NationStates Jolt Archive

I keep hearing how great Communism is, and how when we take down the capitalistic system, then, and only then will we have a perfect society where kittens will fart sunshine. However, there has been Communistic society in the past, one of the most notable one is the USSR. However, if Communism is the superior system, then how do Communist on NSG explain Chernobyl?

Chernobyl was the worst Nuclear power plant disaster in the world, and to be honest, it was a power plant built under a Communist government and society. Was the Chernobyl disaster a product of Communism rule and society, or was it simply a fatal error in the experiment that they were trying to conduct?

And how do Capitalists explain World War II?

What does World War II have to do with Capitalism?

This thread makes no sense to me. Has Wilgrove been at the falling down water?

And how do Capitalists explain World War II?

What does World War II have to do with Capitalism?

This thread makes no sense to me. Has Wilgrove been at the falling down water?

*forgets that class is out for the Summer*

Chernobyl Disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

It was a mistake.
I don't think their materials and tech were very up to date.
More to do with the economy of the country in question.
That could happen to anyone, anywhere.
If you could, I would like you to point out other power plant failures in Communist countries.
Not that they are, or ever were truly Communist but.

The Chernobyl disaster was the result of a mistake anyone could have made.

This thread makes no sense to me. Has Wilgrove been at the falling down water?
It makes sense to me.
And how do Capitalists explain World War II?
Well, when a crazy Austrian self-proclaimed socialist starts declaring war on your allies and exterminating races, it's hard not to get involved.

Linking the Chernobyl disaster to a political ideology makes sense to some of you? Really?

I am intrigued. Explain this linkage. If I remember correctly, Chernobyl was due to human error so I'm interested how a single person screwing up their job can be linked to a grander style of political thought.

So the Bhopal disaster means what then?

Well, when a crazy Austrian self-proclaimed socialist starts declaring war on your allies and exterminating races, it's hard not to get involved.

We managed it for what, three years?

I keep hearing how great Communism is, and how when we take down the capitalistic system, then, and only then will we have a perfect society where kittens will fart sunshine. However, there has been Communistic society in the past, one of the most notable one is the USSR. However, if Communism is the superior system, then how do Communist on NSG explain Chernobyl?

Chernobyl was the worst Nuclear power plant disaster in the world, and to be honest, it was a power plant built under a Communist government and society. Was the Chernobyl disaster a product of Communism rule and society, or was it simply a fatal error in the experiment that they were trying to conduct?
It wasn't anything to do with the fact that the Ukraine was under USSR control, tbh, just that it was an old style reactor where the coolant around the fuel rods was one single unit.It was a Russian design, to be sure, and it was massively flawed, but nothing to do with the whole Communist/Capitalist debate. You seem to forget that the US very nearly suffered a similar incident with 3 mile island.

Realistically, Wilgrove, if you're going to try attacking the communist regimes imposed by various dictatorships, there are hundreds of better ways of doing it. Try having a pop at the breadlines, the massive poverty, the climate of political fear. You'll find it a much more satisfying argument.

What does World War II have to do with Capitalism?
The nazi germany was capitalist when the Holocaust and World War II happened.


It was a mistake.
I don't think their materials and tech were very up to date.
Not that problem. Actually, the morbid irony is, they were testing a new, potentially very effective safety system. It was all in the name of safety - preventing TMI-like incidents.

The reactor was pretty modern for the time (though not the safest), and upgraded with some measures that were expected to make it passively safe. They decided to test it when it was about to be stopped for fuel reloading anyway.

Unfortunately, though, the nearly-spent fuel behaved different from clean fuel used in lab tests. And, disastrously, its reactions not only precluded the passive safety from working, but also led to a failure of active safety. The so-called Iodine gap caused the reactor to temporarily sharply drop its power. This was not known and instead seen as a safety overreaction, so the emergency shutdown systems were put on hold, to actually test the passive safety. But then further unexpected reactions ended the condition and the reactor started to abruptly regain power. It happened so rapidly that the active safety failed to react in time. Then the reactor overheated... the rest is known.

wtf was Three Mile Island then?

wtf was Three Mile Island then?
An American reactor threw a hissy fit in the late '70s and sprayed radioactive Krypton and Iodine onto the surrounding population. Nothing particularly happened but it shit up the government for a while and could have been worse.

We managed it for what, three years?

