G.I. Joe

His point was, the existence of the pipeline was a leverage point to try and manage Russian behavior, ergo it wasn't in our interest to blow the pipeline.
Beyond that yeah, the US like every state engages in actions that go beyond the law.  
Okay are we done here?  Can we get back to Ukraine?

Well, one thing I was going to expand on was my comment about RBMK reactor designs being as they were partly (or maybe mostly) to be used not only for power but for weapons material. I started to but then stopped.
RBMKs have low U enrichment, easy access to swap out fuel, and therefore fuel is removed for reprocessing after short burn-up time. All of these things are necessary for Pu weapons fuel, and RBMKs have it all.
Pu-239 is created in fission, as a decay product from neutron absorption, and so is Pu-240 (absorbs another neutron from Pu-239). Pu-240 is not suitable for weapons warheads - too much spontaneous fission. So you want (ideally) pure Pu-239. This is not possible, because Pu, unlike U, cannot be enriched. It's physically impossible. It can't be chemically separated because it's all Pu. So your only choice is to NOT create much Pu-240. Short burn-up times accomplish this.
All of this is the reason that "normal" light water power reactors are not proliferation concerns. There was a lot of talk about Iran's Bushehr reactor in regards to proliferation. It's a LWR, with fuel provided by Russia and spent fuel given back to Russia. Even if Iran somehow reneged and kept the spent fuel, it would do no good. 1) they have no Pu reprocessing capability - it's a complex process and few countries have it, and 2) too much Pu-240 to make it useful and weapons material. Iran's Arak reactor was reconfigured to no longer be a possible source of Pu as part of the JCPOA.
Oh, wait. We stupidly withdrew from that agreement freeing Iran to do what they want. (I guess I'm diverging from my diverging here)
The US has and has in the past, specialized reactors run by the DOE for weapons production. No civilian power plant is involved in that in any way.
So there - geek out all you want. 
I love physics and especially nuclear physics. It's the way the universe works, and it's kind of cool that we can observe and determine it all not because we can see the particles and waves, but because we can detect the effects they have and determine the characteristics from that. Some of it is really mind-bending.  Like pair production in gamma radiation - direct conversion of waves into matter and back again. My favorite phenomena. Just hard to wrap your head around.
Dave
 

Sure I remember. That was the RBMK reactors like at Chernobyl. They had a "positive temperature coefficient"  or  "positive reactivity coefficient" (those mean the same thing) meaning that as temperatures in the coolant increase, the nuclear reaction rate increases, which increases temperature, which increases nuclear reaction rate.....  you can see where that leads. HOWEVER, this is not the design of these reactors. These are more "typical" reactors that have a "negative temperature coefficient".  Reaction rate decreases as water temperature increases. Should be obvious that that is beneficial and is how most reactors are designed. I believe RBMK reactors were the way they were for weapons materials production, for one thing. They also had no containment, which the Russians justified by their strict operating procedures preventing accidents. Ironically, Chernobyl's root cause was a) the violation of multiple operating procedures and parameters, b) running an unapproved test procedure, c) lack of understanding by the operators of the physics of the plant and the indications they were receiving (those are related). 
It's nothing to do with steam by the way. (probably the translation or lack of accurate knowledge by the original writer). It's water. Steam is transparent to neutrons so really has no effect on reaction rate, other than if you've got steam in the core you've got NO cooling, which is of course, very bad. Steam flow is an incredibly poor heat transfer mechanism. Steam is the RESULT of efficient heat transfer.
In my qualification training (18 months) to be licensed for start up testing of US Navy reactor plants one things was drilled into us (well, many things, but) That was "Believe your indications and act on them".  If you have an indication of something going wrong and you take all the steps to shutdown and "put the plant is a safe condition" (that's the key words), you can't go wrong. You may waste time if it turns out to be faulty indicators, but you won't break the plant or kill someone. Our motto in the shipyard nuclear test organization - "When in doubt, shut it down"   An operating sub doesn't necessarily have that option, but many times they do, and that's the reason why we build and test them so well, so that it doesn't come up.
I have had to argue that point a few times with my upper management. "I was there. I had the watch. My decision."    I mean, it's the entire reason they spend 18 months and who knows how many $$ to license us!
Dave
 

The head of the IAEA said that the cooling water in the separate pond/lake, which is pumped from the reservoir, is sufficient for many months at least, since all the reactors are in cold shutdown. They have the ability to pump more water from the river until the river level gets TO ~12.7m. That's much more than dropping 2m.
The media can stop their breathless reporting of imminent nuclear disaster, another Fukushima, etc. Might have been a good idea for the various media to actually ask some experts first, specifically the IAEA which has been keeping a very close eye on the power plant status since the beginning of the conflict.
Not sure how many people know the intricate workings of a nuclear plant but that pond water does not go in and out of the reactor. In 2 sentences, it's used for the secondary side of heat exchangers that cool the water that is in a closed circuit circulating through the core. It's "clean" water, and not exposed to radioactive contamination.

Dave
[edited] I listened to his statement and thought he said 2.7m. The written statement says 12.7m. In any case, that refers to directly pumping water for cooling, and the cooling pond is still there and good for months of cooling.

Just put them in the F-35 program and be done with it. 😂

According to The Australian Financial Review, there's discussion about transferring ex-Australian F-18s to Ukraine. 
 

