boots on the ground.

Possibly dumb question, but why is that? Just the sheer difference in manpower? Military equipment quality? And i assume that relies on the assumption that the Russians can sustain fighting under all the collective sanctions?

Not that I think that's wrong, I'm mainly just curious because the general assessment seems to be that Russia's military has shat the bed thus far. If they continue with the perpetual bed shitting, is there a real prospect that Ukraine could (even without an insurgency) at least fight to a draw?

Russia can field more than six times the trained military personnel that Ukraine can, and keep that difference if they start drafting civilians. And while I'd argue that equipment quality isn't as much of an issue with the recent wave of imports, the number of people fully trained in its use is a bigger problem. And keep in mind that Russia still hasn't committed its full conventional armor force to the field, nor its air force. They'll reach a point eventually at which the civilians don't have a lot of options for fighting back. They'll be taking shells from far out of reach, bombs from far out of reach, and the troops that move in to clean up what's left will be beyond Ukraine's ability to hold off. Yeah, the Russian military has either failed spectacularly or has some reason for holding back. But if they ever decide to truly commit, there won't be a draw.

But while Russia may take control, they can't win. They've got a population of extremely ballsy patriots who are now armed to the teeth. Russia will be pulling lead splinters out of their ass for decades to come. Ukraine will, at best, be Russia's Vietnam. Maybe they'll eventually pull out, maybe they'll eventually quash enough resistance that it becomes a minor annoyance, but they're going to be tied up for a long, long time either way. That also weakens their forces elsewhere. They could end up with fully half of their military tied up for twenty years, and with no resources to increase it.

Ukraine's best shot is that the war remains unpopular in Russia, compounded with the cost that the economic consequences are going to have on the Russian people, and that there is a regime change (peaceful or otherwise, now or a five years from now.)

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:49 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:59 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall.

Will inevitably fall without foreign boots on the ground.

Possibly dumb question, but why is that? Just the sheer difference in manpower? Military equipment quality? And i assume that relies on the assumption that the Russians can sustain fighting under all the collective sanctions?

Not that I think that's wrong, I'm mainly just curious because the general assessment seems to be that Russia's military has shat the bed thus far. If they continue with the perpetual bed shitting, is there a real prospect that Ukraine could (even without an insurgency) at least fight to a draw?

The Russians have more men, supplies, armor, artillery and aircraft - and at some point they are going to figure out how to use it. This like the Winter War against Finland - the Finns outfought and destroyed the first Soviet offensive, but eventually the Russians figured it out and the weight of numbers began to tell.l, and they swamped the Finns. But I would love to be proven wrong.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:49 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:59 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 10:49 pm I just heard that updated assessments are that Kyiv might hold up weeks now but probably will fall.

Will inevitably fall without foreign boots on the ground.

Possibly dumb question, but why is that? Just the sheer difference in manpower? Military equipment quality? And i assume that relies on the assumption that the Russians can sustain fighting under all the collective sanctions?

For all the reasons you lay out. Yes. Yes. And yes.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:49 pm Not that I think that's wrong, I'm mainly just curious because the general assessment seems to be that Russia's military has shat the bed thus far. If they continue with the perpetual bed shitting, is there a real prospect that Ukraine could (even without an insurgency) at least fight to a draw?

The general assessment is also that Russia has brought a fraction of its forces to bear so far in this fight. They've largely done that because the political goal of the campaign (installing a puppet regime of Putin's choosing) requires that Russia limit the amount of suffering it inflicts on the Ukrainian population. The conventional wisdom is that Russia cannot level Kyiv like it did Grozny and hope to pacify a country the size of Ukraine. So Russia has, so far, fought this war in a way that's 180 degrees from its military doctrine. Assuming Putin isn't willing to pack up and go home, the next stage is for the Russian military to embrace its traditional doctrine and start bombarding the shit out of Kyiv and the other Ukrainian cities on its list to capture. Then, once the cities are flattened and the civilians have fled or died, they'll roll in and mop up whatever is left. That's how they've always done it, and that's what they'll likely do here.

But in no situation is there a remotely probable outcome that features the Ukrainian military fighting the Russians to a draw in a conventional (meaning not an insurgency) conflict.

At least, so says the experts whom I'm just parroting. If someone has read or heard differently from a credible source, I'd certainly be happy to reconsider!