We really didn't have a whole bunch of alliances. Most of the European countries did.

The nazi germany was capitalist when the Holocaust and World War II happened.

Nazi = National SOCIALIST party.:p

*forgets that class is out for the Summer*

Chernobyl Disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

I remember it happening, what makes no sense is your point in linking it to communism. Industrial accidents happen under capitalism and communism. The Bhopal disaster in India where a Union Carbide chemical plant exploded could be blamed on capitalism...as could the American dustbowl, the great depression ultimately leading to WWII. But only a fol would say it invalidated capitalism in the way you seem to be saying Chernobyl somehow invalidates communism.

Not that problem. Actually, the morbid irony is, they were testing a new, potentially very effective safety system. It was all in the name of safety - preventing TMI-like incidents.

ah, ok.
A mistake from something untested instead of neglected.
:hail: I bow down to your knowledge and stand corrected.:D

Nazi = National SOCIALIST party.:p

The DEMOCRATIC Republic of East Germany.

The DEMOCRATIC Republic of East Germany.
It's almost like these nations are outright lying, isn't it?

¬_¬

It's almost like these nations are outright lying, isn't it?

¬_¬

What?? Nooo.. Governments would never lie.
Thats just, wrong.

,)

The crew manning the station was inept and had little to no knowledge about nuclear reactors. In fact the shift manager never had any experience at all. His backround was at a coal facility. Personnel were never notified of the test and ended up cranking up the juice which caused the accident. It was bad, but it could have been prevented from becoming a full blown disaster had there been a competant crew there.

Could be that communism lacks good hiring procedures and capitalism does not....I dont know what the original poster was on about to tell the truth.

The Chernobyl disaster was the result of a mistake anyone could have made.

Hardly. Chernobyl happened because the Communist system as implemented in the Soviet Union was completely unsuited for this sort of thing.

The reactors in Chernobyl were basically the same design as the reactors in their nuclear subs. Reaction regulated by carbon packs (as opposed to water, which is the American approach.) When designing Chernobyl they essentially took the exact design from the subs and made it bigger. This was mistake #1. It introduced a series of design flaws that contributed to the disaster.

During the test that was being conducted at the time of the accident, insufficient safety procedures, coupled with mechanical failure, led an inexperienced staff to do the exact OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to bring the situation under control. You can thank the inherent inefficiency of the Soviet system for that.

When the reactor core overheated the carbon packs, normally used to regulate the reaction and capture stray neutrons, ignited. The fire immediately brought temperatures far beyond safety levels and resulted in an explosion that not only blew the roof off of the reactor housing, but all that burning carbon ash carried with it radiation and literally circled the planet.

(Radiation alarm devices in North America were actually triggered by this cloud, carried by the Jet Stream.)

American reactors are superior precisely because there's a financial incentive to build safely and efficiently. We use water, not carbon to regulate our reactors and the safety procedures and staff are all at the highest standard not only because of NRC specifications but also because of simple self-interest... nobody wants to be sued.

Ready for something scary? Chernobyl is still in operation today, running on its remaining reactors.

How long is it til they have to re-cap the site again?

Nazi = National SOCIALIST party.:p

That was just shit Hitler pulled to get the socialists on his side. Once he was in power and didn't need them, he killed them.

Nazi = National SOCIALIST party.:p

...and Ronald Reagan was head of the Irish REPUBLICAN Army?

When designing Chernobyl they essentially took the exact design from the subs and made it bigger. This was mistake #1. It introduced a series of design flaws that contributed to the disaster.
Not Chernobyl, but RBMK. And not the exact design, not even remotely. And it had design flaws, but so did all reactors of the era. It's a 1970s power plant.

During the test that was being conducted at the time of the accident, insufficient safety procedures, coupled with mechanical failure, led an inexperienced staff to do the exact OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to bring the situation under control. You can thank the inherent inefficiency of the Soviet system for that.
Or you can thank the Flat Earth Society, or the Cheesy Poofs, or Neo Bretonnia for that, it's your inherent right.

The "exact opposite" was done before the actual incident, and the staff was experienced. They didn't know some things that nobody knew at the time, and no experience helps to deal with a situation of a kind that has never happened before.


When the reactor core overheated the carbon packs, normally used to regulate the reaction and capture stray neutrons, ignited. The fire immediately brought temperatures far beyond safety levels [...]
What is your source?

