XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, sci.skeptic, alt.global-warming   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   dart200  wrote:   
   > 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   
      
      
   You still aren't getting it.   
      
   It's not necessary for evildoers to "have" nukes, or nuclear material.   
   Maybe you didn't notice that Russia shelled Chernobyl, in the Ukraine?   
   With real live explosive artillery.  And that Russia shelled the   
   Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactor too, it wanton disregard for the potential   
   consequences.  It was dumb luck that no major incident happened.   
      
   One well-placed shell could trigger a mess that makes Chernobyl look   
   like a cake walk.  Now, you're telling us you have a  plan to make that   
   impossible to happen?   
      
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Happy talk.  Chernobyl was protected from terrorists and bad actors by   
   the USSR.  The USSR lasted forever, didn't it?  Now Chernobyl is in a   
   different country, which is being attacked by another different country.   
   It's in a war zone now.   
      
   Nations come and go.  Strong governments are replaced with weak ones,   
   invaders, and warlords.  Pu 229 is (almost) forever.   
      
   Nobody wants to put an "org" in charge of nuclear plants.  It just won't   
   happen.  If it did, the org would eventually disintegrate, as orgs   
   inevitably do, leaving the barbarians to have their way.   
      
   Everyone knows where the nuclear plants are.  Everyone knows where the   
   nuclear waste storage is.  These places can't be guarded forever.   
      
      
   > > Do you also know how easy it is to build a dirty bomb?   
   >   
   > vs all the other forms of destruction???   
      
   The nuclear plant *is* the dirty bomb.  Nuclear plants are easy to blow   
   up, impossible to clean up after.  That's what you don't get.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)