NationStates Jolt Archive

No, this isn't a school assignment.

On one hand, nukes have made the destruction of the world in an hour and the extinction of human kind possible. Which is pretty bad, ill admit. Nuclear waste, proliferation, and the trillions of dollars invested in destroying the world instead of schools are all pretty good arguments for the negative side.

However, look at the other side. IMO, Nukes have saved lives. Even their first use, whether you think it justified or not, saved millions of American and Japanese lives vs. a blockade and invasion, which would have likely happened. Russia and the United States still would have been the two world powers and a conventional arms races still could have and probably would have ensued. Without the threat of mutually assured destruction, do you think proxy wars would have still happened as opposed to a massive America and Friends™ vs Soviets war? Thats not a rhetorical question. There have been close calls, and malfunctioning early warning systems, but cooler heads have always prevailed. The only serious nuclear accident has been when some crazy Russian decided it would be a good idea to cut power to Chernobyl's cooling system.

Random little aside, what are your criteria for determining whether a nation should be able to hold nuclear weapons?

Overall, I would say nuclear fission has been positive. The potential destruction MAD has avoided is massive. I think that outweighs the whole make-the-earth-glow-in-the-dark thing, mostly because it hasn't happened and most likely will not happen if our current system of nuclear "warfare" is kept intact.

Which brings me to the second question. Basically, my criteria would be that any nation that follows MAD, aka doesn't actually use nukes, should be permitted to create them. So that eliminates theocracys, dictatorships, and anarchys. Theocracys because the government may not care if it dies or its people die because there are 72 virgins waiting for anyone who incinerates the Great Satan in a nuclear holocaust, so its actually nicer if they die. Dictatorships because a single person who may or may not care about his people would be in control. If he is crazy, he might launch nukes. America's president can single handedly launch, but our democratic system and the presence of more rational people in his cabinet will almost always prevent this, as it has in the past. Anarchy is obvious. In a nutshell, any nation who has a 2% of starting a nuclear war shouldn't be allowed to have them.

I have to assume you're joking.

I have to assume you're joking.

That would be incorrect.

I have to assume you're joking.

/thread

/thread

As I have stated, I am in fact not joking. I contend that nuclear weapons have saved millions, perhaps billions of lives, and received nothing to contradict that, only an unexplained dismissal. If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, please do not fill it with spam.

Nuclear weapons have been a positive post world War II is perhaps the least violent era in the history of man. nuclear weapons turned world war III aka capitalism Vs communism into a cold war that allowed the natural flaws of communism to destroy itself.
the nuclear bombs dropped on japan cost 100,000 Japaneses lives but saved several million lives on both sides.


Requirements for nuclear weapons ? thats a tricky question. As the world becomes more dependent on nuclear power nuclear weapons will proliferate more. in order for a new country to be allowed to hold nuclear weapons, they should have stability and a clear means of succession. they also need to have something to lose if they were to go in a toe to toe nuclear match with someone else.

negative.
As much as it's comforting knowing imminent destruction of millions of people isn't far away, i'm not happy with it.
and you commit the fallacy of "if it hasn't happened so far, then it certainly won't happen in the future", really, this is a poor argument for nuclear weaponry. It's like saying "oh it's okay to live with a sociopathic axe-murderer because he hasn't broken the law while i've been living with him".

They are expensive, deadly and cause huge international unrest over them.
I see no benefit of having them other than as a deterrant to other people having them. which in itself shows nuclear weaponry is just made out of fear.
I don't really follow your arguments for them at all.

Positive, for the simple fact that no scientific achievement is negative. That and nuclear weapons go hand-in-hand with nuclear power, which the world should rely more on.

Now the use of nuclear weapons could be debated as positive or negative. I think as it stands now it's positive. They actually inspire peace and diplomacy. No one wants a nuclear war.

Positive, for the simple fact that no scientific achievement is negative. That and nuclear weapons go hand-in-hand with nuclear power, which the world should rely more on.

Now the use of nuclear weapons could be debated as positive or negative. I think as it stands now it's positive. They actually inspire peace and diplomacy. No one wants a nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons... and any weapon that causes destruction on a large scale... should not be made nor used. I am, in all honesty, against guns as well. It's not that I'm against violence or anything. I just thing guns and the like make it to easy to end another persons life without any thought to the person whose life you are ending.

Really, all nuclear weapons inspire is fear. This leads to diplomacy, hardly peace. The reason we invaded Irag was under the suspicion of such weapons... that doesn't sound like a peaceful act. We are even discussing invading North Korea for the same reason.