Either way, avoid it.
For one thing, the RBMK (or BWR) reactor is nearly completely filled with water, without enough oxygen to sustain fire. For other, carbon fire doesn't have a tenth of the energy required to explode the reactor.

There is debate on whether the explosion was primarily caused by metal-water reaction or it was an actual nuclear explosion, but either way, it has nothing to do with graphite fires.


American reactors are superior precisely because there's a financial incentive to build safely and efficiently. Actually there isn't. Insurance covers all the losses, and is additionally covered by industry reinsurance, which is additionally secured by the government.
The nuclear power in US is as safe as sufficient to meet the government regulations, and just that.

I'm a committed ultra-libertarian/minarchist, but please - the central-command system actually offers far more incentive to be safe. In part because all the financial losses are covered by the same entity that builds the plant, not the insurer, in part because the price for mistakes is often a bullet.

We use water, not carbon to regulate our reactors and the safety procedures and staff are all at the highest standard not only because of NRC specifications but also because of simple self-interest... nobody wants to be sued.
You're making some very far-going assumptions here, which are so far beyond ultra-primitive that it's not even possible to comment on them.
Seriously, do you know ANYTHING about nuclear reactors? Anything.
If not, why are you talking about water and carbon moderators and making judgments on what is better?

Are you aware the safest designs in existence today use graphite (carbon) moderator?


Ready for something scary? Chernobyl is still in operation today, running on its remaining reactors. It isn't - actually it was shut down completely about a decade ago.

It continued operating, because the reactors are safe unless such experiments are done on them. It was shut down as the reactors have worked out almost all of their 25-year lifetime.

It wasn't anything to do with the fact that the Ukraine was under USSR control, tbh, just that it was an old style reactor where the coolant around the fuel rods was one single unit.It was a Russian design, to be sure, and it was massively flawed, but nothing to do with the whole Communist/Capitalist debate. You seem to forget that the US very nearly suffered a similar incident with 3 mile island.

The design was flawed because it was cheap. They didn't test enough to realize that while graphite is a fantastic way to cool the reactor, when it is first introduced to the radioactive element it causes a massive flare of the reaction. So, when it started to over-heat and they slammed the control rods down, it kicked up the reaction before it started to cool it, which was enough to cause it to melt down. The cooling in general was cheap and underdeveloped. The reason they were using such old and out-dated methods was because the USSR didn't care enough to put the extra funding into a more reliable system.

Three Mile Island was a spectacular success, as it happens. Occasionally things go wrong that could not have been foreseen, which is what happened at TMI. The reason why it was a success is because they were able to shut the reactor down before it leaked. The radiation was contained and no-one died. TMI demonstrated a level of preparedness to handle nuclear incidents that was lacking at Chernobyl.

Am I saying anything about Communism or Capitalism and their roles in the two incidents? No. What I am saying is that the two incidents are not alike at all. I'm saying that the technology existed to prevent Chernobyl, but was not used because the USSR was too cheap (for whatever reason they were), and that TMI was the result of an accident, but contained because of careful planning and an adequate budget

What does World War II have to do with Capitalism?

Only slightly more than Chernobyl has to do with Communism.

Not Chernobyl, but RBMK. And not the exact design, not even remotely. And it had design flaws, but so did all reactors of the era. It's a 1970s power plant.


Most civilian reactors in use today are from the '70s. And I'll trust my source on the design, thanks. (No I can't link it. It's a real live former employee at a nuclear power station.)


Or you can thank the Flat Earth Society, or the Cheesy Poofs, or Neo Bretonnia for that, it's your inherent right.


So your point is what? The Soviet system had nothing to do with it?


The "exact opposite" was done before the actual incident, and the staff was experienced. They didn't know some things that nobody knew at the time, and no experience helps to deal with a situation of a kind that has never happened before.


Are you kidding?


