John Oliver on Nuclear Weapons
July 29, 2014
Nuclear promoters get real touchy when you talk about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Let’s assume that the US has the most professional stewardship of these deadly devices.
I am not reassured.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
July 29, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Good stuff.
The North Carolina incident Oliver mentions was recently in the news:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/us/north-carolina-nuclear-bomb-drop/
“While it’s unclear how frequently these types of accidents have occurred, the Defense Department has disclosed 32 accidents involving nuclear weapons between 1950 and 1980.”
July 30, 2014 at 7:37 am
I like the one that has yet to be fond of Tybee Island.
http://jalopnik.com/5907827/when-we-lost-an-unexploded-nuclear-bomb-off-the-coast-of-georgia
July 30, 2014 at 7:39 am
I like the one that has yet to be found off Tybee Island. Auto correct was on sorry.
July 30, 2014 at 9:07 am
Yes, John Oliver has some great writers and delivers well. And he speaks much truth during an entertaining 15 minutes. Thanks for posting this totally irrelevant piece.
Why irrelevant? Because the “connections” between nuclear weapons and nuclear power used to generate electricity are rather tenuous and really ancient history. Accidentally dropped weapons haven’t exploded and likely never will—FUD food. No terrorist has ever known about the errors made in securing weapons and facilities, at least not in time to take advantage of them. (Which raises the question of what good it does to publicize them—-will we now see terrorists disguised as delivery guys from Kebabs’R’Us or Lambburger Hut visiting launch sites and pulling on door handles? Trying to get on air bases to find missiles left laying around?)
And it’s kind of a cheap shot to post this clip on a climate change blog, where it can only contribute to the FUD that surrounds the nuclear power issue. I am not a “nuclear promoter” like E-Pot, but I see little or no connection between nuclear WEAPONS and nuclear POWER in 2014. If we want to talk about generating electricity and REDUCING CO2 to avoid killing millions, that’s one thing, NOT blowing up NC and NOT killing anyone with a nuclear weapon since 1945 is irrelevant.
July 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm
The tie-in is proliferation and human error. On proliferation, yes, it’s still a problem in 2014. North Korea just developed theirs, and we shouldn’t be surprised if in a few years Iran pops up and says they have one, too.
It only seems like it isn’t a problem in the States because the Cold War is over (although, it’s starting to heat up again).
On human error, Oliver is highlighting the many screw-ups that can and do take place. We actually came really close to detonating one of those bombs in North Carolina:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654818/1961-Goldsboro-incident-New-details-reveal-just-close-one-hydrogen-bombs-exploding-shock-crash-landing-caused-arm.html
Peter is decidedly anti-nuclear, for very personal reasons, but because of other reasons, too. Wind farms don’t have a tendency to explode and send out radiation clouds.
I think we’ll end up doing both nuclear and renewables, but we can’t dismiss potential pitfalls of nuclear as purely irrelevant.
July 30, 2014 at 2:46 pm
I don’t know whether our communication difficulties are due to a personal issue on your part—-you feel that I’ve insulted you on other posts, and are disinclined to agree with me because of that. Or your perceptual screens have a filter that consistently reacts negatively to strongly worded comments from anyone (which I do post quite often). You’re too good with the language not to understand the simple meaning of the words I use in the context in which I use them. Let’s try again.
Proliferation is a cat that was let out of the bag nearly 70 years ago, and is proving to be difficult to put back in. The weapons are HERE, and that fact is a separate issue from nuclear power generating plants. Guarding them and decreasing their numbers are political issues.
Proliferation is NOT a problem in the developed countries of the West who may soon need to replace coal with advanced designs of nuclear reactors. Nor is it a problem in CHINA and INDIA, who have had nuclear weapons for a long time and are the biggest coal consumers in the world. Human error is a simple fact of human existence in all human endeavors, and as I said, we haven’t killed anyone with a nuclear weapon for 70 years either, and likely won’t. Carbon pollution, plane and car crashes, and guns are far bigger killers. North Korea and Iran are what they are, have been thorns in the world’s side for years, and are now irrelevant when it comes to talking about nuclear power plants.
The Cold War will not be over for generations, if ever—-it has merely changed form, intensity, and location, and when it becomes hot again, it will likely be due to the effects of climate change. And nuclear weapons will likely first be used by China and/or India and/or Pakistan rather than Russia, the U.S.,or our allies (with Israel always the wild card). There’s a reason the world hasn’t fought a nuclear war, and if we do, it will be the apocalypse.
We did not come “really close to detonating one of those bombs in North Carolina”. With a nuclear bomb, it either goes off or it doesn’t, just like a gun either fires or it doesn’t when you pull the trigger (especially while the safety is on). The multiple redundant safety mechanisms worked as planned, just as they have in the many other accidents. It’s like saying someone “almost” got into your house because they overcame four of your five locks. Your house remained just as safe as your neighbor’s with only one lock—-nobody got in either house.
It is true that wind farms don’t have a tendency to explode and send out radiation clouds, but neither do nuclear power plants. The few instances where that has happened in isolated places need to be balanced against the worldwide damage being done by carbon pollution every single minute. I will be more than glad to risk an accident at the reactor they build in your backyard if it helps reduce AGW globally.
I agree that we certainly shouldn’t dismiss “potential pitfalls of nuclear power generation”, but it IS irrelevant to bring up nuclear weapons and try to make some “connection”. A tired old straw man, that.
July 30, 2014 at 3:13 pm
From the article I linked:
“Burr concluded: ‘Perhaps this is what Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had in mind, a few years later, when he observed that, “by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted.’”
Saying that’s not ‘close’ is semantics.
Keep in mind that we only know about this incident because it was recently de-classified. We don’t know if anything has happened since then.
Proliferation isn’t a major issue in the countries that have nuclear weapons already, true, except for the possibility of nations selling those weapons to other countries/groups. It is a distinct problem in those countries without nuclear weapons. It usually turns out that after developing nuclear power plants, countries build nuclear weapons. Imagine every country in the Middle East, in SE Asia, and in Africa with nuclear weaponry. Do risks decrease or increase?
It depends (but it’s not irrelevant):
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19850/nuclear_power_without_nuclear_proliferation.html
“It is true that wind farms don’t have a tendency to explode and send out radiation clouds, but neither do nuclear power plants. ”
Name one wind farm that has exploded and sent out radiation. I can name two nuclear plants that did so. It’s funny how I’m the only one with perceptual screens.