Nuclear weapons may have cut down the number of wars so far, but when (not "if", "when") a war between major nuclear powers starts it'll wipe out humanity.

Positive, for the simple fact that no scientific achievement is negative. That and nuclear weapons go hand-in-hand with nuclear power, which the world should rely more on.

Now the use of nuclear weapons could be debated as positive or negative. I think as it stands now it's positive. They actually inspire peace and diplomacy. No one wants a nuclear war.

I fear that might be wishful thinking....

Positive because no scientific acheivement can be negative...unless it involves women leaving the kitchen or the bedroom. And nuclear explosives don't do that.

It opened up advanced sublight propulsion technology with several kinds of pulsed and constant thrust rockets that were more efficient (at least they would have been if research hadn't been cut by misanthropic luddites) than their chemical counterparts. It ended the era of the global war. Nuclear fission is an excellent source of clean power today and nuclear fusion may be tomorrow, neither of which would be possible without research into applications for nuclear physics.

Technology advances fastest during war or an arms race. You may not like the way that this technology was acquired but to throw it and the research away now benefits no one, least of all those that had to suffer for it.

I have to assume you're joking.

Why would you assume such a thing? It's a very commonly held argument by even the top historians and other experts in various fields, that remark sounds rather... knee-jerkish of you.

Nuclear weapons may have cut down the number of wars so far, but when (not "if", "when") a war between major nuclear powers starts it'll wipe out humanity.

I don't think between a nuclear exchange between major powers is likely.
Becoming a major power means you have too much to lose by such an exchange. now a minor power firing on a major power Say North Korea firing on The US or Japan. Or Iran firing on Israel or Denmark are very likely scenarios.

I'd say the ability to sterilize the planet at any moment is not only an argument against nuclear weapons but also industrialization, hell it even stands pretty good as an argument against human civilization

also chocking victim is playing in my head:

You call us barbarians... Eh.
It is an honorable name.
We mean to cancel the world you civilized people made.
We will simply erase history from the time that machinery and weapons threatened more than they offered.
And when you die... the last living reminder of hell will be gone.
Gone.

Nuclear weapons have been a positive post world War II is perhaps the least violent era in the history of man. nuclear weapons turned world war III aka capitalism Vs communism into a cold war that allowed the natural flaws of communism to destroy itself.

what makes you think nuclear weapons stopped WWIII?

I'd say the ability to sterilize the planet at any moment is not only an argument against nuclear weapons but also industrialization, hell it even stands pretty good as an argument against human civilization

what makes you think nuclear weapons stopped WWIII?

Because any other time in history two dominate powers have butted heads as much as the soviet union, and the US did there have been major almost all out wars.
Napoleonic wars, seven years war, war of Spanish succession, and 30 years war. Technology of communication and transportation has made these war larger in scope. A world war III would have been inevitable had the fact new technology would have left all sides a heap of dust not came along.

So far, positive. Millions of Japanese lives saved.

In the future, nukes could either save the world or destroy it. They could save it by being flung at an oncoming comet (hitting just about any comet with 500 warheads should vaporise it), or destroy it by being launched in a nuclear exchange.

and you commit the fallacy of "if it hasn't happened so far, then it certainly won't happen in the future", really, this is a poor argument for nuclear weaponry. It's like saying "oh it's okay to live with a sociopathic axe-murderer because he hasn't broken the law while i've been living with him".


I don't make that fallacy. I'm saying its ok to live with a sociopathic axe-murderer if he does me a great benefit and i have a proven method of making him not kill me.

Because any other time in history two dominate powers have butted heads as much as the soviet union, and the US did there have been major almost all out wars.

pfft I think you should look at Britain and France pre-Harry Hun

Pax Britannica my hairy arse just look at the madness that went into ironclads onwards

I don't make that fallacy. I'm saying its ok to live with a sociopathic axe-murderer if he does me a great benefit and i have a proven method of making him not kill me.

wait...nuclear weapons do you a great benefit :confused:

also I want to know this method especially as he does have some Japanese bodies in the basement

I don't think between a nuclear exchange between major powers is likely.
Becoming a major power means you have too much to lose by such an exchange. now a minor power firing on a major power Say North Korea firing on The US or Japan. Or Iran firing on Israel or Denmark are very likely scenarios.

Yes, I would say that the theory of deterrence works, as long as the nations with the nukes are at least a little rational. Now if a violent dictator or a small political group gets a hold of a nuke, then we have problems.