At 11:04 p.m., April 25, the Kiev grid controller allowed the reactor shut-down to resume. This delay had serious consequences. The day shift had long since departed. The evening shift was also preparing to leave and the night shift would take over at 12:00 a.m., well into the experiment. The special team of electrical engineers must have been exhausted from the long wait. According to plan, the test should have been finalized during the day-time and the night shift would only have to maintain basic cooling systems in a plant otherwise shut down. The night shift was not prepared to carry out the experiment. Alexander Akimov was chief of the night shift and Leonid Toptunov was the operator responsible for the reactor's operational regime, including the movement of the control rods. Toptunov was a young engineer who had only worked independently as a senior engineer for about three months.[12]

In Valeri Legasov's posthumous article he maintains that the operators did not know what the test was about:

I have in my safe a transcript of the operators' telephone conversations on the eve of the accident. Reading the transcript makes one's flesh creep. One operator rings another and asks: What shall I do? In the programme there are instructions of what to do, and then a lot of things are crossed out. His interlocutor thought for a while and then replied: Follow the crossed out instructions.[13]




What is your source?

Either way, avoid it.


You want me to discount someone whom I've met and worked with in person and take the word of some anonymous Internet user who has already made statements that are demonstrably inaccurate.

Check.



For one thing, the RBMK (or BWR) reactor is nearly completely filled with water, without enough oxygen to sustain fire. For other, carbon fire doesn't have a tenth of the energy required to explode the reactor.


I won't dispute this particular point since he's not here to ask.



There is debate on whether the explosion was primarily caused by metal-water reaction or it was an actual nuclear explosion, but either way, it has nothing to do with graphite fires.


That's ridiculous. An actual nuclear explosion is not possible under those conditions, nor is the grade of fissionable material able to produce a nuclear explosion, nor would there still be a building standing in the aftermath.



Actually there isn't. Insurance covers all the losses, and is additionally covered by industry reinsurance, which is additionally secured by the government.
The nuclear power in US is as safe as sufficient to meet the government regulations, and just that.


Are you saying that a private owner of a nuclear reactor has -no- incentive to operate safely and efficiently? Insurance premiums go up. Reputation is damaged. Profit margins are destroyed. Sounds like incentive to me, even if you won't accept basic human decency.


I'm a committed ultra-libertarian/minarchist, but please - the central-command system actually offers far more incentive to be safe. In part because all the financial losses are covered by the same entity that builds the plant, not the insurer, in part because the price for mistakes is often a bullet.


How can you describe yourself as a libertarian or minarchist and believe that a centralized Government, whose incentive program comes in bullets, is an advantage?



You're making some very far-going assumptions here, which are so far beyond ultra-primitive that it's not even possible to comment on them.
Seriously, do you know ANYTHING about nuclear reactors? Anything.
If not, why are you talking about water and carbon moderators and making judgments on what is better?


So far, I see no reason to suppose your knowledge is greater than mine. No offense.


Are you aware the safest designs in existence today use graphite (carbon) moderator?


Sez who?



It isn't - actually it was shut down completely about a decade ago.

It continued operating, because the reactors are safe unless such experiments are done on them. It was shut down as the reactors have worked out almost all of their 25-year lifetime.

So wait... it both shut down completely AND it continued operating?

As it turns out, you're right about it being shut down. December 2000. I'll give you that one. But the reactors did not continue operating. They're only monitored now due to the need to monitor nuclear fuel.

If you're going to talk about Tschenobyl, then what about Sellafield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Controversy)? Harrisburg (Three Mile Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident))? Not exactly on par with the previous but they were both noteworthy in the end. What sets these two apart is likely how it was handled. In the end, it has nothing to do with ideology but the ability to respond and react in time and with the right tools.

(EDIT - I realise that this is mentioned before but I don't care!)

It has more to do with the technology use than the ideology behind it. The only reason communism is associated with it is because communism is associated with failure and as Tschernobyl is one of the biggest failures of the communist era, it is thus associated with it.

It could have happened to anyone IF the wrong tools were used.

Also, it seems to me that the meltdown happened during the night shift when there weren't many properly trained individuals onsite, capable of handing the meltdown in a safe and efficient manner. What it boils down to is that there was an experiment being done; the day shift knew the whole procedure, the evening shift had monitored it, but it was the night shift that had problems, as it was to have been finished by the day shift and the night shifters were to just overlook the cooling. It wound up being caused by human error; not ideological error.

It's just easier that when something fails, to assign blame to the ideology that existed at the time and claim it to mean that the ideology failed. Human failure; error and technological failure; error was the cause in the end.

As for the handling of the population. Yes they were sickened by it. But, I have to wonder, is that once again because of ideology or human failure?