If we build out the entire country (and world) with nuclear, nuclear proponents will insist we’re safe, but simple logic would say we increase our chances of human error leading to accidents by several factors. We increase our chances of nuclear weapons proliferation by several factors.
That is a concerning issue, and it should be considered as such. It’s not irrelevant.
I’m not addressing whether or not we decide to risk those factors to mitigate AGW and/or whether it’s a worthwhile risk to do so. I think we’ll do it, anyway, and there are several examples where we are already doing it.
July 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Not particularly; there are many reactor designs that do not use enriched fuel and do not produce anything approaching weapons-grade isotope mixes.
But suppose that’s true. Would we rather have the chance of a few more Hiroshimas over the decades, or a guarantee that almost every coastal city and town in the world winds up underwater in the next 86 years?
July 30, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Personally, I think both are really bad choices. But if pressed, I think the Chinese are on the right track with mixing in thorium and renewables:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/china-uranium-nuclear-plants-smog-thorium
There’s a lot less downside with thorium tech. I don’t think thorium (and uranium) solves the carbon problem, though, so we get a world with more nuclear risk and AGW. Hooray for us.
July 30, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Glad to see E-Pot chipping in on this thread. In spite of his being a nuclear “cheerleader”, I have found his comments and links on the subject to be far more reliable than those posted here by others. I have no quarrel with what he has said here so far. Back to jimbills.
Sorry, it’s not semantics for me to say it just didn’t happen, never has, and likely never will—-that is simply pure truth. It IS semantics for you to argue that very very very very close is the same as having it happen.
YOU may know about this because of recent “disclosures”, but some of us have followed this topic for 50 years. I have touted the book Atomic Accidents by Mahaffey as a very good read, and even a look at Wikipedia will give you lots of info on nuclear accidents both military and civilian. The early mishaps and nuclear proliferation were among the reasons I was anti-nuclear power 40+ years ago, but things have changed.
“We don’t know if anything has happened since then”, you say? Probably very true since anything that HAS happened has done no lasting harm and is therefore of as little consequence as all that HAS happened. It’s pretty hard to cover up a mushroom cloud or muffle the media, so we can be pretty sure that NC hasn’t been bombed.
“Proliferation isn’t a major issue in the countries that have nuclear weapons already, true, except for the possibility of nations selling those weapons to other countries/groups”. There are 8 countries that have nuclear weapons, although Israel has never admitted it, and we are not sure about N. Korea, Iran, and S. Africa. Do you seriously think ANY of them are going to sell weapons? If so, tell us which ones and why? The only ones that concern us are looney-tune N. Korea and Iran if the looney-tunes take over—-either of them would be turned into a glass-surfaced parking lot if they were that foolish.
“It is a distinct problem in those countries without nuclear weapons. It usually turns out that after developing nuclear power plants, countries build nuclear weapons. Imagine every country in the Middle East, in SE Asia, and in Africa with nuclear weaponry. Do risks decrease or increase?”
WHOA and hallelujah! Talk about hyperbole and overreach! E-Pot has spoken elsewhere about N. Korea NOT having any nuclear power plants before trying to develop weapons, and of the 30 plus countries with nuclear power, only a few have weapons, and those weapons were developed because they WANTED nuclear weapons in the early days of the Cold War. It happened ahead of or at most alongside civilian nuclear power programs, and did not grow out of them. Also, “every country” will never have the scientific, industrial, and economic assets to build a reactor in the first place. There are over 20 that DO have reactors but have never taken the steps to develop weapons—-there are no Dr. Strangeloves in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, or Bulgaria, to name only half of them.
“Name one wind farm that has exploded and sent out radiation. I can name two nuclear plants that did so. It’s funny how I’m the only one with perceptual screens”. No, this isn’t a “screen” problem—-you’re now displaying motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance with this remark. You are again overreaching—-future plants will be far less likely to do a Chernobyl or Fukushima on us, and the CO2 released as we build thousands of wind turbines will likely kill far more people than those two reactors ever will.
More hyperbole with “If we build out the entire country (and world) with nuclear, nuclear proponents will insist we’re safe, but simple logic would say we increase our chances of human error leading to accidents by several factors. We increase our chances of nuclear weapons proliferation by several factors”.
Build out the WHOLE world? Increase chances of error and accidents by “SEVERAL factors” (did you mean orders of magnitude?). That’s not logic, that’s motivated reasoning PFTA. The same for nuclear proliferation, which I have argued has NOT really resulted from civilian nuclear power.
July 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm
And your motivated reasoning is to believe you’re right about everything all the time. I’m only saying that nuclear proliferation and nuclear accidents are still a global concern, and that they aren’t irrelevant to discussing nuclear power. You completely discount this notion completely using your own motivated reasoning. I’d ask that you read the link I sent in the comment just above this one. It’s a pretty good analysis about proliferation in today’s world. I’d also suggest reading about the incident in Spain in 1966 in the dailymail link.
I’m talking about increased risk. As Pakistan (which you conveniently don’t mention), Iran, and North Korea access the bomb, as time passes and accidents continue to occur, as more nations achieve nuclear technology, risk increases. Maybe nothing would happen, but it’s rolling the dice over and over again. I personally think the trials should be considered to help mitigate AGW, but the added risk is NOT irrelevant to the discussion.
July 31, 2014 at 7:44 am
Starting to lose it? I counter your bald assertions and opinions with some far better supported opinions and some facts, and all you can do is throw “your mother wears combat boots” ad hominems at me in return?.
I am not Omnologos, and do not believe I’m “right about everything all the time”. You have chosen not to attempt to refute my arguments that nuclear weapons do not automatically follow as a consequence of having nuclear power plants, as you so baldly asserted. Are YOU right all the time, or is your only argument that I’m wrong ALL the time?
Of course nuclear proliferation and nuclear accidents are a “global concern”, and the NPT hasn’t worked all that well, especially since many countries won’t even sign it. Water over the dam. As others here have pointed out, the new reactor technologies will not lend themselves to production of weapons-grade fissile material. As I have pointed out,most of the nuclear power wannabees are unlikely to ever get power reactors, never mind develop nuclear weapons after that. It’s true that it only takes one, but I can’t imagine that any will be a bigger concern than N. Korea or Iran already are, or than the India-Pakistan-China situation—-those three countries have already gone to war with each other and will be a focal point of food and water conflict when the AGW SHTF. The proliferation “risk” you are so concerned about grows mainly out of the past.
