5 ms·

The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder, and we're still using it to create weapons. Everybody knows this,

The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder, and we're still using it to create weapons. Everybody knows this, everybody knows about Chernobyl and Fukushima. I don't know how anybody can believe the resistance to nuclear is purely out of ignorance. That's crossing the line into industry propaganda, not to mention the whole line about nuclear energy being our only hope towards solving climate change... Edit: Might as well mention another huge issue with nuclear power. Why is the waste being buried on Native American reservations, where it's not subject to the same health and safety regulations?

Turing_Machine 6y ago
> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder, and we're still using it to create weapons. Unlike fire, which of course has never been used to kill anybody.
- godelski 6y ago
  Unlike fertilizer, which of course gas never been used to kill anybody. (FWIW it isn't hard to argue that fertilizer has saved more lives than any other technology. But nitrates are also how you make bombs...)
  - roenxi 6y ago
    For those who find this a bit too obscure Fritz Haber [0] - one of the people heavily involved in the development of the fertiliser revolution - was also a leading mind in the German gas warfare effort. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber#World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber#World_War_I
    - andbberger 6y ago
      Actually I think they just mean that ammonium nitrate is rather explosive
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Eh. Fertiliser was distressingly closely linked to a weapons program used for one of the archetypal mass murders. If they didn't mean that, they accidentally made an excellent comparison. Humans will attempt to weaponise everything and generally succeed. List of technologies deployed in war to kill people include: * Architecture * Physics * Maths * Positive emotions * Fertiliser * Horses * GPS * Drones The key point here is just because people make bombs using nuclear tech really doesn't set it very far apart from everything else. Solar power will be used to support war and atrocities, somehow. Military men are inventive.
        godelski 6y ago
        I actually was going with the nitrates because I thought Fritz would be too obscure and not in line with the pattern established above. The breakthrough from Fritz furthered the ability to create nitrates in mass and pack more nitrogen to molecules, thus making things more explosive. I'm glad Fritz was brought up though because it really shows how complicated science is and why when doing it we have to think hard about the ethics. As I said before, it isn't hard to argue that Fritz saved more human lives than any other single person in the entire history, even if we make it a percentage. But he is also known as the father of chemical warfare (he developed and weaponized chlorine gas). It is easy to call him a hero. It is easy to call him a villain. Truth is much more complicated. And while we're talking about nuclear I think this conversation is extremely important. Cheap nuclear power plants (which would require significant research and funding, and a modification of bureaucracy) could change the world but the same technology has created some of the most destructive weapons we've ever seen. > Solar power will be used to support war and atrocities, somehow. Without these a lot of satellites wouldn't operate. The reason we have a Space Force isn't because Trump, it is because our space assets are so valuable that it was necessary to break them out of the Air Force (as has happened with other branches). This is where a significant amount of the intelligence comes from. Information is arguably one of the most valuable components in warfare, arguably more important than actual man power.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > unlike fire > unlike fertilizers Yes, we all know that there are lots of things that can kill lots of humans, we could add cars, or fast food to the list. The difference is that hamburguers only explode in your arteries, not wipe an entire city burning everybody alive, and don't create billionary debt in the process for everybody and for decades. So, can we forget whataboutism and keep moving on? Banning all fire or all fertilizers is out of the discussion (we could make exceptions for arsonists or bomb makers, but this is not a problem). We can't do it without killing half of the human population by hunger or freezing and would not solve anything.
    - godelski 6y ago
      > not wipe an entire city burning everybody alive, and don't create billionary debt in the process for everybody and for decades. Like chlorine gas? Land mines? Phosphorous weapons? Sarin?
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        Yes, like chlorine gas, land mines, phosphorus weapons, sarin and tigers. You got it. Exactly like those. Those things are dangerous. And this is why everybody thinks that planning to build a net of small containers of chlorine gas or sarin in every neighborhood, or having phosphorus weapons and land mines at our backyards and in our children's room, would be an incredibly stupid idea.
- calibas 6y ago
  Are we hording fire in such a way that we can wipe out most of the human population? There's a big difference here...
sigstoat 6y ago
> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder this is nothing but FUD designed to evoke a connection to death. technology isn't responsible for what its used for, and any negative past uses in no way preclude future beneficial uses. even if you don't like nuclear you should be ashamed of saying things like this. > I don't know how anybody can believe the resistance to nuclear is purely out of ignorance because antinuclear arguments look like yours.
- calibas 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but the history of WW2 is not "FUD". You can't just scream "FUD!" at anything to instantly dismiss it. And we're still making nuclear weapons. That is a connection to death, they're used to kill people. I'm against that personally. And I'm not even anti nuclear power, I'm certainly support it more than petroleum. I just realize why people are skeptical of nuclear too.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Although nuclear bombs were the major threat deployed in the war, nuclear power in vessels is the major actually-used application for the technology in the military. Nuclear power and a general surplus of energy might have prevented WWII altogether. The era of nuclear and fossil fuels has been remarkably peaceful and prosperous. It is prudent to preserve as much of that as possible.
  - gameman144 6y ago
    But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptical of computers in all their uses is missing the forest for the trees.
    - calibas 6y ago
      Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating? My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies... And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?
bamboozled 6y ago
> and we're still using it to create weapons. Not sure why this is down voted, it's only true. Uncomfortable truth I guess?
- calibas 6y ago
  You're not allowed to criticize nuclear power here. You're either pro-nuclear or ignorant, there's no middle ground. It's not this incredibly complex subject with various positives and negatives. And don't mind nuclear waste or nuclear weapons...