...and Ronald Reagan was head of the Irish REPUBLICAN Army?
Who told you!?!? I mean.... No. No he wasn't.:D
The DEMOCRATIC* Republic of East Germany.
* May not apply to all citizens, or even any.:tongue:
That was just shit Hitler pulled to get the socialists on his side. Once he was in power and didn't need them, he killed them.
True. But I wouldn't call them Capitalist, especially with all the anti-capitalist speeches talking about how Capitalism was all a Jewish conspiracy.
I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State… The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance
So not really socialism in the way most people think, but not Capitallist.

I keep hearing how great Communism is, and how when we take down the capitalistic system, then, and only then will we have a perfect society where kittens will fart sunshine. However, there has been Communistic society in the past, one of the most notable one is the USSR. However, if Communism is the superior system, then how do Communist on NSG explain Chernobyl?

Chernobyl was the worst Nuclear power plant disaster in the world, and to be honest, it was a power plant built under a Communist government and society. Was the Chernobyl disaster a product of Communism rule and society, or was it simply a fatal error in the experiment that they were trying to conduct?
Nuclear disasters are not only the province of Communist societies. Three Mile Island -- 1979, Harrisburg PA, for example.

(No I can't link it. It's a real live former employee at a nuclear power station.) What was he doing there? That matters.

So your point is what? The Soviet system had nothing to do with it? It had. It was trying to make the reactors safer.
And if not for that disaster, there wouldn't be many reactors with better safety.


You want me to discount someone whom I've met and worked with in person and take the word of some anonymous Internet user who has already made statements that are demonstrably inaccurate.
Check.
Sorry, but you're wrong. You're with infinite self-confidence making far-reaching assumptions regarding things you have no idea about.


I won't dispute this particular point since he's not here to ask. If you need to ask someone to debate, don't debate.
The point about graphite fire is utter nonsense and tends to debunk whatever previous credibility the poster had.


That's ridiculous. An actual nuclear explosion is not possible under those conditions, nor is the grade of fissionable material able to produce a nuclear explosion, nor would there still be a building standing in the aftermath.
Wrong again. Nuclear explosion is possible not only in a bomb. Any explosive reaction that takes its power from nuclear fission or fusion is a nuclear explosion.
The zirconium-water reaction and heat didn't have sufficient energy potential to throw the pieces as far as they were found. That suggests a nuclear thermal explosion explanation. Another explanation involves false data, calculation mistakes and relocation of debris.


So far, I see no reason to suppose your knowledge is greater than mine. No offense. No defense. Your knowledge regarding nuclear technology is zero.
Mine is near-zero; maybe zero too - but at least I do understand that I know nothing and don't make far-reaching implications of commoner level.


Are you saying that a private owner of a nuclear reactor has -no- incentive to operate safely and efficiently? Insurance premiums go up. Reputation is damaged. No, he has a disincentive. Insurance premiums are worth much less than extreme-safety design. Reputation even less, and it's easily reset with name changes and takeovers.

Sounds like incentive to me, even if you won't accept basic human decency. Now tell me why "basic human decency" should be absent in other systems.

How can you describe yourself as a libertarian or minarchist and believe that a centralized Government, whose incentive program comes in bullets, is an advantage? I'm not a partisan of anyone.

An incentive dealt in bullets is much more of an incentive than one dealt in "potential reputation loss" or "insurance premium rise". That's simply how things are. While libertarianism is superior economically, the last thing it promotes is safety.

USSR has spent $400 billion on mitigating the effects of Chernobyl Disaster.
A capitalist system wouldn't, because it's not economically efficient, and there wouldn't be anyone to give that money anyway.


So wait... it both shut down completely AND it continued operating?
As it turns out, you're right about it being shut down. December 2000. I'll give you that one. But the reactors did not continue operating. They're only monitored now due to the need to monitor nuclear fuel.
It has shut down in 2000. The reactors continued to operate until that. What is unclear?

Fatal Error Detected.

No defense. Your knowledge regarding nuclear technology is zero.
Mine is near-zero; maybe zero too - but at least I do understand that I know nothing and don't make far-reaching implications of commoner level.

So you admit that your knowledge of nuclear reactor technology is lacking, yet claim to have more knowledge than someone else and then criticize him or her for suggesting that his or her knowledge is better than yours, when you have no information about his or her background to know whether or not they are more qualified to speak about nuclear reactors than you are.