Any country wealthy and organized enough to refine uranium probably would not risk nuclear warfare. Nuclear proliferation is a problem, not nuclear weapons.

I'd go so far as to say everything nuclear has been negative/has negative side effects.

The advent of nuclear weapons has definitely made certain situations be thought of twice before proceeding and has definitely kept both the US and USSR from annihilating each other and the whole world with it.

pfft I think you should look at Britain and France pre-Harry Hun

Pax Britannica my hairy arse just look at the madness that went into ironclads onwards

I wouldn't call it madness. I would call it an Arms Race, not between France and Britain, but between the USA, Japan, Fance, Britain, Germany, Italy and Austro-Hungary. One that did not end until the Treaty of Washington in 1920.

France and Britain had their differences, true, but they had much greater agreement upon most topics. This was why they wound up together with Russia and Japan in the Entente.



wait...nuclear weapons do you a great benefit :confused:

Nukes benefit the world by promoting alternative methods of problem solving. A war against a nuclear power cannot be succesfully prosecuted, regardless of relative strength of arms, economy or will; the only possible outcome is to lose.

When victory is impossible, war ceases to be a valid option.

I'd go so far as to say everything nuclear has been negative/has negative side effects.

Ban-ned!? Jesus, I thought I told you to never come back to this forum you little shit. Now bend over and kiss the mighty pineapple.

Nukes benefit the world by promoting alternative methods of problem solving. A war against a nuclear power cannot be succesfully prosecuted, regardless of relative strength of arms, economy or will; the only possible outcome is to lose.

When victory is impossible, war ceases to be a valid option.

did u ever see wargames with Mathew Broderick?

did u ever see wargames with Mathew Broderick?

Yes, but I was so busy laughing at the computer idiocy I think I missed half the picture!

Yes, nuclear weapons almost certainly stopped another world war from erupting between the US and the USSR. I still wouldn't call them positive.

Ban-ned!? Jesus, I thought I told you to never come back to this forum you little shit. Now bend over and kiss the mighty pineapple.

I don't recall that. Probably because I'm not Ban-ned.

As a side note: It takes about two years for a pineapple fruit to grow.

Yes, nuclear weapons almost certainly stopped another world war from erupting between the US and the USSR. I still wouldn't call them positive.

the saving of 10's of millions of lives. as we slowly make our way into Moscow turning former enemies Germany and japan into allies.

I'm probbaly a little biased on this subject. My grandpa on my Mom's side was part of a marine Raider battalion. His unit probably would have been some of first to hit the beaches ifwe invaded Japan. They would have taken a very heavy death toll. If he had died, He couldn't have produced my mom, meaning she couldn't have created me. So, I'd say yes it has been a good thing. The A-bomb kept russia in check for a while after WW2. If they would have fought us in Erope, many of our European friends on this forum might not have born either, or many Americans. We would have been pushed out of europe fairly quickly. We might have been able to hold them at the German-French border for a while with the help of the Magiont line if we gave it the support it deserved in terms of air power and tanks. They had better tanks, and more of them, along with millions of experinced infantry and some of the best commanders in Europe.

Nuclear weapons have, theoretically, saved many, many, lives, simply by preventing a massive conventional war between the United States and Soviet Union, which no doubt would have lasted MUCH longer than WWII and would have resulted in millions more deaths.
The invasion of Japan, as well, would have caused some issue.

And, looking at India and Pakistan, one might well theorize that the only reason they havent been at war constantly in recent years is their development of nukes.

Essentially, in the hands of any semi-competent world leader, nuclear weapons are a device which has, not including the end of WWII, prevented wars. Unless you count Israel's attacks on neighboring nations, but thats a bit iffy.
So, COUNTING Israel's attacks, it seems that most of the time, nukes stop wars rather than starting them.

So far, positive. But it only takes one madman or one screwup.

Why Nuclear Weapons are Bad
-------------------------------------------------------
The idea that nuclear weapons have, in some shape or form, benefited us is highly doubtful. And what have they done for everyone else? Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy us entirely, kill each and every human on the planet. The fact is, on a scale of "badness", that equals infinity. There is no hope, no chance for improvement, no opportunity, no value to life, nothing, when there is no life.

So it may be true that the chance of a nuclear war breaking out is small (but because humans are capable of error, the chance forever exists), but that means that on a scale of "badness", we divide the "badness" of nuclear war/extinction by its probability. What is infinity divided by a billion(the actual number doesn't matter)? It is still infinity.

