5 ms·

Nuclear power is not bad. Using nuclear power for making weapons of mass destruction is bad. Stop spreading FUD over it.

Ygg2 5y ago
It's not bad and any other time l would have welcomed it. But timing of it is bad, and makes me think they might be looking for easy path to weaponization.
- p_l 5y ago
  They already have all they need if they want weapons.
- wheelerof4te 5y ago
  I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Though, russian actions might have made them desperate.
  - 0des 5y ago
    > I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Why?
    - wheelerof4te 5y ago
      It would become too independent. Plus, it has a very powerful economy. Currently, it is occupied by the US, which bombed it in the past with nuclear weapons.
- tomatowurst 5y ago
  Really bizarre why you would continue to push this narrative, Japan isn't out to develop nuclear warheads. It certainly possess the capacity to do so if it desired and is considered a "nuclear threshold state" similar to Canada. The odds of Taiwan and South Korea going nuclear is far more likely as something like 3/4 of SK citizens support having nuclear weapons.
colechristensen 5y ago
Nuclear weapons bring peace. Russia's actions in Ukraine would likely have sparked a world war already if it wasn't for nuclear weapons.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Based on how little progress Russia is making and how little backing they have, with nuclear weapons out of the way I can't see Russia making any progress against the EU, let alone if you include Britain and the US. Meanwhile China will be looking at the US and weighing up Taiwan. North Korea will be weighing up South Korea. There have been some very unhappy editorials in Pakistan after the recent misfire from India. It's possible we're at the start of ww3 now. When do US schools say WW2 started? 1937? 38? 39? 41?
  - vmception 5y ago
    39 for the dual attack on Poland and Britain and 42 for US involvement after Pearl Harbor no mention of the financial support of specific sides for years before either date In my experience they cover rise of national socialist germany, like stuff in 1932 like reichstag fire, night of broken glass Very piecemeal and as a chronology after WW1 but not sure what level of detail is really relevant The main parallel i could see is that the russia military advances on ukraine wouldnt be a US start date of the conflict and that it wont be over in months but maybe we’ll get an official start date in 3-5 years The other parallel is that I always noticed it was a choice to protect nations you promised to protect, britain could have just … not backed poland, and a preemptive attack on the british to slow British retaliation maybe wouldn’t have occurred or could have been talked out of. Two months ago that would have been seen as “edgy”, but yeah nobody wants to actually back ukraine so looks like people were thinking it for some time.
  - wheelerof4te 5y ago
    "Based on how little progress Russia is making..." I see this narative everywhere, but I wouldn't call it "little progress" when the land occupied in a mere month is the size of the UK. It took NATO 78 days of intense bombing of a much weaker and smaller Serbia to make any kind of progress. They even avoided the ground offensive. Imagine the disaster if the US went in with the ground forces. The US first spent months clearing out Iraq, then it spent years trying to hold it by a thread. Still we don't have the right number of casualties from that war. Russia could have just carpet bombed the entire Ukraine like it did with Mariupul recently. Why it didn't do it, we can only guess.
tomatowurst 5y ago
Nobody is arguing against nuclear power but that it's shortsighted that a uniquely seismologically active and volatile region would be the champions for it, especially in a country that takes extreme measures to safety (largely result of frequent earthquakes).
- zamadatix 5y ago
  IMO it's either able to be made safe or it's not. If achieving safety requires the precondition that unsafe situations never occur then it's the solution that's shortsighted not the location it was implemented.

Ygg2 5y ago

It's not bad and any other time l would have welcomed it. But timing of it is bad, and makes me think they might be looking for easy path to weaponization.

p_l 5y ago
They already have all they need if they want weapons.
wheelerof4te 5y ago
I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Though, russian actions might have made them desperate.
- 0des 5y ago
  > I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Why?
  - wheelerof4te 5y ago
    It would become too independent. Plus, it has a very powerful economy. Currently, it is occupied by the US, which bombed it in the past with nuclear weapons.
tomatowurst 5y ago
Really bizarre why you would continue to push this narrative, Japan isn't out to develop nuclear warheads. It certainly possess the capacity to do so if it desired and is considered a "nuclear threshold state" similar to Canada. The odds of Taiwan and South Korea going nuclear is far more likely as something like 3/4 of SK citizens support having nuclear weapons.

colechristensen 5y ago

Nuclear weapons bring peace. Russia's actions in Ukraine would likely have sparked a world war already if it wasn't for nuclear weapons.

iso1210 5y ago
Based on how little progress Russia is making and how little backing they have, with nuclear weapons out of the way I can't see Russia making any progress against the EU, let alone if you include Britain and the US. Meanwhile China will be looking at the US and weighing up Taiwan. North Korea will be weighing up South Korea. There have been some very unhappy editorials in Pakistan after the recent misfire from India. It's possible we're at the start of ww3 now. When do US schools say WW2 started? 1937? 38? 39? 41?
- vmception 5y ago
  39 for the dual attack on Poland and Britain and 42 for US involvement after Pearl Harbor no mention of the financial support of specific sides for years before either date In my experience they cover rise of national socialist germany, like stuff in 1932 like reichstag fire, night of broken glass Very piecemeal and as a chronology after WW1 but not sure what level of detail is really relevant The main parallel i could see is that the russia military advances on ukraine wouldnt be a US start date of the conflict and that it wont be over in months but maybe we’ll get an official start date in 3-5 years The other parallel is that I always noticed it was a choice to protect nations you promised to protect, britain could have just … not backed poland, and a preemptive attack on the british to slow British retaliation maybe wouldn’t have occurred or could have been talked out of. Two months ago that would have been seen as “edgy”, but yeah nobody wants to actually back ukraine so looks like people were thinking it for some time.
- wheelerof4te 5y ago
  "Based on how little progress Russia is making..." I see this narative everywhere, but I wouldn't call it "little progress" when the land occupied in a mere month is the size of the UK. It took NATO 78 days of intense bombing of a much weaker and smaller Serbia to make any kind of progress. They even avoided the ground offensive. Imagine the disaster if the US went in with the ground forces. The US first spent months clearing out Iraq, then it spent years trying to hold it by a thread. Still we don't have the right number of casualties from that war. Russia could have just carpet bombed the entire Ukraine like it did with Mariupul recently. Why it didn't do it, we can only guess.

tomatowurst 5y ago

Nobody is arguing against nuclear power but that it's shortsighted that a uniquely seismologically active and volatile region would be the champions for it, especially in a country that takes extreme measures to safety (largely result of frequent earthquakes).

zamadatix 5y ago
IMO it's either able to be made safe or it's not. If achieving safety requires the precondition that unsafe situations never occur then it's the solution that's shortsighted not the location it was implemented.