Going back to Peter’s motives for posting this clip, he is actually guilty of a bit of a non-sequitur. He states, “Nuclear promoters get real touchy when you talk about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons”, and then posts a clip that talks only about how nuclear weapons are mishandled by the U.S. military—he never really mentions any “connection” with power plants..
You state, “Peter is decidedly anti-nuclear, for very personal reasons, but because of other reasons, too”. Really? Have you asked him about those “other reasons”? He hasn’t said anything here or made any “connections” beyond that he is “not reassured” about our “stewardship”, and I interpret that to mean accidents and terrorists stealing bombs, and NOT anything to do with nuclear power plants. YOU are the one who has made that leap. Maybe he’ll elaborate, but I get the feeling that his “personal” reasons are more “anti” the nuclear power industry and its officials of the past rather than the present. This post IS largely irrelevant to the question of the future of nuclear power.
I read the first link you posted, and it’s a good analysis, but it’s full of more ??????????? marks and “ifs” than definitive info and answers the big question of how much we should worry about proliferation with (I quote directly) “It depends”. And you “suggest” I read about the 1966 incident in Spain? Why, since I have been familiar with it since the day it happened and understand it fully?. I suggest that YOU become familiar with nuclear weapon design. The two bombs that “exploded” were plutonium implosion bombs, and the explosion was of the conventional explosives they contained, not nuclear. That’s what spread the plutonium—-nasty stuff yes, and it was a difficult cleanup, but the safety features built into the weapons AGAIN prevented a nuclear detonation, and that’s the real thing to be learned there.
And I “conveniently” didn’t mention Pakistan? That’s because I was mentioning China and India in the context of being the two largest coal users. Perhaps I should have, since Pakistan is the classic illustration of a country that had NO power reactors and developed weapons solely because it WANTED them to to deter India, and supports my argument. India did the same because of China, and has many times more weapons and much more stockpiled bomb material than Pakistan. Stop grasping at straws.
July 31, 2014 at 8:10 am
“I am not Omnologos, and do not believe I’m “right about everything all the time”. Thank God!
But I would disagree that Omnologos thinks he is always right. Just that he thinks he is NEVER wrong.
July 31, 2014 at 8:23 am
Good point—-I stand corrected.
July 31, 2014 at 11:03 am
NPP do not have to explode to expose the environment to risk. The entire fuel chain is a risk and a health hazard, not to mention wastes.
“Studies provided data to show that the Navajo mine workers and numerous families on the reservation have suffered high rates of disease from environmental contamination, but for decades, industry and the government failed to regulate or improve conditions, or inform workers of the dangers. ”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people
Other reactors pose different hazards. The german AVR reactor comes to mind.
“Critics[who?] also often point out an accident in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube (see THTR-300 section). This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and probably was one reason for the shutdown of the research program by the West German government.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
July 31, 2014 at 11:43 am
“NPP do not have to explode to expose the environment to risk. The entire fuel chain is a risk and a health hazard, not to mention wastes”?
Thank you for stating the obvious. We can substitute COAL FIRED GENERATING PLANTS for NPP, and the statement will be even more true, especially considering that we can document the damage done by carbon pollution, and it far exceeds that done by NPP.
And if you were going to give examples, you might have done better than these two. The situation with the Navajos (and other uranium miners) occurred back in the 40’s and 50’s, and is ancient history from which the lessons have already been learned.
The AVR is also ancient history—-a small experimental reactor built in the mid-60’s that ran successfully for over 20 years? Please!
How much radiation did the AVR release? And it “probably” was ONE of the reasons the Germans shut down the research program? Brilliant deduction. I too would shut down a 20+year-old reactor that was showing its age and getting dangerous—-I don’t keep cars for more than 20 years for the same reason.
You need to do some studying beyond Wikipedia. The problems with mill and mine tailings piles and wastes all over the West were big and not well-publicized—-there were serious issues in CO particularly. I have a picture taken in 1966 of my wife and I on the narrow gauge train at the station in Durango CO that shows a huge tailings pile in the background—-it is no longer there, and the story of why and how is an interesting one. And do you know who Leetso is? (one of the Navajo “monsters”)
July 30, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Yes, North Korea developed theirs. Where was North Korea’s nuclear power program at the time? Trick question: they didn’t have one! Their “research” (weapons-materials production) reactor wasn’t connected to their grid; the Norks use imported fuel oil for that.
The Norks apparently screwed up their plutonium production (their bomb test had a very low yield, as if it “squibbed” with a premature chain reaction—just what you’d expect if they had too much Pu-240 instead of Pu-239 [more info here]), so they shifted gears to production of weapons-grade uranium. FYI, uranium enrichment doesn’t require a reactor of any kind. The “Little Boy” bomb was a gun-type bomb using weapons-grade uranium, and the design was never tested because the Los Alamos scientists knew it would work.
If there is anything to be worried about, it’s enrichment equipment in the possession of weapons proliferators. Neither LEU fuel, nor the Pu in spent fuel, should worry anyone.
July 30, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Actually, Peter is wrong about the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Nuclear power plants do a superb job of destroying nuclear weapons materials. Many tons of weapons-grade uranium, from both the US and Russia, was “down-blended” to low-enriched uranium (LEU) and used as fuel in the “Megatons to Megawatts” program. These materials were destroyed utterly; the remnant uranium is full of U-236 so it can’t even be usefully enriched again.
Right now, Resident Obama’s administration is trying to put the MOX production plant at the Savannah River Site into “cold shutdown”. This plant would convert weapons-grade plutonium into reactor fuel, so it also could be destroyed (the remnant would be so contaminated with Pu-238, Pu-240 and Pu-241 that it could never be used in weapons). Obama is frustrating the second-biggest anti-proliferation program of our time (Megatons to Megawatts being the biggest). Perhaps he doesn’t want nuclear power to get any publicity as an anti-weapons program. After signing a treaty requiring us to do so, and spending several billion dollars on the plant, that falls somewhere between gross malfeasance and treason.
July 31, 2014 at 6:06 am
Classic clip there and I’ll sleep less well at nights because of it – thanks.
However, I do think there’s a place for thorium and other alternative reactor designs that don’t use uranium or plutonium as discussed here :
Not a magic bullet or the one answer but hopefully could be part of the mix and one thing that can help and look into developing more.
July 31, 2014 at 6:51 am
FYI, “thorium” reactors do use uranium; they breed U-233 from Th-232 (thorium is not fissile).