The point is that even from a mathematical point of view, nuclear weapons put all of us at risk. The potential to avoid a little conventional warfare is immensely and completely outweighed by the risk factor of each and everyone of us dying. And even if we did not all die, the radiation from the usage of these weapons would lead to mass cancer, and the changes across the globe would topple economies and cause crop devestation and other catastrophies. Even if such a war did not kill us all, its after effects almost certainly would. And in the best case, if a handful of humans survived, it would destroy our genetic diversity, and our species would be plagued with cancers and defects.

Furthermore, what has the testing of nuclear weapons done for the world? Around the 3rd World, people suffer today because of nuclear testing. Whether it be because of the US or the USSR, or some other nation, nuclear testing has gone on, almost un-noticed, in areas that have human populations. These peoples have been the victims of an ongoing nuclear genocide, though the bombs do not kill them, the radiation poisons them, and some suffer slow deaths because of it, or grow harmful mutations early on. The sacrificing of these peoples for our own benefit is immoral, and provides reasons why nuclear war is bad, regardless of its potential to cause extinction.

As well, nuclear power as a tool for energy was thought of to provide a peaceful benefit to nuclear technology. The creators of these horrific bombs felt they must justify their creation, and thus we have nuclear energy, the worst kind possible. Not only is it incredibly costly to build a plant, but it creates a security threat, has a chance of and actively hurts the nearby population, and harms the natural environment.

Costs of Nuclear Power Plants
While I do not have the exact statistics on me, nuclear power is incredibly expensive. It requires money to build the plant, to build turbines, to acquire uranium, to build storage facilities, and to generate the power itself. The fact is, it takes a very long time for these plants to pay for themselves, without even analyzing their other disadvantages.

Security (as a facility, and the security of populations nearby)
Nuclear power plants present themselves as a target to attacks. I will readily admit that there are some safeguards against such threats, but the truth is that without great forewarning, nuclear power plants are susceptible to attacks. Furthermore, because they are operated by humans, there is always the chance of a meltdown or some other accident, because humans are incapable of perfection. No system can insure 100% safety, and thus gambles with the lives of those living by. Furthermore, the storage of waste created by these facilities takes years upon years upon years to be reduced to a level that is safe for human beings, and thus requires storage for countless years. These storage facilities present another security threat and and make plants more costly. Furthermore, some plants do end up releasing waste that is hazardous to humans, and in many countries (particularly outside the US), this occurs and causes increased rates of cancer and other genetic diseases.

The Environment
Nuclear power hurts the environment in multiple ways. For one, it requires uranium, which must be mined. Mines require expensive equipment which burn much coal/oil, and thus release CO2, which many claim accentuates global warming. As well, the toxic chemicals created by nuclear power plants are harmful for the environment, though not specifically a cause in global warming. Let's not forget, nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of cooling water, which becomes superheated. This water is then released, and causes local flora and fauna to die.

And finally, nuclear weapons have done little to prevent conflict. While interstate conflict has decreased since the the end of World War II, we must recognize that tragedies are caused by violence all the time. In fact, the half century after World War II, and particularly our days, are the most violent times in history. It is not interstate conflict so much, but intrastate conflict. Look at Iraq, the mass-sectarian violence occurring. Look at Lebanon, look at the Sudan, the Congo. Further back, even such powerful nations as Great Britain could not control armed dissidents, the IRA although not entirely threatening to stability, was never totally removed.

The wars that occur now are not wars between groups of armed soldiers, but wars that involve civilians. Fighters focus on civilians as an easy way to harm their foes, and thus, those that have no part in the conflict suffer disproportionately. Since World War II, the amount of civilian casualties as a percentage of total casualties has gone up (in many cases). Today, there are 10s of millions of refugees caused by such violence.

So tell me, how many of these internal conflicts have nuclear weapons stopped. I'll answer that one, 0. Not only do they not fully protect us from conventional warfare, but nuclear weapons do nothing to stop the ongoing violence of our world.

And for that reason and the many others above, I claim that nuclear weapons are an overwhelmingly negative development for the world.

The potential to avoid a little conventional warfare is immensely and completely outweighed by the risk factor of each and everyone of us dying.


Conventional war between the Soviet Union and Nato would have been anything but small. Furthermore, even after nuclear weapons were created, both sides continued heavy experimentation and development of chemical and biological weapons. Without the probability of total devastation that nuclear weapons made viable, there is a possibility of even greater use of chemical and biological weapons, some of which might not be even contained within the theater of operations.

Nuclear weapons are just the bright light that hides the fact that there are many more equally destructive, in terms of human lives, weapons that the nuclear powers developed over time.