Given that you admit an almost complete lack of knowledge about nuclear technology, and given that NB claims to have a valid source of information, logic would dictate that even if NB's claims are false, you are in no position to argue.

Nuclear disasters are not only the province of Communist societies. Three Mile Island -- 1979, Harrisburg PA, for example.

Three Mile Island was a spectacular success, as it happens. Occasionally things go wrong that could not have been foreseen, which is what happened at TMI. The reason why it was a success is because they were able to shut the reactor down before it leaked. The radiation was contained and no-one died. TMI demonstrated a level of preparedness to handle nuclear incidents that was lacking at Chernobyl.

......

So you admit that your knowledge of nuclear reactor technology is lacking, yet claim to have more knowledge than someone else and then criticize him or her for suggesting that his or her knowledge is better than yours, when you have no information about his or her background to know whether or not they are more qualified to speak about nuclear reactors than you are.

Given that you admit an almost complete lack of knowledge about nuclear technology, and given that NB claims to have a valid source of information, logic would dictate that even if NB's claims are false, you are in no position to argue.

No, Neo B does not have valid source of information. His is "I know someone who. . ." which is usually synonymous on the internet with "I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass."
BTW, what is your claim to expertise on the matter, since you're calling someone else out on it.

No, Neo B does not have valid source of information. His is "I know someone who. . ." which is usually synonymous on the internet with "I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass."
BTW, what is your claim to expertise on the matter, since you're calling someone else out on it.

I never claimed to have expertise on the subject.

This thread makes no sense to me. Has Wilgrove been at the falling down water?

No, he's looking for anything that could be perceived as a testicle kick at Communism and Andaras, who would simply Baghdad Bob his way out of this as yet more Bourgeois Propaganda.

So you admit that your knowledge of nuclear reactor technology is lacking, Given that you admit an almost complete lack of knowledge about nuclear technology, and given that NB claims to have a valid source of information, logic would dictate that even if NB's claims are false, you are in no position to argue.
At least I had 4 semesters on Nuclear Propulsion Systems, and I had worked on the design of systems on nuclear-powered vessels.

But what that time of study and work have really taught me is that I actually understand nothing about how nuclear reactors work, because it's not something that can be learned in a couple years even with dedication, and it has to be thought about in a completely different way.

And if all two years of study give you is realizing your knowledge is zero, then a chat with someone who has worked on a nuclear plant certainly doesn't give you the expert-level knowledge, which is required to make judgments like "graphite-moderated reactors are bad and unsafe, and water-moderated ones are super and safe".

At least I had 4 semesters on Nuclear Propulsion Systems, and I had worked on the design of systems on nuclear-powered vessels.

But what that time of study and work have really taught me is that I actually understand nothing about how nuclear reactors work, because it's not something that can be learned in a couple years even with dedication, and it has to be thought about in a completely different way.

And if all two years of study give you is realizing your knowledge is zero, then a chat with someone who has worked on a nuclear plant certainly doesn't give you the expert-level knowledge, which is required to make judgments like "graphite-moderated reactors are bad and unsafe, and water-moderated ones are super and safe".

Ah. That makes more sense, then.

I always figured it had more to do with bureaucracy and the lack of freedom in economic decisionmaking than any particular economic system. Soviet reactors were outdated and unsafe compared to those in use in the West, but nobody could do anything about it because their leadership was only interested in building them and producing more power.

That's why environmental damage in the capitalist world, even China, pales in comparison to the destruction wrought by the CPEs on their territory. They pursued growth without reason or consequence, and their leaders ignored the scientists and people closely involved in favor of ideology. That's a failure of government rather than a failure of a particular economic system, at least in my opinion.

Three Mile Island was a spectacular success, as it happens. Occasionally things go wrong that could not have been foreseen, which is what happened at TMI. The reason why it was a success is because they were able to shut the reactor down before it leaked. The radiation was contained and no-one died. TMI demonstrated a level of preparedness to handle nuclear incidents that was lacking at Chernobyl.


The reactors at Three Mile Island leaked. Quite a bit, too. 1.59 PBq.

Chernobyl was the worst Nuclear power plant disaster in the world, and to be honest, it was a power plant built under a Russian government and society.

Fixed.