The advantages of the Th/U-233 cycle are:
1. It can be a net breeder even with a thermal neutron spectrum (uranium and plutonium don’t yield enough neutrons for net breeding except in a “fast” spectrum).
2. Since it is starting at atomic weight 232 instead of the bulk of it at 238, very little of the material survives the series of neutron captures to become neptunium or higher transuranic elements. IIUC, only about 0.15% fails to fission during the 5 neutron captures to produce Np-237.
(This is not to say that Np-237 doesn’t have its uses. One more neutron and a beta decay yields Pu-238, which is the preferred heat source for radioisotope thermal generators for space probes and whatnot. The Curiosity rover on Mars is powered by Pu-238, merrily decaying away to make heat which drives the thermocouples to supply Curiosity’s electric power.)
July 31, 2014 at 11:23 am
When it comes to nuclear. Avid proponents often become irrationally exuberant. One wonders if the thought of plutonium has the same effect as another, shinier, yellowish, metal outlined in “treasure of the Sierra Madre”
Whether it’s by terrorists, ordinary or rogue states, proliferation has already happened. To deny the link between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons is to ignore history.
In the nuclear fuel cycle, expecting contamination to be restricted to appropriate levels despite its sheer mass and deadliness is to believe in miracles. There is no evidence that the promise has been achieved. To the contrary, we have evidence of both everyday leaks and occasional large spectacular releases. Here is what John Goffman had to say about the matter, a man with the background and credentials to know,
“The requirement for controlling plutonium in a nuclear economy built on breeder reactors would be to lose no more than one millionth or ten millionth of all the plutonium that is handled into the environment where it could get to people. Which brings up a fundamental thing in nuclear energy—there are some engineers, scientists, who are not merely fraudulent sycophants of the system. They’re really out of touch with reality. ”
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html
This kind of excessive optimism despite frequent failures is the hallmark of some nuclear proponents.
July 31, 2014 at 12:08 pm
JFC, Arcus, are you running for office now? It sounds like a William Jennings Bryan-type “Cross of Plutonium” campaign speech. Great rhetoric but little substance. Be sure to point to the heavens, strut around, and pound the pulpit when you deliver it.
And GOFFMAN!!? He was one of my heroes back in the 1970’s when I was actively anti-nuclear power, but he later became a bit “over the top”, and much of his work was hotly debated. He is about as currently relevant as the AVR that was shut down 30 years ago and the Navajos that were poisoned 60+ years ago. How old is this quote? 1970’s? Early 1980’s? That’s 30-40 years ago.
And “This kind of excessive optimism despite frequent failures is the hallmark of some nuclear proponents”?. SOME? Which ones? How many? When? And who defines “excessive” and “frequent”? As I said, great rhetoric but little substance, and that’s the hallmark of some people who argue against nuclear power from all the wrong directions.
July 31, 2014 at 12:04 pm
The top ten myths of nuclear cheerleaders needs an added item. Myth 11 – Nuclear reactors pose no proliferation risk.
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/the-top-ten-common-myths-of-the-nuclear-cheerleaders/
July 31, 2014 at 12:29 pm
I won’t even go there to look at it again. I spent too much time on Daryan’s blog the last time he surfaced on Crock, and he is hardly an unbiased observer (and his nuclear power knowledge base is weak in spots, as is yours).
What IS a myth is your thinking you’re convincing anyone of anything much with all this rhetoric. Have you no interest in specifically refuting my arguments?
July 31, 2014 at 12:40 pm
oldguy – You say, “The proliferation “risk” you are so concerned about grows mainly out of the past.”
Which I’d say is the main crux of your argument that building more nuclear power isn’t a nuclear weapon proliferation risk. You also build that argument on the fact that most of the nuclear weapons have already been built and are locked away.
However, the world is not in stasis. You’re taking just our very present and assuming that’s what the future is, when it almost certainly won’t. The goal of global capitalism is to industrialize and develop every country on Earth, and many countries that might not be able to build nuclear power right now likely will if global development continues. The report I linked showed how a great many countries are requesting the technology.
No world leader or strategist today would agree with you that this doesn’t pose a nuclear proliferation risk. The report details how and where it is a risk, and yes, it links nuclear power and weapons proliferation. However, I’m open to being proven wrong – please post any links that refute this paragraph.
The building blocks for nuclear weapons come from nuclear power. It has to be refined, yes, but spreading the use of nuclear power increases the chances of doing so – the risk increases. The world didn’t stop building new nuclear weapons when the Cold War ended, and more nations are likely to enter the armed status as time goes on.
This whole time I’ve been posting here not out of emotion (you assumed I was upset at you in the first comment, which wasn’t true), but because I do believe you’re just plain wrong. You’ve posted a bunch of stuff minimizing the accidents, which fine – we haven’t had a nuclear weapon blow up by accident. But I’ve tried to gear this argument towards my main and only real point here, which is that increasing nuclear power around the world does pose a nuclear proliferation risk and increases the chances of accidents in nuclear power and weaponry, and therefore it isn’t irrelevant when discussing nuclear power itself. This is basic common sense. Just because it hasn’t happened with nuclear weapons doesn’t mean it will ‘never’ happen – as you wrote. It has happened with nuclear power, and likely will continue to happen. The new designs you and EP mention happen to be very expensive and still undergoing development (like thorium). We have no guarantee that we won’t have another Fukushima.
Peter says we should assume we’re the best at handling nuclear weapons, which is likely true. He’s alluding to what we should think about their handling in other countries. Is there reason to worry, or should we just assume (bright-sidedly) that everything is hunky dory?
Peter doesn’t specifically mention proliferation, true, but it’s a fair assumption that that is what he means with the word ‘connections’. He’s in Greenland right now based on what he said in a previous post.
July 31, 2014 at 5:23 pm
If you actually know the history, you know that the truth is the exact opposite: the building blocks for nuclear power came from nuclear weapons programs (but you don’t have to make weapons). It would have been possible for various plutonium-production reactors to also produce electricity (and dual-use was one of the design elements of the RMBK), but the Manhattan Project nearly ignored it in the race to beat Germany to the bomb. Think what would have happened if Germany got there first; Germany already had a SRBM in the form of the V-2.
Your use of vague language betrays ignorance. Uranium must be refined, because you can’t have contaminants. What uranium does NOT have to be is enriched. The CANDU reactor uses a heavy-water moderator and is designed to take unenriched uranium (though it benefits from a bit of enrichment).