And even if we did not all die, the radiation from the usage of these weapons would lead to mass cancer.

Do you not think that the most likely ones to survive nuclear war would be those inside bunkers, and thus, shielded from radiation?


Furthermore, what has the testing of nuclear weapons done for the world? Around the 3rd World, people suffer today because of nuclear testing.


Known areas that have undergone nuclear testing are primarily in first world countries. The only known exceptions are Pacific tests by the United States and the test in Africa by France.


Whether it be because of the US or the USSR, or some other nation, nuclear testing has gone on, almost un-noticed, in areas that have human populations.

You cannot miss a nuclear detonation. Perhaps by people who choose ignorance over information, but to those who are interested in such matters, it is impossible to hide a nuclear detonation. Above ground tests would provide a massive fireball visible for hundreds of kilometers while underground tests would provide seismic data that anyone with a seismograph couldn't miss.


These peoples have been the victims of an ongoing nuclear genocide


Now you're just using emotionally charged words, that don't even fit by the way, to argue a point.


The creators of these horrific bombs felt they must justify their creation,


So you claim to be a spirit medium? Most people involved in the Manhattan project are long dead.


and thus we have nuclear energy, the worst kind possible.


No. Human fed furnace power plants are possibly the worst kind. So far, no one has made any yet I think. Worst this, worst that, you're just throwing around emotional words without thinking about it thoroughly.

Furthermore, fission energy research is the keystone towards fusion energy research. Or perhaps you wish to argue that humanity should solely use fossil fuel power solutions, and plunge into the dark ages when renewable energy proves to be impossible to provide the energy density needed to sustain current demand?


Not only is it incredibly costly to build a plant, but it creates a security threat, has a chance of and actively hurts the nearby population, and harms the natural environment.

Any properly nuclear power plant does not actively hurt the nearby population. It's not like when you're asleep the reactor core will come out and spread radioactive dust over you.


While I do not have the exact statistics on me, nuclear power is incredibly expensive. It requires money to build the plant, to build turbines, to acquire uranium, to build storage facilities, and to generate the power itself. The fact is, it takes a very long time for these plants to pay for themselves, without even analyzing their other disadvantages.

The bolded section is exactly why your position fails. Nuclear power currently is expensive. This is not disputed. Clearly, it requires money to build the infrastructure, but then again, so does every other power plant known to man.

However, keep in mind that most existing commercial nuclear reactors are at best, Generation II reactors. They are an old design from the 70s, which do not factor in the advancements made in the last 30 years towards safer, more economic and reliable fission power generation.

If you want to argue the expense factor, then I simply point you towards computers. Consider the costs requirements of ENIAC, one of the first computers. 150KW of power needed, $500,000 cost, weighed 30 tons and took up 680 square feet of space. A single microprocessor today has as much computing power as ENIAC did, but at only a fraction of the cost.

Nuclear power is also subject to the same economies of scale and efficiencies. It will get cheaper as development and research into it continues. Don't try and pretend that they don't.


Nuclear power plants present themselves as a target to attacks. I will readily admit that there are some safeguards against such threats, but the truth is that without great forewarning, nuclear power plants are susceptible to attacks.

Commercial nuclear power plants are constructed to withstand any number of natural disasters and attacks. If we were to take your average US nuclear power plant, double row fences with electronic monitoring are standard, and the reactor plant itself is considerably well reinforced to withstand any number of high mass/velocity impacts.

Furthermore, most plants can be SCRAMed, or forced shutdown, in 5 seconds. Any hostile forces intending to create a meltdown would take considerably more than 5 seconds to get inside the compound, much less the control room.

And of course, spent fuel is stored inside protected zones deep inside the compound, and anyone attempting to steal it had better be radiation proof when they go inside the zone, or they would have a rather messy death.


Furthermore, because they are operated by humans, there is always the chance of a meltdown or some other accident, because humans are incapable of perfection. No system can insure 100% safety, and thus gambles with the lives of those living by.


There is always a chance of accident and injury to other people associated to any task. I suppose you would propose lying under your bed and never moving on the off chance that something wrong could happen? No system, not your car, your lights, your computer monitor, your doors, nothing, can ensure 100% safety. Any one of them could fail in a critical, potentially life threatening manner. But you use them anyway.

That is why nuclear reactors are built with multiple safeguards. And furthermore, I point you towards pebblebed reactors, a new generation of reactor that by the nature of its design, cannot melt down, no matter what happens.


Furthermore, the storage of waste created by these facilities takes years upon years upon years to be reduced to a level that is safe for human beings, and thus requires storage for countless years.