Russians have their own way of doing things and this is one of the instances where it messed up

Saying that either a capitalist or communist controlled crew care less about a failure than the other is ridiculous. Neither would want their credibility undermined by a failure. Neither would want to cause a protest by the locals. Neither would want to be to forever associated with an epic fail.

The failure of Chernobyl should be seen in light of the times. It was the late 1980's,, and the Soviet Union was near the end of it's time and had been in decline for some years by this point. The USSR of 1986 was not the USSR of 1956 or 1966.

I keep hearing how great Communism is, and how when we take down the capitalistic system, then, and only then will we have a perfect society where kittens will fart sunshine. However, there has been Communistic society in the past, one of the most notable one is the USSR. However, if Communism is the superior system, then how do Communist on NSG explain Chernobyl?

Chernobyl was the worst Nuclear power plant disaster in the world, and to be honest, it was a power plant built under a Communist government and society. Was the Chernobyl disaster a product of Communism rule and society, or was it simply a fatal error in the experiment that they were trying to conduct?

How about a fatal flaw in the Graphite Water Reactors that the Soviets decided to go with, rather than American Pressurized Water Reactors?

Y'know, the ones where water vapor buildup resulting in a catastrophic steam explosion in the reactor could occur?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13786720&postcount=13

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13786720&postcount=13

^

Lft.

I keep hearing how great Communism is, and how when we take down the capitalistic system, then, and only then will we have a perfect society where kittens will fart sunshine. However, there has been Communistic society in the past, one of the most notable one is the USSR. However, if Communism is the superior system, then how do Communist on NSG explain Chernobyl?

You need to realise that the Communism that most people think is a 'superior system' actually hasn't been put into practice.

The USSR's brand of Communism is not the true form that most preach. It was a label, and not a particularly accurate one. The type of Communism that some people actually want will probably never come about, simply because it goes against basic Human Nature.

No, he has a disincentive. Insurance premiums are worth much less than extreme-safety design. Reputation even less, and it's easily reset with name changes and takeovers.

You'd think the continued Union Carbide denial of responsibility for the Bhopal disaster, despite the fact that it was their plant, and their cost cutting on safety measures and training that led to it, would drive the point home that at the end of the day, profit making corporations don't really give a fig about safety so long as it doesn't affect their margins.

I mean, the entirety of the factory safety and disaster containment training consisted of running upwind in the event of an explosion, which they couldn't do, seeing as how the factory manager sealed the compound doors beforehand.

The Chernobyl disaster was the result of a mistake anyone could have made.
No, Chernobyl was a result of gross negligence and failure by the Soviets to replace failing equipment.

To make it an even broader question, if Communism is so great, how do you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union?

True. But I wouldn't call them Capitalist, especially with all the anti-capitalist speeches talking about how Capitalism was all a Jewish conspiracy.

Ah, he was just mad because he couldn't get cheap chocolate cake.

To make it an even broader question, if Communism is so great, how do you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Easy. It wasn't communist, in any sort of sense that political theorists recognise communism.

One of the things that always astounds me is how people can end up thinking that the archetype of a society founded on equality is a totalitarian dictatorship. The two are mutually exclusive --- even Marx accepted that*.

*He said that when communism had been reached, the state would wither away. Hence USSR is demonstratably non-communist, even by Marx's definition**

**And then most NSG communists are also anti-statist, so we don't feel the USSR is at all representative of anything near our views. But anyway.

The nazi germany was capitalist when the Holocaust and World War II happened.



Quick history lesson. The Nazis were fascists, and while their state operated by utilizing preexisting German mega-corporations (entities like IG Farben and Krupp), their economy was heavily, centrally regulated and planned. Hardly capitalist, actually, rather corporatist.

I keep hearing how great Communism is, and how when we take down the capitalistic system, then, and only then will we have a perfect society where kittens will fart sunshine. However, there has been Communistic society in the past, one of the most notable one is the USSR. However, if Communism is the superior system, then how do Communist on NSG explain Chernobyl?

Chernobyl was the worst Nuclear power plant disaster in the world, and to be honest, it was a power plant built under a Communist government and society. Was the Chernobyl disaster a product of Communism rule and society, or was it simply a fatal error in the experiment that they were trying to conduct?
As someone who is not a communist, I can explain it like this - your political system and method of wealth distribution do not stop arrogant people getting bored when they're up at 4am and causing errors.