4 ms·
> the former nuclear disarmament movement, and nuclear power had become somehow mixed up in it. Nuclear power was mostly interesting when it had weapon grade m
by pgeorgi 5y ago
> the former nuclear disarmament movement, and nuclear power had become somehow mixed up in it.
Nuclear power was mostly interesting when it had weapon grade materials as a side product. It also explains why that horribly expensive mess has been subsidized the way it has been. "A simple power source" would have had to face competition by other power sources, but these others can't help equip nukes, so nukes-making nuclear power plants have been the focus.
- nix23 5y ago>when it had weapon grade materials as a side product Completely untrue BS, please get informed better: https://theconversation.com/debunking-myths-on-nuclear-power-its-not-for-making-bombs-20013 https://theconversation.com/debunking-myths-on-nuclear-power... >>Historically, if a country wants to produce a nuclear bomb, they build reactors especially for the job of making plutonium, and ignore civilian power stations. B Reactor: https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor
- Tade0 5y agoThe side products might well be "people competent in running such a facility". Why was Iran's "civilian" nuclear program always seen as nothing more than smokescreen?
- nix23 5y ago>Why was Iran's "civilian" nuclear program always seen as nothing more than smokescreen? It's a bit more complicated, especially since trump ended the contract (which included to control Iran's program) https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/18/440567960/born-in-the-u-s-a-how-america-created-irans-nuclear-program?t=1631735620253 https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/18/440567960/...