So if the Russians mistook AMX-10RCs for Leo 2s, those Russian soldiers who are still alive are firmly in the AMX-10RC is a tank camp.
Remember those never ending debates on Twitter if the AMX-10RC is a tank or not, when France first agreed to supply them to the AFU? 😎

Well the fact is that the 13 year old kid is the battle hardened veteran in this scenario.
There is a line stretching back eons of human civilization of old men saying exactly what you are here - “Back in my day we smashed each others heads in with rocks.  Now these kids are throwing pointy sticks!?  Oh humanity!”  Insert muskets, machine guns, artillery, aircraft, ATGMs and now UAS, same thing.
Best advice from history is “get over it, fast.”  Warfare does not care about philosophy, it only cares about victory or defeat.  Ukraine can figure out what to do about its individual qualities once they establish that they are able to survive.

Hopefully these drones will also be used for something more positive than just killing people.
I for one would not be surprised at all if before 2024 we see the first medevac with a drone.
 

I have warm and fuzzy memories of being considered a Cold War relict because I was profoundly suspicious of anyone working for RT.

Again, NO, the Allied Bombing campaigns were NOT war crimes under the Hague and Geneva Conventions which were applicable.
So many people who, presumably, have either not read them or understood what they read - try reading the Commentaries on the relevant treaties available on the ICRC Website - keep on repeating this shibboleth, which doesn't in the slightest make it true.
The Germans were accused of a War Crime over the bombing of Rotterdam, and acquitted, they were never charged with any other crimes regarding bombing cities.
Why? Because the targets were not the cities per se, but the industries, transport hubs and suchlike that just happened to be in the cities. Given the inaccuracy of the weaponj systems available at the time it was inevitable that bombs would miss, which was unfortunate for nearby non-military things/people which/who were hit, but not a crime.
The various High Contracting Powers who had signed Hague and Geneva treaties had tried to come up with an agreement that would set up a system of 'bomber sanctuary cities' in the inter-war years (see the relevant ICRC Commentaries, noted above) but had never been able to come up with an agreement that couldn't be easily gamed, and they really tried.
Remember, the entire purpose of International Humanitarian Law has always been to minimise the awfulness associated with war ... those who negotiated the treaties (and presumably those Nation States who signed them) have never been under the illusion that it would eliminate it entirely.

Oh, they undoubtedly were. Except any mentioning of them without immediate context unfortunatelly creates false equalization narratives, that fly further and that are bane of modern, fat and safe societies. Books about "US concentration camps for Japanese citizens" or "NEW history of WWII, in which Germans are victims, too" sell like fresh bread and create distorted vision of reality. I witnessed myself this guiding many people here on historical sights. You would be surprised how often people, otherwise well read and educated, fall trap for these post-modern narratives.
Those narrations (and its fruits- books) are only a step away from much higher calibre of false arguments. Add two additional factors of our brains: tribalism and getting used to information about victims. Mind that victim blaming and equalization of suffering is part of psychological struggle to comprehed complicated political situations on part of safe outsiders, unfortunatelly. We witness the same with current war- Ukrainians die daily in aristrikes. But hey, a small drone OVER RUBLOVKA !? How this is possible. @Haiduk is entirely right here, it's frankly silly we talk of this strike in those terms, considering daily suffering on part of his people.
Ok folks, let's close this WWII topic.
The only good argument is indeed if Ukrainians will not blow this over by creating "rally around the flag" effect. But we are far too early in this phenomena to tell. They know Russian mentallity better than us, remember. Perhaps Muscovite imperial ego will suffer hammering wound that will help to destabilize it. I remind when "something" blew on Kerch bridge, and Putin framed it as "rude". Not defeat, not even event calling for revenge, but "it is rude on Ukrainian side to destroy his precious bridge".

I think Jordan has 60 systems.

Oh I don't know. He has been good enough on his feet to arrange the destruction of the Russian military with only 4% of the US military budget, thoroughly pantsed the GOP on the debt limit fight and Americans 25 to 54 are working at their highest rate since 2001.
If that's not fit, I'll take more unfitness please.

F-16s in many ways are political, but one of the ways they are political is telling the Russians that we aren't quitting, ever. That they can leave now, or when their army is so broken Kazakistan can credibly threaten to invade. The fact F-16s would just let the Ukrainian air force keep flying isn't trivial either. They have pretty much sucked in every left over Soviet plane and part on the world market, they take wear and at least some damage every day. 
It is also worth pointing out that Patriots were not supposed be able to stop Kinzahls, and they are currently batting 1000. It is possible, not guaranteed but possible, that there will be a large upside surprise when the F-16s become active. A great deal depends on what munitions we send.

Interesting.  Does make me wonder though, is "drone attack" the new "smoking accident" for crappy old russian infrastructure?

Remember this? 2014. It’s been nine long years. And oceans of blood, sweat and tears:
https://youtu.be/NOCbW1hc6Ng

July 10th of last year, regarding why parking garages are unsuitable for ammunition storage. I managed to search it because I recalled the bon mot about a "slapdash Soviet era Trabbie hutch."

Makes sense to me.
 

Hackers Force Putin’s Holy Man to ‘Bless’ Ukraine’s Counteroffensive (yahoo.com)
 
Ukraine definitely wins the world trolling competition.

July 10th of last year, regarding why parking garages are unsuitable for ammunition storage. I managed to search it because I recalled the bon mot about a "slapdash Soviet era Trabbie hutch."

I must admit, after 30 years in the business it was the first time I had to think about the practical problems of creating a firing position for a tank on level B2 of a garage.

July 10th of last year, regarding why parking garages are unsuitable for ammunition storage. I managed to search it because I recalled the bon mot about a "slapdash Soviet era Trabbie hutch."