4 ms·
IED's are not that much of safety concern actually. The people who intend to use those are. The risks of IEDs don't modulate by the number of people who know ch
by mrtksn 3y ago
IED's are not that much of safety concern actually. The people who intend to use those are. The risks of IEDs don't modulate by the number of people who know chemistry but by the number of people pissed of or delusional enough to make and use one.
Portugal is not much safer from IEDs than Irak because Portuguese are bad at chemistry and Iraqis are all heisenbergs.
- taeric 3y agoI mean... you aren't wrong, having people willing to use an IED is the dangerous thing. More, they are as dangerous as the supplies that they can get ahold of. I... don't see how that doesn't put a massive hazard on the availability of nuclear power generators everywhere? We have people willing to make and deploy IEDs today. Why would we not have them if nuclear sources were ubiquitous? (If the idea is we would have the nuclear plants, but that the ubiquitous electronics would not have their own nuclear sources, I can see that. :) )
- mrtksn 3y agoI don't see how this is relevant. Knowing how to do something is not the same as doing it. Personally, I'm not anti-nuclear but I'm also not for proliferation of it simply because I don't trust that there are enough serious people to operate a nuclear plant in every city at the same safety levels we have today. That said, I will never advocate for hiding the knowledge for building those.
- taeric 3y agoI am pro nuclear, but portable nuclear generators would be a whole new can of worms.