4 ms·
Hypothetical, but the occurrence of future large scale conflict is overwhelmingly likely. This will remain a valid concern - not just accidents, but intentional
by kuhewa 4y ago
Hypothetical, but the occurrence of future large scale conflict is overwhelmingly likely. This will remain a valid concern - not just accidents, but intentional attacks - until design of plants advances to be robust against strikes to failsafe without active management
- ekianjo 4y ago> Hypothetical, but the occurrence of future large scale conflict is overwhelmingly likely. If you are worrying about future large scale conflict then nuclear plants will be the least of your problems causing death and other things.
- kuhewa 4y agoI'd be willing to bet you don't actually believe a post-war Ukraine with several metropolitan areas flattened is no worse off if widespread radioactive contamination is added.
- ekianjo 4y agoUkraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure. If we had ww3, you'd be much more likely to die by actual nukes falling from the skies than residual radiation form destroyed nuclear plants.
- kuhewa 4y ago> Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure. That is incorrect. Large scale != global or world war. It's a moot point though.
- ekianjo 4y agoLarge scale involves more than two countries focusing on a single region, typically. Otherwise words have absolutely no meaning anymore.
- kuhewa 4y agoNo, that isn't correct. Still it's a moot point. Feel free to either change my example from Ukraine to a hypothetical larger area if you care, or change large to regional scale — regardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.
- ekianjo 4y ago> No, that isn't correct. What isn't correct? What's the definition of a large scale conflict then? Anything above 2 neighbors fighting over their fence? > egardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument. How is that a poor argument. In war you care about what is the most likely to kill you. Nukes are a very real risk when there's 50 000 out there ready to be launched at one moment's notice. Radiations that would kill you in 30 years is the least of anyone's worry. Just like you don't care about a cancer that could kill you 10 years from now if you are run over by a car.
- edgyquant 4y agoState level conflict has been the norm since the rise of agriculture. Not worrying about it would be gross incompetence.
- dhsysusbsjsi 4y agoIf countries are more self sufficient with their energy security needs, it removes one of the major causes of conflict. Energy, water, food, resource security. Back to basics.
- kuhewa 4y agoI doubt the self sufficiency yielded by global nuclear proliferation would offset how target-rich the world would become, come inevitable war. I'd rather the answer be a push for more advances in passive safety and planning that treats military attack as an eventuality.