Spent rods can be recycled and reused with minimal lost fissile material in breeder reactors. Years required for radioactive levels to return to safe amounts depends on the half life. Some methods of fuel processing mean a half life that can be measured in decades, not centuries.


Furthermore, some plants do end up releasing waste that is hazardous to humans

So do all fossil fuel power plants.


and in many countries (particularly outside the US), this occurs and causes increased rates of cancer and other genetic diseases.

21 civilian nuclear power plant accidents have been recorded, of which only 5 incidents were recorded to have actually exposed people to radiation. Of these 5 incidents only two of them were major, the Three Mile Island partial meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster.


For one, it requires uranium, which must be mined. Mines require expensive equipment which burn much coal/oil, and thus release CO2, which many claim accentuates global warming.

Coal and oil also have to be mined genius, which are in turn burned to produce power. At least uranium isn't burned. Air pollution wise, nuclear power produces less pollution than any fossil fuel in the world.


As well, the toxic chemicals created by nuclear power plants are harmful for the environment

What toxic chemicals? Spent fuel rods? That was already covered above, and nobody but an idiot throws them into the open air.


Let's not forget, nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of cooling water, which becomes superheated.

If you were using a few drops of water to cool a plant, they might get superheated. But they don't, the amount of water used means that the heat carried by the liquid is dispersed into the vast body so no superheating there. Superheated water wouldn't work for cooling anyway.

You fail basic physics.


This water is then released, and causes local flora and fauna to die.


And this statement is a lie. Because the water is filtered out for radioactive gunk before being released back into the outgoing pipes, which I might add, the act of which cools them to more ambient temperatures before they actually hit the open water sources.

In summary, you fail at an objective viewpoint regarding nuclear power.

"Blah, blah, blah...ignorant luddite ranting...blah, blah, blah."
That's about the gist of it but let's go through some of the less valid points for the fun of tearing the more pitifully weak arguments apart.

Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy us entirely, kill each and every human on the planet.
Not really. A kiloton range bomb will blow up most of a city but even when "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima there were survivors. They got burned, quite a few went blind, but there were survivors. Hell, even some buildings failed to fall down as anticipated. The point is that while nukes allow you to kill a lot of people at once they aren't totally thorough. There have been a lot of studies into destroying the world but even the folks that dream up armagedon admit that killing off humanity is a whole 'nother can o' bees. That there would be survivors, that there are a ton of safeties built into the various systems, that MAD has so far stopped the further use of them, and many other reasons kicks this one and the related assertions to the curb.

Around the 3rd World, people suffer today because of nuclear testing.
Not really. Tests were generally conducted in barren deserts and on unpopulated islands, underground, underwater, or up in space in what is known as exoatmospheric testing. All of those take place where people don't live. Now there was no doubt some lizards that got cooked and I have seen video of crash dummies being blasted away on decomissioned ships to study the effects of a nuclear explosion on a fleet but who gives a damn about animals on some unpopulated island in the middle of nowhere?

As well, nuclear power as a tool for energy was thought of to provide a peaceful benefit to nuclear technology. The creators of these horrific bombs felt they must justify their creation, and thus we have nuclear energy, the worst kind possible. Not only is it incredibly costly to build a plant, but it creates a security threat, has a chance of and actively hurts the nearby population, and harms the natural environment.
The creators of these devices made them to end a war that was destroying the planet and the people that inhabit it. They applied their genius to the war effort to draw to a hasty close what turned out to be the worst conflict in world history and one that would have surely carried on much longer and been much worse had they not acted to end it. When the guns fell silent they turned their genius to finding a peaceful application for the powerful new source of energy they discovered because blowing shit up in peace-time doesn't make much sense.

Nuclear energy is the best kind possible. You can extract more power from a few pellets of U233, U235, or Pu239 than you can from a ton of coal. And unlike the coal or other hydrocarbon fuels you won't have to worry about emissions that will alter the climate of the planet...except the water used to cool the water used to turn the turbines that generate the power. Fission is the most efficient form of energy we have available to us today and could solve the developed world's need for energy for decades with almost not waste if you recycle it properly. And what little is left is easily contained and disposed of under a desert mountain in a government stronghold that's going to be tougher to break into than Fort Knox in canisters that have been shown to survive rocket-powered trains and olympic swimming pools filled with jet fuel.

One more thing, since you brought up the whole terrorist attack thing I think I should warn you that your ass is vulnerable to attack. Every major city in every country on the fucking planet is a security risk because they are packed with people. I guess we should shut down New York, D.C. and London because they're security risks.