It seems all these forecasts are talking from a purely strategic sense. My understanding is that without fossil fuel income, Russia is essentially a third world economy. How long can you pay soldiers, and all the logistical costs when the folks back home are howling?

Formix wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:06 am My understanding is that without fossil fuel income, Russia is essentially a third world economy.

(They’re by definition second world, no matter how good or bad their economy. The first/second/third world thing was designated based on stances taken during the Cold War. “Developing nation” is probably the closest to what you’re trying to describe.)

"Nuclear Power" status trumps "[number]-world" status.

They can grind it out as long as they have bombs and bodies to throw into the meat grinder. No one will step in to take them on directly.

wonderpug wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:17 am

Formix wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:06 am My understanding is that without fossil fuel income, Russia is essentially a third world economy.

(They’re by definition second world, no matter how good or bad their economy. The first/second/third world thing was designated based on stances taken during the Cold War. “Developing nation” is probably the closest to what you’re trying to describe.)

People use it like that all the time though, so I'd argue the meaning has shifted.
Semantics though.

The point is, Russia just sent itself back to the bad old 90's. We'll see how long the general population puts up with it, Putin's popularity is largely based on him getting the credit for dragging them out of that time.

It's going to be interesting to see if the united front (severe sanctions, businesses pulling out) holds. I'm guessing Putin's betting that once he's "secured" Ukraine, the world will slowly start putting this behind them and gradually resume business as usual. It's going to be a supreme test of wills. Particularly if Russia weaponizes its oil production.

Since the forum software wants to load the vid without the surrounding post...

This evening at 6pm in front of the Russian Embassy in Helsinki, Finland.
Our dear ”Finlandia” hymn by Jean Sibelius fills the evening air.
We all people unanimously decided to replace the word Finlandia with the word Ukraine.

Finnish people are the children, grand-children and great-grandchildren of Finnish freedom fighters in Winter War against Soviet Union’s invasion 1939-1940.

Now it’s our time to stand with you Ukraine.
We stand for peace and freedom.

Slava Ukraini! 🕊

Lyrics of Finlandia hymn in comments.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:12 am It's going to be interesting to see if the united front (severe sanctions, businesses pulling out) holds. I'm guessing Putin's betting that once he's "secured" Ukraine, the world will slowly start putting this behind them and gradually resume business as usual. It's going to be a supreme test of wills. Particularly if Russia weaponizes its oil production.

I think them weaponizing energy is definitely something they'll attempt but there are limitations. We are already seeing them having trouble finding buyers - despite the Russians slashing the price $20 a barrel. Nearly everyone is going to be or being driven to forever alter fossil fuel dependence. I think we are seeing indicators that this will shift the field dramatically. Every major O&G company abandoned all their joint and non-operated ventures there which will cripple exploration and development. The Russians may have challenges operating the facilities as well. With prices likely to be persistently high for the near future we'll likely see investments in alternative energies become price competitive. Nothing can totally replace O&G near-term though but still I think the geopolitical dangers of oil may have crossed a tipping point.

The United States and the European Union have been unwilling to put sanctions on Russian energy exports in response to the country’s invasion of Ukraine. But some oil traders appear to have concluded that buying oil from Russia is just not worth the trouble.

One of the three top oil producers in the world, after the United States and Saudi Arabia, Russia provides roughly 10 percent of the global supply. But in recent days traders and European refineries have greatly reduced their purchases of Russian oil. Some have stopped altogether.

Buyers are pulling back because they or the shipping companies, banks and insurance companies they use are worried about running afoul of Western sanctions in place now or those that might come later, energy experts said. Others are worried that shipments could be hit by missiles, and some just don’t want to risk being seen as bankrolling the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.

Russian exporters have been offering the country’s highest-quality oil at a discount of up to $20 a barrel in recent days but have found few buyers, analysts said. Buyers, in Europe in particular, have been switching to Middle Eastern oil, a decision that has helped drive oil prices above $100 a barrel for the first time since 2014.

On Wednesday, that ascent continued. Brent crude, the global benchmark, was up more than 6 percent and touched $113 a barrel. In early December, it was about $65 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate, the gauge followed widely in the United States, rose to $111.

Malchior - I agree with your assessment in terms of oil. If the world (or a good chunk) steer clear from Russian oil; i think the knock on effect is a renewed effort to develop clean energy sources. Won't be surprised if Germany ends up in the lead on this somehow, seeing their utter dependence on Russian energy.

