Spread of nuclear capability feared

[Lemon law]

In terms of all those rapture fantasies, I too have read of some the scripts being spun about the end times. If my understanding is even remotely correct, much of this is based on the assemblage of various prophecies that were put together by a somewhat obscure Christian circa 1840 or so. But give the guy some synthetic validity, who could have foretold the rise of the Israeli State at that time. And some the pre conditions for the battle of Armagedon have yet to be met, one such is the destruction of Islamic mosque in Jerusalem. But the former Christian thinking of jews as the killers of Jesus gets modified to jews as a necessary ingredient for the second coming of Jesus Christ. And once Christ is resurrected, the jews will get consumed anyway or all will convert to Christianity. So either way, we have a final solution to the jewish question.

But thereafter, Christs leads the forces of good against the forces of evil, good vanquishes evil, and the few good people get raptured.

Of course the question I have to ask in this rather quaint scenario, what happens if GWB&Cheney are actually the rascals leading the forces of evil which seems the more probable of the two sides for them to be on.

 

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I totally disagree with the take of Socio.

Many nation on earth do not have abundant supplies of oil, gas, or coal. And Nuclear energy offers a cheaper way to generate electricity and have some degree of energy independence.

Nor can the message of Iraq be ignored as the one remaining super power on earth transformed itself from the protector
of the weak to a complete thief. As they made a totally bogus case against a a militarily weak nation with abundant natural resources. And then invaded and occupied. And if they can get away with in Iraq for totally bogus reasons, they can do it to any nation.

Nor has new technologies like smart bombs made the weaker nations any safer. In terms of taking out their defenses and forcing their military surrender, what would formerly have taken thousands of air craft sorties requiring near by land bases, can now be done by the planes available on a single air craft carrier.

And that does send a chilling message to any small nation on earth, unless you develop nukes, you are both vulnerable for rapid military take over or you will be blackmail forced to comply with the foreign policy of the USA. And given the incompetence of recent US occupations, even the repressed citizens of brutal dictators find it impossible to believe they would be better off being liberated by the US.

So I have to believe that sociopaths in the administration of GWB&co. are the ones driving much of those 40 nuclear applications. In a world gone mad, the rational cling to any defense. They can't possibly compete with the existing military might of the USA in terms of convention armaments and that leaves only the nuclear option.

And when that many nations make that application, they will side with nations like Iran in the UN.

In short, our PNAC neocons are total idiots. Their misguided policy has turned into the project to doom America in the new century.

So in terms of fixing the thread title of--This it what the world gets for letting Iran do what they want. We can fix it by saying this what we get when we let our neocons do what they want ( fixed for You )

Socio evidently does not remember the days when Rummy was shacking the hand of Saddam when he was our man in the mid-east. And shortly thereafter Iraq was invading Iran while we helped him. And when Iran made some peace overtures to the USA, GWB and Cheney spurned them. How else is Iran supposed to react or do we just expect Iran to sell themselves into slavery because its their Christian duty to submit to the USA? In short we treat Iran like shit and then are shocked, surprised, and offended when they react with hostility? I mean seriously Socio, get a life, what the hell do you expect?

:thumbsup:

 

[Stonejaw]

This is why we need to focus on the development of ITER and other fusion power generation techniques, as they cannot produce nuclear weapons but do provide lots of clean electricity which is the goal. Every country could have a fusion reactor with no fear.

I suspect even if tomorrow a fusion technology was found to work and be economical, Iran would still want its old fission reactors for some reason.

 

[Aimster]

The Iranian President doesn't rule Iran or control their military

John Mccain says he can't wait for the same thing Iran's President is wishing for.

So why don't you solve the problems at home first

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Socio
No, I think nuclear ?energy? is a good idea, anything that helps us wean off of fossil fuel is a good thing;

I suggest that countries that want actual ? nuclear energy? purchase it from a world regulated body and the counties themselves would neither own, maintain or operate the nuclear facilities on their soil, They instead would be owned, operated, and maintain by the regulated body. All of which would have emergency air evacuation facilities and craft and be fitted with self destruct mechanisms that can be activated from anywhere in the world.

This would prevent any country from doing what Iran is did and that is let others help them, and allow inspections until they reached the point where they could move past just energy and into the weapons arena then kick all the opposed out.

The self destruct mechanisms would prevent any nation from trying to take over the facilities themselves like Chavez did with the oil refineries in Venezuela.

This would allow all countries to obtain cheap energy in the safest manner possible.

The issue becomes getting the energy to the proper location. (the word energy dos not have to be just Nuke either)

If country A is generating/providing it, it has to have transmission methods to country B.

That will cost money.

Also, country B is now dependent on country A to provide the energy. What happens if A decides to blackmail B with enegery brownouts, blackouts or cutoff.

Any country that is not self sufficient and/or unable to handle a reduction in energy supplies, places itself at the whims of others (countries, distributers, traders, etc)

I think you misunderstood;

If a country wants to have nuclear energy then they would go to said world regulated body and for a fee they will have the plants built on their soil by this world regulated body. Any plants built in any country by the body would technically be owned by the world not the country. They would be maintained and operated solely by the regulated body to prevent anything but energy use.

Also I think this regulated body should be a non-profit body and prices should be at cost nothing more, thus all countries that obtained nuclear energy from said regulated body should be paying about the same price.

 

[senseamp]

Just because a country has a lot of energy resources, doesn't make nuclear power any less attractive. It's a global market for energy. If oil prices go up, a country may be better off going nuclear for domestic generation and selling the oil and gas on the global markets than burning it for electricity.
Just like net oil importers have an incentive to go nuclear to import less oil, net oil exporters have the exact same incentive to go nuclear to export more oil when prices are high. The economic incentive is exactly the same, the more expensive oil becomes the more attractive the alternatives become.

 

[manowar821]

Socio, stop trying to incite an american jihad.

We're not THAT stupid... Right guys..?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: conehead433
I don't have a problem with any or all countries having nuclear power plants, providing they are run safely and overseen by the IAEA. We definitely need more nuclear power plants here in the US so we can move away from using coal to produce electricity. We could be extracting oil from coal instead. With the proper oversight none of the countries new to nuclear power would have any kind of weapons programs. Ideally the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons but it's a little late for that.

I think conehead has the right idea and others echo similar ideas. Nor should we omit Common Courtesy from the list.The point being, some types of nuclear reactors will tend to breed large amounts of fissionable plutonium in the nuclear fuel rods. And then when those fuel rods become depleted and have to be replaced, that fissionable Plutonium
can be extracted and used to make a nuclear weapon. Other types of reactor designs produce almost no plutonium and hence would be almost useless to a nation determined to launch a nuclear weapons program.

Since the IAEA could in theory control the design of reacrors, the initial production of fuel rods, and the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, such a program could do much to generate nuclear energy without the dangers of nuclear proliferation. But its still sadly ignores the fact that we still have no real answer on how to safely dispose of nuclear wastes. And few if any spots on earth are geologically stable enough to trust for the time intervals needed.

We should credit the stonejaw idea of nuclear fusion which is a holy grail that has been actively researched for at least a half a century with no practical results yet.