XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, sci.skeptic, alt.global-warming
From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid
On 12/22/25 9:40 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
> dart200 wrote:
>> On 12/22/25 3:06 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
>>> Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2025 10:59 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
>>>>> Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After the USSR folded, they declassified a ton of documents. Some of
>>>>>> which included their operation to gin up sentiment by paying groups to
>>>>>> oppose nuclear power. The obvious goal was to slow down or stop new
>>>>>> plants being built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chernobyl showed a lot of americans & others, that nuclear power is
>>>>> troublesome. A lot more convincing than propaganda, wasn't it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you claiming the russians staged that all for our benefit?
>>>>
>>>> You should look into what actually happened there and why. The
>>>> "accident" had more to do with the systemic failures within the Soviet
>>>> Union than nuclear power.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Chernobyl meltdown was a series of human blunders. The area around
>>> it may be unusable for thousands of years. Amazingly enough, something
>>> similar will probably happen again.
>>>
>>> OTOH, the shelling of Chernobyl (and ukraine's other nuke plant) and the
>>> takeover of the plant by the russian army from the ukrainian engineers
>>> was not by mistake. Nuclear plants and waste dumps are an engraved
>>> invitation for beligerants and terrorists to make mischief.
>>>
>>> And then there are the waste storage sites which will be radioactive for
>>> hundreds of thousands of years. They will be looted as surely as most
>>> of the pharoahs' burial sites were.
>>>
>>> I used to be all in favor of nuclear power before Russia attacked
>>> Chernobyl. Humans can't be trusted to not vandalize the planet.
>>
>> yeah well if we didn't just trash can nuclear research, we wouldn't be
>> stuck with 1970s nuclear tech and could have developed forms with far
>> greater safety
>
> You still don't get it.
>
> There is no fission-based nuclear power technology that is safe from
> terrorists and tinhorn despots like Putin or Assad.
bruh there a ton of different lethal materials terrorist could use on a
population, nuclear is just one of them ... one that's actually pretty
hard to handle, and fairly observable from space.
much easier to wire up buildings for imploding and then flying an
airplane into it, eh??? wai... wat? wrong argument, sorry...
i mean, putin already has access to literal weapons grade nukes why do
we fear him or any other nuclear power misusing nuclear technology???
look i wasn't joking when i said *cooperatively*. make it nation-state
cooperative to supply and distribute power under a single globally
monitored and secured entity. an entity like the US military can secure
a globe full of bases, we need to do the same with our power
infrastructure.
relying on a market just doesn't build the trust we need to get this
kind of economic engine applied to global society
>
> Environmental safeguards are irrelevant when nuclear power plants are
> being shelled.
make this power plants backed by a defensive pact for all nations
participating in the coalition. make it an act of war to mess with it.
leaving small terrorist groups, which idk do you think we can't secure
our sites??? build them underground, global real time monitoring ...
like we know how to do 1st world physical security bro. we just need to
trust the org doing it, which is why it needs to be an international
cooperative.
>
> Do you also know how easy it is to build a dirty bomb?
vs all the other forms of destruction???
>
>
>>> So nuclear is safe, but solar, windmills, hydro, geothermal, and tidal
>>> generation are killing people right and left, right?
>
> Right?
we need to too cheap to meter kind of electricity. not gunna get that
from "green" energy
--
hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
