Anyone else see a problem with the US supporting India going Nuclear? I mean I don't really mind India having Nuclear power or even developing Nuclear weapons per se. That is I don't like the idea of anyone having Nuclear weapons, but what the hell, if everyone has them it's a fair fight.
I just don't like that the Bush Crime Family fully supports India, which means that Pakistan won't be long in wanting Nuclear Power as well. In that case the US will have a really hard time telling them no after all the of the crap Pakistan has done to help with Afghanistan.
you do know that both india and pakistan have had the bomb for a while now - bush is not givng them nuclear power... rather he is acknowledging the actual status quo. a problem with it is though (besides the proliferation of nuclear weapons) that all this is happening on a bilateral basis instead of multilateral agreements. the strong lonesome cowboy is doing it again...
max kerkhoff
fcfootstar
! 30TH ANNUAL IFPA WORLD FOOTBAG CHAMPIONSHIPS 2009 - BERLIN !
I don't like anyone having nuclear weapons. They are scary. I don't remember if I've posted this or anyone else (sorry if it has been posted), but check this out... http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html . EEK. That video still freaks me out. I think everyone should just send their nukes out toward a sun or something so they just vaporize without (hopefully) hurting anyone/thing. I don't know...SOMEHOW they need to be destroyed safely.
i don't like that Bush has ran away to hide in India , and trade nuclear secrets for mangos. India has nukes already.
I don't know much about the visit yet, because I just assume Bush is giving away nuclear secrets, or giving away vast sums of treasure , in exchange for a signature on a piece of paper.
They were both testing bombs was what the big thing was about.
I'm opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and think it's definitely not a solution to the energy crisis. I also support international law and the nuclear non proliferation treaty and I'm worried about Australia's involvement with India as well as the US's in this direction.
Not only do they "have the bomb", but were at the brink of a nuclear exchange, with a number of nukes, on both sides, ready to go.
That could not have been more than a year, or two, ago.
Did anybody notice? or did they skip that story on the Jon Stewart show?
I can't see how how India having nuclear reactors would mean more proliferation from them, since they could just hand over working nukes to whomever they want.
I remember someone asking our Prime Minister John Howard why he was happy to let India have nuclear weapons but not North Korea (as if he could anything about it), his reply was that India was a democracy so it's not as dangerous to stability. Personally I don't see the difference. I believe our government is reviewing the policy that we don't sell uranium to countries that haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty so we can sell to India. It's shameful that we would even consider it.
A few 'nuclear mishaps' have happened already. Chernobyl, anyone? And yes, it did kill many people. In fact, the 'dirty bomb' radiation idea is far far more devastating to the world than just the simple fission/fusion nukes the powers have.
The nukes would kill. The dirty bombs would prevent anything else from pretty much living on the ground and would also send radioactive material into the atmosphere allowing for the rest of the world to feel the damage a bit.
Nukes aren't so bad. They'll just wipe out whatever is around where they go off. And everything will be fine afterwards more or less. Seriously, we should just get rid of nukes and not worry aobut such things. Reactors are far deadlier.
India also has a much larger population density than the areas around Chernobyl. So, in the case, something fucks up, more people will die.
Actually, it is estimated that more people have died in the cleanup and sealing the 'Sarcophagus' of the Chernobyl reactor than of people living around. Kiev was pretty fine. The rest of Ukraine and Belorussia was pretty much fine.
Hmm. You know what? If a 'mishap' does happen in India, then that will totally kill the outsourcing! Competition down. Prices up. Our IT people will be saved!
------------
The nukes would kill. The dirty bombs would prevent anything else from pretty much living on the ground and would also send radioactive material into the atmosphere allowing for the rest of the world to feel the damage a bit.
Nukes aren't so bad. They'll just wipe out whatever is around where they go off. And everything will be fine afterwards more or less. Seriously, we should just get rid of nukes and not worry aobut such things. Reactors are far deadlier.