India is trying to build a thorium-burning heavy-water reactor that will essentially run by itself.
You’re conflating two very different things, and even nuclear accidents on the order of SL-1 are preferable to even a single coal-burning powerplant continuing to run.
We could have a Fukushima every year with no lives lost and less economic damage than the sea-level rise we’ll have in 20 years. Designs like the AP1000 make a Fukushima-like event nearly impossible. : BTW, China and Westinghouse are about to ink a deal for another 26 of them. If you think you are going to do anything to keep nuclear power out of the rest of the world by blocking it in the USA, think again.
July 31, 2014 at 6:28 pm
Yes, I know history. I know the U.S. built the bomb before grid-connected nuclear power. All I’m saying is that nuclear power generation (for commercial use or not) creates plutonium, which is the preferred nuclear weapon material. Increasing nuclear power around the world increases the chances of that plutonium being weaponized. I’m not saying it will definitely – I’m saying the risk factor of it happening increases.
The place you refer to this as well as this case is North Korea. Yes, a research reactor, or a dummy front not connected to a grid, can also being used to create the material – but this is moot. A country either needs a working reactor (research or commercial), or they need to import/buy the material, or they need a significant enriching capability requiring nuclear tech, to build a bomb. Without those things – no bomb. All I’m saying is that spreading the technology allows more chances of proliferation. It could theoretically be contained with very strict UN observation and penalties, but so far we haven’t done a good job at that with North Korea and possibly Iran.
“India is trying” – trying, yes. So is China.
“preferable to even a single coal-burning powerplant continuing to run.” and “We could have a Fukushima every year with no lives lost and less economic damage than the sea-level rise we’ll have in 20 years.”
Which are your value judgments. Obviously, you’ve decided the risks are worth the reward, as does DOG. But, again, I haven’t been addressing that value judgment. I’ve just been saying that the risk element MUST be considered when making judgments about our energy future – that’s it’s not meaningless or irrelevant.
“If you think you are going to do anything to keep nuclear power out of the rest of the world by blocking it in the USA, think again.”
Yeah, I don’t have that level of power. And, again, I’m not saying we SHOULD block it – just that the risk factors must be considered. Of course, it’s good to build reactors with better safety design – doing so reflects an understanding of the risk and accounting for it. How about other reactors being built around the world? Are they as safe as the AP1000 design? Is the AP1000 100% foolproof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Design_disputes
I’d really just like either an acknowledgement that the risk exists or proof that no risk exists. The world can then decide if it’s worth it or not. If we were really smart about it, we’d design reactors that were cost-effective, that prevented any chance of nuclear proliferation, and that had a 0% chance of meltdown.
July 31, 2014 at 9:58 pm
<sigh>
I keep referring you to this explanation of why that doesn’t work (which is why no weapons proliferator has ever attempted it), but you won’t read it.
Short version: There is no such thing as “just plutonium” except chemically; the nuclear properties vary widely. Pu-239 is the bomb stuff. Pu-238 isn’t even fissile and generates a hell of a lot of decay heat (which is why there’s a blob of it on Mars powering the Curiosity rover). Pu-240 isn’t fissile either, and has a sky-high rate of spontaneous fission. Pu-241 creates other headaches for bomb designers.
To make practical bombs from plutonium, it has to be very low in Pu-238 and Pu-240. The only way that works to make sufficiently pure Pu-239 is to irradiate U-238 for a brief period to make a fraction of a percent of Np-239, which decays to Pu-239 with a half-life of 2.3 days. Then you get it the heck out of your reactor, because when thermal neutrons hit Pu-239 they create Pu-240 35% of the time; this requires specialized reactors that can be refuelled on very short cycles, generally while operating. You also get some Pu-238 when a sufficiently fast neutron knocks another neutron out of a Pu-239 nucleus. Weapons-grade plutonium is 93% or more Pu-239.
The plutonium that comes out of light-water reactor fuel cycles has been irradiated for years (generally 2-3 fuel cycles) and is absolutely full of Pu-240. Here is a page that lists some measured isotope mixes from spent fuel. There’s no way to make a workable explosive device out of that stuff, let alone a deliverable weapon. You can’t build an implosion system fast enough to put a supercritical mass together before a chain reaction starts pushing it apart again. What you get is a “squib”, at best. And the heat from the short-lived stuff like Pu-238 can even “cook off” the implosion system while it’s just sitting there! That would make a big mess in the lab or storage bunker.
TL;DR: There is no way to build bombs out of the plutonium from spent power-reactor fuel. You can “burn” it for energy, but that’s because reactors aren’t fussy about spontaneous fission and they EXIST to make heat.
Now, since I’ve just spend a lot of time and column-inches rebutting just ONE of your misconceptions with evidence I hope is sufficient to prove my bona fides, will you give me the benefit of the doubt on the rest?
July 31, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Excellent links. I can’t wait for the response. Perhaps you too will have words put in your mouth that you didn’t say, and thoughts put in your head that you didn’t think, as I have just had done to me. And that doesn’t even take into account the evasions and irrelevant wanderings. Once I get them cleaned out, I will respond, but I’m not sure anyone’s listening to us.
July 31, 2014 at 11:58 pm
I did read them, and thank you. I have no doubt about your bona fides regarding nuclear technology.
You said you keep referring me to the links, but maybe you linked them to someone else and I didn’t read it. This is the first time you’ve linked it to me. I do appreciate it here.
Your links explore the issue very well that not all plutonium is created equal, and that a reactor would have to be designed to create weapons grade plutonium. A reactor designed strictly for commercial use isn’t going to produce plutonium for weaponry.
Several of the Hanford reactors used to create plutonium for U.S. weapons, like N Reactor, were dual purpose, however. It created both weapons grade plutonium and commercial power. Britain did the same thing – dual purpose reactors. Is there some reason to believe that nations today couldn’t do the same thing?*
I’ve also read that breeder reactors pose a possible proliferation risk:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeNuclearWeaponsProliferation
“However other types of reactors such as Heavy Water reactors and some types of Breeder reactors do not have this built-in safe-guard. In these reactors fuel can be removed without a power-down. They require much more serious monitoring to ensure that weapons-grade Plutonium is not being created. ”
Do you have a link to explain how this isn’t possible/likely?* Is there a reason to believe a dedicated weapons reactor couldn’t be created today?*
Those three questions (marked with asterisks) would be the real heart of the matter to me as to whether or not nuclear proliferation is a significant risk in today’s world. Just curious – do you personally think Iran can/could build a nuclear weapon? If not, why not?