What I am trying to see is how this is playing out in the rest of the non-western world. I am reading some hints that S. American countries are shying away from Russian (ie Cuba, Venezuela...traditional Russian client states). I'd say thats good. Mexico's refusal to get involved on the sanction caught me by surprise. We know that some Asian countries aren't going along (India, China). We are definitely in a new world order now.

Newcastle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 11:16 am Malchior - I agree with your assessment in terms of oil. If the world (or a good chunk) steer clear from Russian oil; i think the knock on effect is a renewed effort to develop clean energy sources. Won't be surprised if Germany ends up in the lead on this somehow, seeing their utter dependence on Russian energy.

FWIW following this Germany has said that they're revisiting their plan to close their nuclear plants by the end of the year. Which is good (and hopefully they'll definitely reverse the plan) from both a dependence on Russian energy and from a climate change perspective.

Formix wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:06 am It seems all these forecasts are talking from a purely strategic sense. My understanding is that without fossil fuel income, Russia is essentially a third world economy. How long can you pay soldiers, and all the logistical costs when the folks back home are howling?

Unfortunately, Russia has a long, long history of being governed by people that don’t give a flying fuck if the folks back home are howling. Also, those Russian folks have a long, long history of suffering through some of the worst governments imaginable. They are maybe not the most effective howlers the world has ever known, probably because howling hasn’t really paid off for them in the past. Vicious circle.

It’s why I’m not optimistic about “regime change” in Russia.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 11:31 am

Formix wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:06 am It seems all these forecasts are talking from a purely strategic sense. My understanding is that without fossil fuel income, Russia is essentially a third world economy. How long can you pay soldiers, and all the logistical costs when the folks back home are howling?

Unfortunately, Russia has a long, long history of being governed by people that don’t give a flying fuck if the folks back home are howling. Also, those Russian folks have a long, long history of suffering through some of the worst governments imaginable. They are maybe not the most effective howlers the world has ever known, probably because howling hasn’t really paid off for them in the past. Vicious circle.

It’s why I’m not optimistic about “regime change” in Russia.

Depends. A lot of kings and dictators have been brought down by failed wars (including, you know, the last Tsar). If Ukraine is an unambiguous failure, then I think that will embolden protestors and other domestic enemies to at least take a shot at toppling him. So I think the odds of Putin being deposed this year just went way up (though definitely <50%).

Which is both good and bad - it also means that Putin has every reason to fight to the bitter end in Ukraine, knowing what the prospects for him might be if he fails.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:12 am It's going to be interesting to see if the united front (severe sanctions, businesses pulling out) holds. I'm guessing Putin's betting that once he's "secured" Ukraine, the world will slowly start putting this behind them and gradually resume business as usual. It's going to be a supreme test of wills. Particularly if Russia weaponizes its oil production.

This is my take as well. Once Ukraine falls ( and it will fall, I think everyone agrees on that), I fear the sanctions will loosen considerably over the course of 6 months or less. Then Putin will have won.

Per my previous post on this thread - Finland and Sweden look to be moving closer to joining NATO. It will be Putin's move after that.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 11:23 am

Newcastle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 11:16 am Malchior - I agree with your assessment in terms of oil. If the world (or a good chunk) steer clear from Russian oil; i think the knock on effect is a renewed effort to develop clean energy sources. Won't be surprised if Germany ends up in the lead on this somehow, seeing their utter dependence on Russian energy.

FWIW following this Germany has said that they're revisiting their plan to close their nuclear plants by the end of the year. Which is good (and hopefully they'll definitely reverse the plan) from both a dependence on Russian energy and from a climate change perspective.

If I remember it correctly, Germany had a coalition government that included the green parties at the time they made the decision. The government is more conservative so they probably had the political space and the Ukraine sized reason to reverse the call.

I remember that decision fairly vividly because I was at a company in the middle of building a unit in the United States. A set of the first reactors at the time in 40 years - there was a mini craze at the end of the oughts around safer modern nuclear plants. Almost every single plan including our own got kiboshed after Fukushima. Both from a risk and the fact that NRC over-regulated it into impossibility. I just looked it up and I can't believe that was over a decade ago. The energy situation and the climate situation has only gotten worse so pursuing a mix that includes nuclear seems important. It isn't like it's getting cooler or the oil producing countries are getting better at not being incredibly shitty.