0

...
Australia actually has one of the largest uranium deposites in the world. Infact we have been signing agreements etc with America and other countries to start trading it.

Are you making sure that no bombs are made of it?

0

Are you making sure that no bombs are made of it?

See this is where we have the world fooled MWUHAHAHAHAHA. We have been stockpiling nuclear warheads for the last decade and soon we will be the new world superpower!!!

So far i don't think we have even started mining it let alone trading it with anyone.

0

Just and ironic thought:
Having such large deposits of uranium might make you a target of evil doers, and you have to develop nuclear weapons to protect yourself!

0

Just and ironic thought:
Having such large deposits of uranium might make you a target of evil doers, and you have to develop nuclear weapons to protect yourself!

Unless China goes rogue i can't see that sort of thing happening.

Nuclear weapons don't offer any protection they simply fight fire with fire.
"You attack us we will blow the shit out of you with our big expensive missiles" Kind of thing. No country needs to stockpile Nukes.

0

The best way to protect yourself from a Chinese nuclear attack is to borrow lots of money from them like the US does.

Back to the title of this thread:
If Iran would develop windmills and solar power plants, it would be in much better shape right now! I am sure the US will bomb the crap out of them soon on the nuclear issue.

1

I really don't think that it is up to the US who gets to use Nuclear power and who doesn't. Really its a matter of the US saying "ohh they are of middle eastern decent so they must be using it to build bombs". If Australia decided that we wanted to start enriching uranium america or anyone else wouldn't give it so much as a thought.

It was actually agreed upon by the people who put together the first nuclear bomb(fatman). Decided that if this weapon was to work then EVERY country should be allowed to have access to the plans and materials required to build a nuclear warhead so as no one country can take control like the Americans have.

Votes + Comments
Good points.
0

Do you like the idea of every tinpot dictator being able to threaten every nation on earth? Or are you just serving as the devil's advocate here?

0

France gets most of their electricity from nuclear power plants. Safety has been dsigned in from the start. This whole industry sector has created a large number of good jobs.

China is bying huge amount of nuclear power plants from France. They must like the standardized and safe design.

0

>> I really don't think that it is up to the US who gets to use Nuclear power and who doesn't.
Didn't it come out recently that the original reason for building Sellafield was for under the cover enrichment? It's something I remember hearing before... Can't remember where though.
I hate the way America's arrogance makes them, from time to time, believe that they have the right to dictate to the world what they can and can't do while they do exactly the opposite - you can't have nuclear enrichment plants (alegedly for power production), but we can. It's like your taller, older and jerk of a brother holding your face in the mud.

0

Do you like the idea of every tinpot dictator being able to threaten every nation on earth? Or are you just serving as the devil's advocate here?

How do you like the idea of the US stockpiling nukes and blowing the shit out of anyone else that so much as wants to build a nuclear power plants. Nobody really put America in charge of this they have just taken control. If any other country was to try the same things as the US then they would be wiped out in several minutes. The reason that America can get away with it is because they have Nukes.

I am against nuclear weapons all together. I don't think they are needed.

lasher51 is just a very informed person and, like some others, likes a good dialog.

If by dialog you mean argument then yes. I don't know however that i am well informed but i will take it as a compliment none the less.

If America is going to start Policing/Ruling the world then the rest of the world needs to have a say in who is going to be the leader of America. At the moment only Americans are allowed to vote. Therefore the leader should be leading his country and not everyone elses.

0

nuclear weapons have kept the peace (largely) since 1945.
In a world where global scale war (to the extent that the nations were capable of it) between the major powers was a reaccurring phenomenon with a period of about 30 years (so just enough to grow the next generation of troops to maturity and train them) for milennia (dating back to several thousand years before Christ) that's quite an achievement.

0

nuclear weapons have kept the peace (largely) since 1945.
In a world where global scale war (to the extent that the nations were capable of it) between the major powers was a reaccurring phenomenon with a period of about 30 years (so just enough to grow the next generation of troops to maturity and train them) for milennia (dating back to several thousand years before Christ) that's quite an achievement.

How have they kept the peace? Sure they probably ended WW2 a couple of years earlier then it would have by blowing the shit out of Hiroshima but they have not had anything to do with keeping peace. If anything they are the cause of all the feuds since the end of world war 2.

0

...
If America is going to start Policing/Ruling the world then the rest of the world needs to have a say in who is going to be the leader of America. At the moment only Americans are allowed to vote. Therefore the leader should be leading his country and not everyone elses.

Now that is a worldly proposal, very nice!!!!!!

0

nuclear weapons have kept the peace (largely) since 1945.
In a world where global scale war (to the extent that the nations were capable of it) between the major powers was a reaccurring phenomenon with a period of about 30 years (so just enough to grow the next generation of troops to maturity and train them) for milennia (dating back to several thousand years before Christ) that's quite an achievement.

Now that simply does not make any sense! You been snuffing something?

