5 ms·

No, it's not sarcasm — I would appreciate it if you would be a little more generous when interpreting my remark. The proliferation problem is exacerbated incre

No, it's not sarcasm — I would appreciate it if you would be a little more generous when interpreting my remark. The proliferation problem is exacerbated incrementally by every additional plant in every additional country — including this one. The issue is not Finland in particular developing nuclear weapons, but any country developing nuclear weapons — especially a country governed by an autocracy. Or a country that might be governed by an autocracy in the future — the last few years have raised the urgency of the problem of democratic backsliding, which we need to figure out how to avert.

yakubin 5y ago
The countries which are least trustworthy wrt nuclear weapons are the ones that aren't going to ask the public's permission. An autocracy doesn't need to power itself by nuclear plants in order to have nuclear weapons. On the other hand having a sustainable, clean source of power not tied to autocratic regimes lowers the leverage those regimes hold over democratic countries. In my particular country, a major chunk of the public budget goes towards paying fines to EU for use of coal, all while our government periodically passes bills allowing it to borrow more money from the central bank, increasing inflation. Negotiations with neighbouring autocratic countries can be pretty tough, when they can threaten us and rest of Europe, which is going to put pressure, with stopping energy transmission. Energy shortages in some parts of the country were a regular occurrence for decades, even before the current political problems. Lack of nuclear plants does nothing to prevent a nuclear war, while it harms us on many very tangible levels.
- rectang 5y ago
  See https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nuclear-power-tied-to-nuclear-non-proliferation https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nucl... for one of the mechanisms whereby dual-use technology presents issues: obtaining fissile material is difficult, and while nuclear power plants are not a prerequisite, they make it easier. I agree that dependence on geopolitically and environmentally problematic fossil fuel sources is a pressing concern.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > In my particular country... But yet [your country] is not lost?
  - yakubin 5y ago
    What do you mean by "lost"?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Just a guess at what country you were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost . OK, so not Poland, then. :-)
pfdietz 5y ago
An interesting example is Japan. Japan has a large reactor grade plutonium stockpile. This was ostensibly for their fast reactor program, but that's dead now. So, the plutonium just sits there. It's not ideal for weapons (being reactor not weapons grade) but it can be made to work, so Japan has the potential capability to make thousands of warheads if they need to.

yakubin 5y ago

The countries which are least trustworthy wrt nuclear weapons are the ones that aren't going to ask the public's permission. An autocracy doesn't need to power itself by nuclear plants in order to have nuclear weapons. On the other hand having a sustainable, clean source of power not tied to autocratic regimes lowers the leverage those regimes hold over democratic countries. In my particular country, a major chunk of the public budget goes towards paying fines to EU for use of coal, all while our government periodically passes bills allowing it to borrow more money from the central bank, increasing inflation. Negotiations with neighbouring autocratic countries can be pretty tough, when they can threaten us and rest of Europe, which is going to put pressure, with stopping energy transmission. Energy shortages in some parts of the country were a regular occurrence for decades, even before the current political problems. Lack of nuclear plants does nothing to prevent a nuclear war, while it harms us on many very tangible levels.

rectang 5y ago
See https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nuclear-power-tied-to-nuclear-non-proliferation https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nucl... for one of the mechanisms whereby dual-use technology presents issues: obtaining fissile material is difficult, and while nuclear power plants are not a prerequisite, they make it easier. I agree that dependence on geopolitically and environmentally problematic fossil fuel sources is a pressing concern.
CRConrad 5y ago
> In my particular country... But yet [your country] is not lost?
- yakubin 5y ago
  What do you mean by "lost"?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Just a guess at what country you were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost . OK, so not Poland, then. :-)

pfdietz 5y ago

An interesting example is Japan. Japan has a large reactor grade plutonium stockpile. This was ostensibly for their fast reactor program, but that's dead now. So, the plutonium just sits there. It's not ideal for weapons (being reactor not weapons grade) but it can be made to work, so Japan has the potential capability to make thousands of warheads if they need to.