I still maintain that without the technology and the nuclear power infrastructure in place, there isn’t a chance of a nation building a bomb (unless they buy the materials or bomb – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons ). Hence, that’s my reasoning for why nuclear proliferation, especially in an expanding global economy, remains a serious proliferation risk. Pretty much everything I’ve read agrees with that. But I’m open to other info. Is there anyone else saying proliferation in today’s world isn’t a problem?
August 1, 2014 at 7:39 am
“Is there anyone else saying proliferation in today’s world isn’t a problem?”
Actually, NO ONE here on Crock has said nuclear proliferation isn’t a concern. You are so wrapped up in your ego-driven and irrelevant arguments that you have failed to notice that fact. I have been arguing against your cognitive dissonance, your faulty logic, your misinterpreted info, and your faulty reading of Peter’s original post and intent (go back and read my first comment and try to get back on track). E-Pot may couch his comments more in terms of “boosting” nuclear power, but he hasn’t said proliferation is not a problem either. You are once again just spouting rhetoric with this question.
You again speak of things 60 and 70 years in the past like Hanford and the UK’s reactors, and ask “Is there some reason to believe that nations today couldn’t do the same thing?” Of course, they CAN do the same thing in the sense that the technology is available to them. The question is will they? I will again say “very very unlikely”, because things are much changed in the world since the 1940’s. You keep asking me to say “nuclear proliferation IS a problem” when I’ve never said it wasn’t. Our problem here is YOU trying to make it out to be a much bigger problem than it is, and thereby introducing FUD into the debate about how we can reduce CO2. You waste our time, and insist upon posting links that you don’t fully understand and cherry-picking quotes that you think are meaningful, like this one sentence on POSSIBLE risks from breeders.
“Do you have a LINK to explain how this isn’t possible/likely? Is there a reason to believe a dedicated weapons reactor couldn’t be created today?” is just more rhetoric.
Use your head and try to think logically—-stop playing the “links” game and asking “cute” inane questions like “Just curious – do you personally think Iran can/could build a nuclear weapon? If not, why not?”. Of course Iran can/could build a weapon. The question is WILL THEY, and that’s a whole different argument that has little to do with future proliferation. Iran’s cat (and N. Korea’s) got out of the bag long ago, and there are no new nations heading down the same path. The terrorists and extremists getting their hands on already existing materials should be what we worry about most.
And yet ANOTHER link to 40 years ago that proves nothing. The Israel-S. Africa thing occurred in a different world. (and S. Africa is the only country that has ever dismantled all its nuclear weapons—they are thought to have had at least 6).
Yes, you still obsessively maintain that “without the technology and the nuclear power infrastructure in place, there isn’t a chance of a nation building a bomb”. IMO, “unless they buy the materials or bomb” is a much better argument to make,and, as I just said, it’s not nations per se that are the problem.
“Hence, that’s my reasoning for why nuclear proliferation, especially in an expanding global economy, remains a serious proliferation risk. Pretty much everything I’ve read agrees with that. But I’m open to other info”. LOL—you’re “open” and “pretty much” what you’ve read “agrees with that”? LOL again. Your cognitive dissonance about nuclear power has caused you to really see ONLY what agrees with your bias. A couple of clips from the “breeder” link you posted follow—you should read ALL of your links—-perhaps you’d develop a better perspective about the nuclear power issue.
T”he nuclear industry has longer-term plans to develop advanced reactors that are over 50 times more efficient in their use of Uranium and which consume a large fraction of the long-lived waste generated from current (2nd generation) reactors. In addition these plants may also be used to efficiently produce Hydrogen for use as a transportation fuel and to de-salinate sea water. These are the Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors and are not expected to be ready for deployment before 2020″.
“There is a large and very vocal opposition to Nuclear Fission power because of the radioactive material produced in the process of generating energy and from Nuclear Proliferation concerns. There are also claims that Nuclear Power is more expensive than alternative energy generation schemes. There are also numerous websites and documents that counter such claims and offer strong opinion that Nuclear Power is the best energy option”.
August 1, 2014 at 12:47 pm
EP – I’m not being cute. I would really like to see reasoned responses to my questions.
August 1, 2014 at 5:44 pm
<sigh>
Look, Jim… how many times do we have to explain to you that weapons came FIRST, and don’t require anything related to nuclear power, before you stop saying dumb things like that?
What it took the world’s leading atomic physicists to do in 1942 (create the first self-sustaining atomic chain reaction) is now within the reach of people with a few hundred million dollars and a quiet place to work. Graphite and chemical equipment are hardly difficult to get; the biggest problem today is the uranium, which was widely used as a yellow pottery glaze (including in Fiestaware). The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. No matter WHAT you do to nuclear energy, you cannot make that knowledge go away.
With nuclear power, we can make electricity cheap and abundant. This eliminates any need to fight over fossil fuel supplies. If nobody has any reason to fight over resources, who’ll even want nuclear bombs?
August 1, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Yes, unlike chickens and eggs, we can say the bombs came first with confidence. Here again are the countries that have ever had nuclear weapons, and the year in which the country first obtained nuclear weapons, followed by the year in which they began operating their first commercial nuclear power plant..
U.S.———–1945——1957
Russia-——1949—–1954
U.K.————1952—–1956
France—— 1960—–1962
China———1964—–1991
Israel———1960’s?–none yet
India———1974—–1972*
Pakistan—1998—–1972*
N. Korea—-2000’s—none yet
S. Africa—————-none yet
(*) India and Pakistan are the only exceptions to the “bombs first” rule, and they are special cases. India got help in developing nuclear power from the U.S. and Canada, and Pakistan was helped by Britain and France. They both violated the agreements with their “mentors” when they secretly developed weapons, and were cut off as a result.
China and Russia have stirred some pots as well, and the French have gotten caught with their pants down offering assistance to non-nuclear states, including Israel. The Israelis hijacked a bunch of fissile material in Europe and even stole it from a plant in the U.S. They did this with the collusion of the French and West Germans.
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat.
And I think it’s interesting that the original nuclear weapon countries didn’t seem all that concerned about proliferation back then and even encouraged it.
August 1, 2014 at 9:07 pm
I put my latest reply to Jim at the bottom level for readability:
https://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/29/john-oliver-on-nuclear-weapons/comment-page-2/#comment-62257
August 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Bad link in the 10:20 comment—Google “Israelis Hijacked Nuclear Materials . – Google News” to get it. Fascinating story if you’re not already familiar with it.