0

simple history kids... Before nuclear weapons there was a major armed conflict involving the superpowers of the time every generation.
With nuclear weapons there hasn't been such a major conflict for several generations.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of a potential adversary make you think twice about starting a war which may involve them directly.
Had there been no nuclear weapons the Soviets would for example not have stopped their advance west in WW2. That's blatantly clear. They'd have continued west, engaging US and British forces in combat, to conquer all of Europe.
They'd also have invaded China and Japan, taking on seriously weakened US and Chinese forces there after those had defeated the Japanese imperial military.

0

simple history kids... Before nuclear weapons there was a major armed conflict involving the superpowers of the time every generation.
With nuclear weapons there hasn't been such a major conflict for several generations.

Where as now we simply have a single super power and hence they have nobody to fight with but the little guy.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of a potential adversary make you think twice about starting a war which may involve them directly.
Had there been no nuclear weapons the Soviets would for example not have stopped their advance west in WW2. That's blatantly clear. They'd have continued west, engaging US and British forces in combat, to conquer all of Europe.
They'd also have invaded China and Japan, taking on seriously weakened US and Chinese forces there after those had defeated the Japanese imperial military.

Nobody has said that they diddn't end the war. They are useful in that sense. What is being objected to is the way America has taken it upon themselves to say who can and can't have nuclear capabilities. Why? Because they are one of the only countries with nuclear warheads.

0

The US doesn't say who can have nuclear weapons and who can't, but they are actively doing the UN's job of policing the non-proliferation treaty (which is really the UN's job, but they don't do it for political reasons).
PS that wikipedia article isn't complete. They don't mention the abandoned Brazilian and Argentine projects for example (though those were stopped before producing a weapon, at least one of them probably has the capability to produce them if they want to, similar to Japan which would have them if their constitution didn't prevent it).

But let's get back to nuclear energy, which is what this discussion is all about.
It's safe (when using modern reactors, I'm not talking about the 1950s design graphite reactors like the one in Chernobyl and other places in Soviet satellite states), clean (if done properly, the waste can be used as fuel in other reactors), and relatively cheap (compared to other sources that don't use oil, coal, or gas).

0

...

But let's get back to nuclear energy, which is what this discussion is all about.
It's safe (when using modern reactors, I'm not talking about the 1950s design graphite reactors like the one in Chernobyl and other places in Soviet satellite states), clean (if done properly, the waste can be used as fuel in other reactors), and relatively cheap (compared to other sources that don't use oil, coal, or gas).

So why aren't there huge amounts of these cheaply fueled nuclear powerplants around?

0

because political pressure groups have effectively halted all development decades ago.

The state of engineering in the nuclear power industry is now what it could have been 20 years ago had there not been largescale political opposition to nuclear energy, fueled by disinformation campaigns by "environmentalists" and "peace groups" who equate nuclear power stations with nuclear weapons and present each of them as a disaster waiting to happen (falsely making people believe that what happened in Chernobyl is the norm and will happen to every nuclear powerplant sooner rather than later).

These disinformation campaigns have halted all development of smaller, cheaper, nuclear power stations and stations that can use the waste of regular plants as their fuel.
They've also succeeded in creating laws that prevent the refining of nuclear waste into fuel for power stations, which would reduce the amount of waste that needs longterm storage to a mere fraction of what's being stored now.
The activists don't want that to happen as it would void all their arguments about the dangers of nuclear waste.

0

So why aren't there huge amounts of these cheaply fueled nuclear powerplants around?

There are, just take a look at France.

0

no, the French are hot air generators, not nuclear powerplants.

What are they feeding you in tiny Netherlands? Fermented tulip bulbs again?

0

I fail to see why nuclear power is such a big problem. Sure there's the risk of a meltdown, but there is a risk with almost anything these days and it's not like they would put these plants in the middle of a city where millions of people live.

From what I've read, nuclear energy is quite potent, so maybe it's the solution to all this oil trouble.

Speaking of, it's kinda funny how people are so opposed to the methods used to provide them with something that makes them so damn comfortable, isn't it? Energy isn't cheap; you can't just pull it out your shiny metal butt.

And for those who are thinking Solar Energy, don't be too surprised if one day some genius is all over the press one day saying that all that energy we collect in solar panels can give us cancer or some crap.

0

and it's not like they would put these plants in the middle of a city where millions of people live.

actually, thats exactly what they do.

0

best place for them... Short distribution lines means little in the way of transport line losses (which can cost as much as 30% of generated power).

And they're safe, and indeed usually far from cities (until maybe the city expands around them, can't blame the planners for that).

There's been a single meltdown in 65 years of building and operating nuclear powerstations (60 or so years if you don't count the experimental reactors of the Manhattan project).
And that one was a reactor design which has not been used in the west since the 1940s, and was outdated in the east by the 1970s as well (though still being built in countries that don't take safety seriously like Syria and North Korea).

Modern reactor designs are inherently safe. A runaway reaction will cause an environment in which the reaction dies out and the core stays cool.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.