Turing_Machine 6y ago

> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder, and we're still using it to create weapons. Unlike fire, which of course has never been used to kill anybody.

godelski 6y ago
Unlike fertilizer, which of course gas never been used to kill anybody. (FWIW it isn't hard to argue that fertilizer has saved more lives than any other technology. But nitrates are also how you make bombs...)
- roenxi 6y ago
  For those who find this a bit too obscure Fritz Haber [0] - one of the people heavily involved in the development of the fertiliser revolution - was also a leading mind in the German gas warfare effort. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber#World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber#World_War_I
  - andbberger 6y ago
    Actually I think they just mean that ammonium nitrate is rather explosive
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Eh. Fertiliser was distressingly closely linked to a weapons program used for one of the archetypal mass murders. If they didn't mean that, they accidentally made an excellent comparison. Humans will attempt to weaponise everything and generally succeed. List of technologies deployed in war to kill people include: * Architecture * Physics * Maths * Positive emotions * Fertiliser * Horses * GPS * Drones The key point here is just because people make bombs using nuclear tech really doesn't set it very far apart from everything else. Solar power will be used to support war and atrocities, somehow. Military men are inventive.
      - godelski 6y ago
        I actually was going with the nitrates because I thought Fritz would be too obscure and not in line with the pattern established above. The breakthrough from Fritz furthered the ability to create nitrates in mass and pack more nitrogen to molecules, thus making things more explosive. I'm glad Fritz was brought up though because it really shows how complicated science is and why when doing it we have to think hard about the ethics. As I said before, it isn't hard to argue that Fritz saved more human lives than any other single person in the entire history, even if we make it a percentage. But he is also known as the father of chemical warfare (he developed and weaponized chlorine gas). It is easy to call him a hero. It is easy to call him a villain. Truth is much more complicated. And while we're talking about nuclear I think this conversation is extremely important. Cheap nuclear power plants (which would require significant research and funding, and a modification of bureaucracy) could change the world but the same technology has created some of the most destructive weapons we've ever seen. > Solar power will be used to support war and atrocities, somehow. Without these a lot of satellites wouldn't operate. The reason we have a Space Force isn't because Trump, it is because our space assets are so valuable that it was necessary to break them out of the Air Force (as has happened with other branches). This is where a significant amount of the intelligence comes from. Information is arguably one of the most valuable components in warfare, arguably more important than actual man power.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > unlike fire > unlike fertilizers Yes, we all know that there are lots of things that can kill lots of humans, we could add cars, or fast food to the list. The difference is that hamburguers only explode in your arteries, not wipe an entire city burning everybody alive, and don't create billionary debt in the process for everybody and for decades. So, can we forget whataboutism and keep moving on? Banning all fire or all fertilizers is out of the discussion (we could make exceptions for arsonists or bomb makers, but this is not a problem). We can't do it without killing half of the human population by hunger or freezing and would not solve anything.
  - godelski 6y ago
    > not wipe an entire city burning everybody alive, and don't create billionary debt in the process for everybody and for decades. Like chlorine gas? Land mines? Phosphorous weapons? Sarin?
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      Yes, like chlorine gas, land mines, phosphorus weapons, sarin and tigers. You got it. Exactly like those. Those things are dangerous. And this is why everybody thinks that planning to build a net of small containers of chlorine gas or sarin in every neighborhood, or having phosphorus weapons and land mines at our backyards and in our children's room, would be an incredibly stupid idea.
calibas 6y ago
Are we hording fire in such a way that we can wipe out most of the human population? There's a big difference here...

sigstoat 6y ago

> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder this is nothing but FUD designed to evoke a connection to death. technology isn't responsible for what its used for, and any negative past uses in no way preclude future beneficial uses. even if you don't like nuclear you should be ashamed of saying things like this. > I don't know how anybody can believe the resistance to nuclear is purely out of ignorance because antinuclear arguments look like yours.

calibas 6y ago
I'm sorry, but the history of WW2 is not "FUD". You can't just scream "FUD!" at anything to instantly dismiss it. And we're still making nuclear weapons. That is a connection to death, they're used to kill people. I'm against that personally. And I'm not even anti nuclear power, I'm certainly support it more than petroleum. I just realize why people are skeptical of nuclear too.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Although nuclear bombs were the major threat deployed in the war, nuclear power in vessels is the major actually-used application for the technology in the military. Nuclear power and a general surplus of energy might have prevented WWII altogether. The era of nuclear and fossil fuels has been remarkably peaceful and prosperous. It is prudent to preserve as much of that as possible.
- gameman144 6y ago
  But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptical of computers in all their uses is missing the forest for the trees.
  - calibas 6y ago
    Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating? My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies... And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?

bamboozled 6y ago

> and we're still using it to create weapons. Not sure why this is down voted, it's only true. Uncomfortable truth I guess?

calibas 6y ago
You're not allowed to criticize nuclear power here. You're either pro-nuclear or ignorant, there's no middle ground. It's not this incredibly complex subject with various positives and negatives. And don't mind nuclear waste or nuclear weapons...