July 31, 2014 at 10:32 pm
Oh, god, I just read that. It mentions all the big-name professional anti-nuclear “intervenors” and reads like they wrote it. Never once does it mention if an “intervenor” complaint was baseless, implying that they should be considered biased, incompetent or not credible. Even when they’re in error, they’re not wrong.
Forgive me if I don’t go into that in detail, because I’m not up on the specifics. But I know enough about the records of Lyman, Gundersen and UCS to know that you should take them with a truckload of salt, and if they were working in the civil legal arena they would long ago have been declared “vexatious litigants” and barred from bringing further claims on pain of contempt.
August 1, 2014 at 12:00 am
Yeah, unfortunately there’s a lot of vested interest going on with nuclear on both sides of the issue. It’s hard to get objectivity in the matter.
August 1, 2014 at 9:22 am
“I’d really just like either an acknowledgement that the risk exists or proof that no risk exists”. If you would stop babbling on in attempted justification of your misguided approach to this post by Peter and our follow-up comments, you’d perhaps realize that EVERYONE acknowledges that risk exists. Asking for proof that no risk exists is illogical, as many of your comments on this thread have been. That’s what I’ve been trying to point out to you, but you insist on making it about the “known unknown” of proliferation and arguing from irrelevancies from the past. You are pushing FUD and clouding the debate.
“All I’m saying is that spreading the technology allows more chances of proliferation”. Yes and No in equal parts, why do you refuse to look at the “No”? YOU are more prone to “value judgments” than E-Pot and I—-we try to rationally analyze and balance facts and try to reach objective and justifiable conclusions.
“I’ve just been saying that the risk element MUST be considered when making judgments about our energy future – that’s it’s not meaningless or irrelevant”. Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but it’s not the “risk element” I consider “meaningless or irrelevant” as much as it is your arguments (starting with your initial assumptions and misinterpretation of Peter’s intent with this post), and your closing comment just reinforces my thinking——“If we were really smart about it, we’d design reactors that were cost-effective, that prevented any chance of nuclear proliferation, and that had a 0% chance of meltdown”. DUH!
August 1, 2014 at 9:01 am
Good comment, but i would inject the thought that the AP-1000, although an improvement, is still a PWR and is at root an attempt by Westinghouse and the other old-technology reactor manufacturers to keep their toes in the money pool. The newer designs hold out more promise in many ways. You (and Daryan) sometimes seem to be in the employ of the PWR manufacturers (or have i said that already).
August 1, 2014 at 9:44 pm
There’s the little problem of the NRC and its complete un-preparedness to do licensing studies of anything other than another light-water reactor. I’ve seen estimates of a cost of $1 billion and a period of 10 years just to train the regulators to write the regulations for any completely new reactor technology (sorry, still no source for this—I’ll cite it when I find it again). We sure don’t have 10 years to delay.
At least we do have some cause for optimism; it looks like China and Westinghouse are going to ink a deal for another 26 AP1000’s, and China is using the technology for its own CAP-1400. Last and best, China has announced a crash program to develop molten-salt reactors in 10 years. The MSR has the potential to provide a drop-in replacement for supercritical powdered-coal fired boilers, and China needs that YESTERDAY to deal with its air pollution issues.
August 1, 2014 at 9:51 pm
I’m afraid you’re right about the foot-dragging by the regulators in the U.S. Could it be that they’re on the payroll of the PWR folks with you? (joking).
The AP-1000 is an improvement though, and you’re right about China seeing it as an answer to its immediate needs. If all doesn’t go to hell in the interim, maybe the example of China’s future MFRs will get the U.S. moving 10-15 years from now.
August 1, 2014 at 10:06 am
You need to stop putting YOUR misinterpreted words in my mouth and thoughts in my head and try to understand what I’ve been saying.
YOU have taken our PAST and overextended it into the future. Global capitalism will collapse long before nuclear power plants are built in most of the “wannabee” countries. To quote from your Daedalus link “….as a number of authors in these volumes note, many of the aspiring states will not be able to progress with nuclear power development programs any time soon due to financial or other constraints. Indeed, most of the growth in nuclear power over the coming decade is likely to come from new plants in states that already operate nuclear power plants”.
You say, “The goal of global capitalism is to industrialize and develop every country on Earth, and many countries that might not be able to build nuclear power right now likely will if global development continues. The report I linked showed how a great many countries are requesting the technology”. You need to read ALL of that report—-it does NOT quite say what you want it to say—-you are being a bit arrogant to say “please post any links that refute this paragraph” when you have misinterpreted and cherry picked the report.
You say, “This whole time I’ve been posting here not out of emotion (you assumed I was upset at you in the first comment, which wasn’t true)”. Again, you put words in my mouth. YOU said you were “insulted”, I responded, this statement shows that you ignored my response. The emotions I speak of are those that underlie your motivated reasoning, and you can’t seem to realize that they are driving you to logic faults and misrepresentation of facts.
And you talk of “basic common sense”? Why don’t you display some and give this up rather than regale us with more illogical arguments and misstatements of fact? I HAVE NEVER SAID “Just because it hasn’t happened with nuclear weapons doesn’t mean it will ‘never’ happen”. That’s your cognitive dissonance showing again—-you see what you WANT to see, just as you have with Peter.
“Peter says we should assume we’re the best at handling nuclear weapons, which is likely true”. Peter most certainly did NOT allude to what we should think about their handling in other countries. You are putting words in his mouth also. Then you backtrack a bit with “Peter doesn’t specifically mention proliferation, true”, but proceed to shoot off some toes with “…but it’s a fair assumption that that is what he means with the word ‘connections’. No it’s not. The video clip and Peter’s brief comments by any rational analysis refer only to the U.S. and, as I said, are a bit of a non sequitur and a snark as well. You have overreached in your zeal to see more there than there really is.
August 1, 2014 at 1:45 am
Objectivity? Jimbills, you are mildly asserting that nuclear reactors pose a proliferation risk, a subject that has been accepted by responsible parties for decades regardless of background. What do you get in response? Irrational response in defense of nuclear power. You did not even suggest anything beyond that. The threat of cessation of nuclear fans obsession is so great that the response is to put it mildly, irrational.
August 1, 2014 at 8:06 am
Hard to believe, but Arcus has borrowed the perfumed sleeve hanky from his arch-nemesis E-Pot, climbed up on his high horse, and is busily sniffing the hanky while looking down his nose in disdain. Rather dilletantish (and meaningless, except that he may now “feel good” because he has taken a shot and thinks he has “scored”).