And while I won't make the erronious claim that nuclear power is too cheap to meter that doesn't change the fact that it is still cheaper than other alternative energy and is certainly more reliable. It may not be coal but it won't break the bank like wind or solar and it works without a gentle breeze or a sunny day.

Nuclear power hurts the environment in multiple ways. For one, it requires uranium, which must be mined. Mines require expensive equipment which burn much coal/oil, and thus release CO2, which many claim accentuates global warming. As well, the toxic chemicals created by nuclear power plants are harmful for the environment, though not specifically a cause in global warming. Let's not forget, nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of cooling water, which becomes superheated. This water is then released, and causes local flora and fauna to die.
Coal, iron, copper, and just about every other mineral, ore, and a shitload of other materials are mined with that same type of equipment. Should we stop making pop cans because it requires us to mine bauxite? You try telling folks they need to buy their own cow and milk it every morning because we need to stop drilling for oil and see how well that goes.

The fact is that even those windmills that greenies get such raging green errections for require materials that have to be mined and energy that has to come from somewhere. Right now most of that is from coal and other hydrocarbons. But mostly coal. And we'd have to burn through it a hell of a lot faster than we are right now if we wanted to build enough windmills and solar cells to meet about 30% of our current energy needs by the year 2050. And I say about 30% because that's about all you'll ever be able to relaibly get out of them because they suck at consistent output and are shit for base loads. Every one of those "renewable" energy plants needs a peaker plant for times of peak demand or low renewable supply. And wouldn't you know it, those run on hydrocarbons.

Nuclear power plants don't create toxic chemicals. The fuel pellets eventually burn out and the reactor coolant does get contaminated but that all stays in the plant. The plants do use outside water to bleed off heat but that never actually touches the fuel rods or even the steam water which also doesn't touch the coolant water so it doesn't get contaminated. Coolant doesn't get released into the environment, the bleed water does.

See, the most common kind of reactor uses water to keep the reaction going and keep the reactor from getting too hot. The coolant runs in a pipe to a tank of water for a steam generator and outside water is used to condense the steam back into liquid to repeate the process. None of the water supplies come in contact with one another and the bleed water doesn't become radioactive or toxic. Which is more than I can say about paper recycling, that's something that really does hurt the environment through the creation of toxic chemicals.

Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States.

And finally, nuclear weapons have done little to prevent conflict. While interstate conflict has decreased since the the end of World War II
Anyone else see it?

Look, people are alive and life works by killing. It's just one of those unpleasent facts of life, everybody dies and to survive you'll have to kill lower life forms and you may have to kill some of your own species if they threaten you. Nobody said that nukes would cut down on crime, that's what police are for. What smart people have said is that nukes have stayed the hand of super-states plunging the whole world into yet another global conflict that threatened to kill millions and destroy society as we know it. And they have...through fear of that happening on your own turf if you push the button to make it happen on someone else's. Fear of a terrible weapon has kept the leaders of the biggest armies in check.

Times are getting better, the world is more peaceful today than it's been in a long time. The glass of life isn't half empty, it's overflowing. The world is not made of nerf, you will get cut but not too deep if you're careful. Not too careful, just careful enough. Nothing is perfect but you should always strive for what works best and try to work out the kinks, not return to the trees to fling crap at your fellow man because you're terrified of the bright, brave new world.

Not really. Tests were generally conducted in barren deserts and on unpopulated islands, underground, underwater, or up in space in what is known as exoatmospheric testing. All of those take place where people don't live. Now there was no doubt some lizards that got cooked and I have seen video of crash dummies being blasted away on decomissioned ships to study the effects of a nuclear explosion on a fleet but who gives a damn about animals on some unpopulated island in the middle of nowhere?

To be fair, the Bravo tests created a lot more fallout than anticipated, which did end up contaminating some populated islands. The populace was evacuated, but some ended up getting radiation burns.

Non-Aligned States, while I almost totally agree with your post, I must correct you here:

21 civilian nuclear power plant accidents have been recorded, of which only 5 incidents were recorded to have actually exposed people to radiation. Of these 5 incidents only two of them were major, the Three Mile Island partial meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster.


Three Mile Island was not in the least a "partial meltdown". The incident has been exploded beyond all recognition by a biased media coverage.

What happened at TMI was actually a proof of the excellent engineering and superb safety of a well-built reactor. Literally everything that could have gone wrong did; it was a worst case scenario, that had to rely upon failure of the primary, secondary and tertiary cooling systems.

