What The Fuck is Wrong With Russians?

Is it an rbmk reactor? Honestly, the idea of a mobile nuclear plant is kind of brilliant. Imagine disaster relief with this. You could run lights, power, everything right where you need it. If it doesn't explode, that could be a huge benefit.

The US has like a dozen nuclear carriers as well as a bunch of nuclear subs. Naval nuclear reactors are nothing new.

In the hands of Russians yes.

as long as dyatlov doesn't run any "stress-tests" it'll be fine

>expert calls it
Literally fake news

that sounds like something """experts""" would say

Probably part of their plans for setting shit up in the arctic. They're well ahead of the US and Canada in icebreakers, too. Fucking Americans won't even support us in our claims over the Northwest Passage, some corporate lobbyist cocksucker is probably afraid we'd charge fees to use it in the future.

(((Experts)))

How does a floating reactor explode?

Attached: 1562455186751m.jpg (1024x880, 71K)

Dont most submarines already come with nuclear reactors?

"nuclear expert Schlovitz Goldstein, who holds a masters degree in dance therapy and once saw a tv documentary about the Windscale fire, says the new powerplant is a disaster waiting to happen 'this is unacceptable' comments Goldstein 'the goyim can not be trusted with atomic energy'"

Unironically gas everyone whos badmouthing nuclear power with carbon monoxide

Attached: 66.jpg (431x401, 20K)

Violently

Attached: picapee.jpg (900x900, 89K)

However it happens, it won't be megaton range nuclear explosion like Chernobyl the TV series says

(((Facts))) right and everything else. But we believe the world is flat. And (((science))) is a work of fiction.

Is the solution if it goes nuclear to just sink it? Cause that's not entirely dumb.

>some corporate lobbyist cocksucker is probably afraid we'd charge fees to use it in the future.
Wouldn't you? Or more correctly your politicians?

IIRC the US did a similar thing after Katrina or some other hurricane, they hooked up a nuclear sub's reactor to the city's power supply.

you just want all the neutrons to yourself you dirty heeb

If there is a meltdown it's sinking whether you want it to or not.

Oh, so it's basically redundant as fuck then for us. I hadn't thought about that. It wouldn't make sense for us to have a boat, powered by a nuclear reactor. That just... has a nuclear reactor. To power things. I forget other nations don't power all their large sea going vessels that way.

Attached: america defend it.jpg (1920x1080, 201K)

>in the event of a meltdown, the corium goes straight into a body of water

is this... accelerationism?

there is nothing wrong with nuclear power.

Depends on what kind of deal they worked out, I imagine. Keeping it clear of ice and secure for regular shipping would be expensive as fuck, so obviously we would want help with that or charge fees to do it ourselves. But basically they can work out some kind of deal with our pansy ass canuck bargaining team now or in the near future and help us legitimize our claims up there, or tell us to get fucked and play hard ball with Ivan in the long term.

So what type of a reactor it actually is?

>an expert says

wew lad

khrjukni i pokazhy flag svoj Lvoskaja svinja

kek

Nuclear barge is a good idea if you actually have coastal areas that could use them. You could just park them and if a problem comes up you could wheel them out to sea and drop the core. Problem is that if the US navy did this it would be well executed but the Russians will probably fuck it up no doubt.

Gym!

Attached: GYM.png (624x605, 597K)

Attached: delusional.png (497x576, 212K)