Thanks for the laugh, Arcus—-you talking about objectivity in discussions of nuclear power and saying jimbills “mildly asserts” are two side-splitters.
I have not been defending nuclear power “IRRATIONALLY”. To recap, I used to be an anti-nuclear power activist (were you ever?), still don’t like it all that much, but have become convinced (like Hansen) that things have gotten to the point that we need to look at it again and deal with the “warts”. (The last woman on Earth will be very attractive to the remaining men even if she looks like a toad). The folks who want to make money off nuclear power may be irrational because their greed blinds them, but those of us who see it as a last ditch defense against carbon pollution are not.
I’m not sure what “….threat of cessation of nuclear fans obsession is so great that the response is….” means. It’s not clearly stated, but if it means what I think it does, it would best be restated as “the threat of truth overtaking the cognitive dissonance of those who do not really understand nuclear power issues but pretend that they do and protest against it produces an irrational response and much off-topic commentary…” I will direct you back to my first comment on this thread also—try to understand it and get back on-topic.
August 1, 2014 at 9:59 am
And who are you to say that nuclear power is needed? There are many engineers and climate scientists who have different views. For example Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a leading German climate scientist that has even worked with Hansen on some papers, and he does not think that nuclear is a good idea.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/leading-climatologist-on-fukushima-we-are-looting-the-past-and-future-to-feed-the-present-a-752474.html
August 1, 2014 at 10:27 am
It’s too bad you have such poor reading comprehension skills. This interview with a “leading climate scientist” deals far more with his views on fossil fuel use than it does with his thinking on why “nuclear is not a good idea”. Read it again.
August 1, 2014 at 10:39 am
His position is pretty clear: “Now everyone is starting to realize that society’s entire fossil-nuclear operating system has no future and that massive investments have to be made in renewable sources of energy.”
August 1, 2014 at 11:18 am
My point exactly—-an emphasis on renewables and cutting fossil fuel use, with nuclear power as a side issue. You could have found far better articles than this one to try to make your point.
August 1, 2014 at 11:13 am
From another comment by jimbills. “The world didn’t stop building new nuclear weapons when the Cold War ended, and more nations are likely to enter the armed status as time goes on”. A few facts for those who are unaware of them. Estimates of the peak number of nuclear weapons are in the 80,000 range, almost all held by the U.SD. and Russia, and that number was reached many years ago. Present estimates are around 16,000+, which is only 20% of the peak number, and arms reduction talks may soon cut that even more. The “new” nuclear weapons we build are as replacements for old ones, and the numbers continue to decline
Here are the estimates for all countries that have ever had nuclear weapons, and the year in which the country first obtained nuclear weapons.
U.S.———–7,300——1945
Russia——- 8,000——1949
U.K.————-225——-1952
France———300——-1960
China———-250——-1964
Israel———–80+?—–1960’s?
India——-90-100——-1974
S. Africa——–6-8——-1980’s (since destroyed)
Pakistan–100-120——1998
N. Korea——–10?——2000’s
So, anyone but jimbills (in his present deluded state—-I have hopes he will recover soon and go back to being his old sane self) is likely to see that we are looking at a problem that mostly grew out of the Cold War and other conflicts going back 50+ years rather than as a consequence of nuclear power plants, and that in fact, there is little evidence that any spread of nuclear power is going to have the dire consequences he imagines.
Yes, N. Korea is a special case, as is Pakistan—-the China-NK-Pakistan connection and assistance was unfortunate, and Iran is still an unknown, but it’s all water over the dam, so we had better hope that the extremists don’t get their hands on Paki weapons, that iran is deterred, and that the NK’s don’t go nuts. Any concern that countries like Burkina-Faso or Croatia are going to develop nuclear weapons IF and when they ever get a nuclear power plant is simply overreach and FUD-spreading.
I myself worry more that some of the warheads that were scattered about Belarus, Moldavia, and Ukraine when the USSR collapsed may have been snatched by bad guys back then, and they are just too sane (or afraid) at present to use them. Same goes for materials—-dirty bomb stuff or plutonium that could be powdered and released in a subway or indoor sports arena and kill thousands.
I worry too that the Israelis will use their weapons as a last resort in any “end of days” situation, and that the China-India-Pakistan area, with ~500 weapons. could go very badly if climate change impacts them severely and there is a general collapse.
And does anyone else marvel at the number of 16,000+ nuclear weapons, never mind the 80,000? Tell me again how “worthy” man is? (Please don’t—that was rhetorical)
August 1, 2014 at 12:46 pm
oldguy – well, thanks for this. This whole time I’ve been trying to get you to explain your reasoning, or provide proof for these initial statements of yours:
“I see little or no connection between nuclear WEAPONS and nuclear POWER in 2014.”
and:
“Because the “connections” between nuclear weapons and nuclear power used to generate electricity are rather tenuous and really ancient history.”
Those are extraordinary statements, which I believe are wrong, and they require extraordinary proof to me. Your comments (until the first half of this one) have been instead a hodge podge of rejecting and minimizing any counter-claims and sources and personal attacks.
You keep claiming that I’m ‘deluded’ and blinded by cognitive biases, but your responses have been far emotional in tone and in personal in nature than mine. The same things you see in me, I see in you. You’ve made your mind up on this issue, and refuse to accept that position might be wrong. I genuinely want to know how/why you came those conclusions. I’m not being ‘cute’ by asking questions and by asking for outside sources and confirmation – I really do want to know them – especially sources that explicitly agree with the two above quotes you initially made to Peter. You’ve studiously avoided doing this.
Anyway, I still see a significant link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in today’s world, and I do have major worries about proliferation and accidents in the future. The world as I see it this century will either: continue to develop and expand economically (and I’ve already given my proliferation worries about this with a source), collapse and/or shrink in scale, or have a series of starts and fits. That last one is most probable to me, but in either of the last two scenarios, I think concerns about nuclear increase significantly. Those nations with nuclear power would be able to build weapons programs if they chose. They’d have resources to sell if they chose. In a shrinking/collapsing world, warfare chances increases significantly, accident probability increases significantly, and theft chances increase significantly. I think realistically we’re looking at a world of increased risk regarding nuclear – not less.
But again, I’d like to see how/why I’m wrong, and the personal stuff doesn’t help me. I’d really like to see sources confirming your position.