And what actually happened was that 21 Litres of highly radioactive gas was vented into the atmosphere.

That's it. The core scram was 100% successful; emergency activities were followed to the letter, and were effective. No one was harmed, though it is likely (but unproven) that some people outside the plant were exposed to higher than usual dosages or radiation.

TMI doesn't even rate against the early British near-disaster at their experimental plant (at Sellafield, IIRC), or the Japanese incident, and both of those were the result of severe mismanagement. Even so, no one outside of those plants was harmed. Only Chernobyl, which was seriously badly designed and operated, has caused any casualties among the general populace.

Non-Aligned States, while I almost totally agree with your post, I must correct you here:

Three Mile Island was not in the least a "partial meltdown". The incident has been exploded beyond all recognition by a biased media coverage.

From a technical standpoint, it was a partial meltdown. Reactor coolant was lost, resulting in the exposure of the reactor to air inside the pressure vessel. By the time the problem was noticed and sufficient reversal action taken, the core had already partially melted. For all intents and purposes, it was a loss of coolant accident which, if not reversed, will result in meltdown of any such liquid cooled reactors.

However, although partial meltdown, it was not a containment breach.


And what actually happened was that 21 Litres of highly radioactive gas was vented into the atmosphere.

The venting was to prevent excessive pressure buildup that the containment building would not have been able to withstand.

Make no mistake, it was a partial meltdown. However, the problems that might have followed after it, such as containment breach, or worse, an uncontrolled pile, simply didn't happen.

Ah, I see. From a technical standpoint, you are quite correct. My apologies.

Why Nuclear Weapons are Bad
-------------------------------------------------------

The point is that even from a mathematical point of view, nuclear weapons put all of us at risk.

the problem here is you are using theory, real world we would have made world killing weapons sooner or later. In fact in a lot of ways biological and chemical weapons are more dangerous. A nuclear bomb can destroy a city and leave radiation for maybe 100 miles around. biological weapons can infect others and spread until all host organisms are wiped out regardless of where it was deployed. chemicals weapons are unpredictable they are lighter particles then those that carry radiation so a gust of wind can blow them thousands of miles. whats prevented nuclear weapons from being used, that might not prevetn chemical or biological agents from being used, is how
instantly the effect is seen.


As well, nuclear power as a tool for energy was thought of to provide a peaceful benefit to nuclear technology. The creators of these horrific bombs felt they must justify their creation, and thus we have nuclear energy, the worst kind possible. Not only is it incredibly costly to build a plant, but it creates a security threat, has a chance of and actively hurts the nearby population, and harms the natural environment.

Costs of Nuclear Power Plants
While I do not have the exact statistics on me, nuclear power is incredibly expensive. It requires money to build the plant, to build turbines, to acquire uranium, to build storage facilities, and to generate the power itself. The fact is, it takes a very long time for these plants to pay for themselves, without even analyzing their other disadvantages.

nuclear power plants Watt per Watt are about 30% more expensive then coal.
Watt per watt nuclear power plants are about 1/10th the cost of solar panels.
nuclear power is the cheapest source of "green energy" available.


The Environment
Nuclear power hurts the environment in multiple ways. For one, it requires uranium, which must be mined. Mines require expensive equipment which burn much coal/oil, and thus release CO2, which many claim accentuates global warming. As well, the toxic chemicals created by nuclear power plants are harmful for the environment, though not specifically a cause in global warming. Let's not forget, nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of cooling water, which becomes superheated. This water is then released, and causes local flora and fauna to die.

Carbon foot print wise from acquiring fuel to power generation a nuclear power plant is equal to solar panels. And if you use the more advanced European nuclear power plants have a smaller carbon foot print then solar panels.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/nuke-vs-solar-the-carbon-calculus.html


So tell me, how many of these internal conflicts have nuclear weapons stopped. I'll answer that one, 0. Not only do they not fully protect us from conventional warfare, but nuclear weapons do nothing to stop the ongoing violence of our world.


how many of these internal conflicts started because of nuclear weapons ???
0. pointing at some non related thing doesn't help your argument. the rise of smaller internal conflicts has more to do with the end of colonialism, however no one seems to want a return to that.

Ah, I see. From a technical standpoint, you are quite correct. My apologies.

Nothing to apologize for. Many fear mongers tend to throw around the term of a meltdown as one of an apocalyptic detonation of the reactor, creating either a nuclear detonation, which is impossible, or merely a Chernobyl like disaster of mass irradiation and death sentences for all in the area, so it does tend to stick in the public consciousness, even if it is wrong.