4 ms·
He also killed off Nuclear. For that alone he shouldn't have a 2nd term.
by loonster 5y ago
He also killed off Nuclear. For that alone he shouldn't have a 2nd term.
- lindseymysse 5y agoThat and funding the mujahideen were big whiffs.
- wolverine876 5y ago> funding the mujahideen Blowback keeps happening. IIRC, the modern Central American drug gangs were born of US funding and training of anti-Communist forces in the 1980s. Remember it next time someone says, 'let's send arms to those insurgents!' Obama dialed it back, partly for that reason (AFAIK). Biden apparently has embraced a policy of 'restraint', with the idea that outcomes from US intervention often are counter-productive. (I don't support it - instead, accept the challenge and find better interventions. Quitting is a bizarre solution IMHO. People still need freedom, and need help.)
- lindseymysse 5y agoI always thought we could do well parachuting in cell phones into these hot spots, and these cell phones get $50 usd or maybe a little more transferred to accounts tied to that number. Then we could have incentives -- hey, go to this mosque, not that one and we'll pay you $20 more a week. It would be cheaper than what we do now and would be a lot more effective than dropping bombs on wedding parties.
- wolverine876 5y agoVery interesting. As you may know, there's research showing that if you just give people cash (or other liquid forms of money), they spend it well and it's highly efficient. It's very interesting to apply that to conflict. We do sometimes buy off governments, effectively, via foreign aid.
- loonster 5y agoObama did not dial it back. His ATF moved guns across the southern border which resulted in US deaths (Fast and Furious). Gave weapons to Syrian rebels. Gave weapons to Libyan rebels.
- wolverine876 5y agoThat they did some doesn't mean they didn't reduce it. If I say I'm drinking less, drinking one beer doesn't contradict it. > Gave weapons to Syrian rebels. That was the main place they limited supplying arms, IIRC. For example, (again IIRC) the US wouldn't send portable anti-aircraft weapons.
- evgen 5y agoI think you are confusing Jimmy Carter with Three Mile Island. The former favoured renewables over nuclear, but it was the latter that stopped nuclear energy development in its tracks.
- loonster 5y agoNo I am not. He banned the reprocessing of spent fuels.
- egberts1 5y agoyou seemed sure. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/08/Reagan-lifts-ban-on-nuclear-fuel-recycling/9330371361600/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/08/Reagan-lifts-ban-on-...
- loonster 5y agoYes Regan lifted it but the damage was done. Say you are a company that is thinking about spending a few billion on a nuclear powerplant, are you going to take the risk when a single person, that possibly might change every 4 years, can decide your fate. This was not good policy.
- evgen 5y agoThe reprocessing of spent fuel had nothing to do with the success or failure of nuclear power in the US. Anyone claiming otherwise is poorly informed.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago"Many countries see nuclear power as the only real opportunity, at least in this century, to reduce the dependence of their economic well-being on foreign oil-an energy source of uncertain availability, growing price, and ultimate exhaustion. The U.S., by contrast, has a major domestic energy source- coal-but its use is not without penalties, and our plans also call for the use of nuclear power as a share in our energy production." Jimmy Carter April 7, 1977 Wouldn't exactly call that "killing off nuclear power" - Three Mile Island and the movie The China Syndrome did that. The movie was released ~2 weeks before the accident on March 28, 1979.
- fuzzfactor 5y agoIIRC among his other achievements President Carter does have a degree in Nuclear Physics.