--------------
When you say nukes, do you mean nuclear power plants?
I think you may overstating the impact of a small dirty bomb.
A small dirty bomb would just irradiate the general area, and areas where particles are deposited by the wind or blast. You could identify hotspots and keep people away.
Given the cost in lives to clean up a much larger "event, like Chernobyl, , maybe it would be better to abandon the area for a decade or two, if it were to occur here.
A real nuclear weapon detonation, in India, for example, would send particles into the atmosphere, perhaps coating portions of the U.S. as the jet stream spreads them around the globe.
So it's not a bad idea to pick up some potassium iodine tablets.
Because a limited Pakistan/India nuclear exchange could deposit enough radiactive iodine to kill many thousands on the other side of the globe, from thyroid cancer (unpleasant)
So if you have pills, you'll might be better off, and your surplus pills would be worth 100 times their weight in gold.
I thought about the IT competition being reduced if their was a nuke war over there. That may destroy a good portion of the worlds electronics devices, so there may be no "IT field" after that. Or maybe we'll need all those pros...to set up the new replacement systems>
Areas of Iraq that were sites for conflict in the first gulf war where the US used plutonium (or maybe uranium) depleted weapons have the highest rate of cancer in the world - about 500 times higher than the average. That means that if you know one person who has died of cancer - in those regions you'd know 500 people...
In shocking news - I agree with Nathen about the seriousness of a nuclear bomb. They may have become more efficient over the years but the fallout is still very significant. I think power plants are actually way way safer and I'd support nuclear energy were it not for the fact that nuclear plants use so much energy in their creation that the energy is a lot more expensive than is made out and a lot of greenhouse gasses are produced in their development - renewable energy really is the way of future and you can see that in the fact that renewable energy is the fastest growing source of energy in the world while countries are moving away from other forms.
I don't know how much energy it takes to build a nuke plant. But wont it crank out enough energy to recover the "investment" of greenhouse gasses, in it's construction?
Is that a valid metric for determining the "benefit" of a project?
Maybe it is, and I'm not trying to denegrate the value of alternative energy, if pursued wisely........BUT I was wondering last week, when they hold a conference on climate change, in Africa, for example, or a Davos conference on the N.W.O.? How much greehouse gases are produced, just by getting those elite -uckheads to the conference?
I just wonder, do all those concerned celebrities, produce a lifetime's worth of greenhouse gases EVERYDAY, when compared to common people like us?
From my understanding it takes about 30 years for a nuclear plant to become a more efficient energy producer than coal plant. - so when you look at the green house gasses produced by a coal plant in 30 years - nuclear power is neither clean or cheap. I think investing in renewable energy sources is a far better solution - both economically, environmentally and socially. Australia's newest billionaire made his money investing in solar energy.
has anybody here heard of the integral fast reactor? yeah it was a nuclear reactor designed by the U.S. that could use the waste created by itself as energy, so its waste is a renewable source it was desiged by the INEEL in idaho, but clinton killed the plan to make more of them in the US because he felt it would help the economy.
the only problem i have with nuclear power is the cost of producing a well running safe nuclear power plant, but in the long run it would easily pay for itself. i think (IMO)
anyway back on track, as long as india has no intention for using the plutonium and uranium for the reactors in a bad way , and using nuclear energy for peace i could give a care less
Note: the integral fast reactor too its waste and adds many different substances to it making it impossible to re-use the uranium in it.
I feel like going off on a tangent about nuclear-powered space craft.
Would anyone have "environmental concerns" if ships ,constructed in orbit, (no nuclear takeoffs or re-entries) were powered by monster nuke reactors to cruise around the solar system?
Screw the space shuttle, build something new, for God's sake.
Do you think nuclear reactors , for energy, would be to risky to use on the moon, or Mars?
lol that is a really good question, the next question would be how would different substances react without the oxygen emmited by the earth itself, when it is on the moon
