2 ms·

It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs & aircraft carriers: https://www.atlantic

by pydry 3y ago

It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs & aircraft carriers: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-value-of-the-us-nuclear-power-complex-to-us-national-security/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/is... For countries that are facing an awkward geopolitical threat (e.g. Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Iran), it can help ensure that you're not too far off creating a bomb.

dale_glass 3y ago
In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others. Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not see the plants being finished, and would likely see the project defunded or sabotaged in some way. For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors, unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might have.
- pydry 3y ago
  The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most industries could never even dream of. It's just so expensive that that often isn't enough to make it viable. That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to brand itself as the New Green Jesus. >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are quite correct in this one specific fact. There's a revolving door between the military and the private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts required to construct nuclear reactors are quite specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to provide it.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back. Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation and it checks notes was one of the reasons Russia invaded them?
- pydry 3y ago
  >There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry Tell it to the IAEA and the United States when they came down on Iran like a ton of bricks. >Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation Yes, all built by the Soviet Union. They had no ability to construct their own once it collapsed. The Soviet Union was, of course, not just a nuclear power but the world's biggest nuclear power. They had good reason to want to share the gargantuan costs of maintaining the world's biggest nuclear military.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That may have something to do with Iran's public vow to want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. One practical way of doing this would be to drop a nuke or two and I wouldn't put it past Iran to do just that. One of the more realistic scenarios on how you could jump start a massive war would be for Pakistan to 'donate' a couple of nukes to Iran who would then use them on Israel.

by pydry 3y ago

dale_glass 3y ago

In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others. Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not see the plants being finished, and would likely see the project defunded or sabotaged in some way. For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors, unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might have.

pydry 3y ago
The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most industries could never even dream of. It's just so expensive that that often isn't enough to make it viable. That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to brand itself as the New Green Jesus. >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are quite correct in this one specific fact. There's a revolving door between the military and the private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts required to construct nuclear reactors are quite specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to provide it.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back. Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation and it checks notes was one of the reasons Russia invaded them?

pydry 3y ago
>There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry Tell it to the IAEA and the United States when they came down on Iran like a ton of bricks. >Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation Yes, all built by the Soviet Union. They had no ability to construct their own once it collapsed. The Soviet Union was, of course, not just a nuclear power but the world's biggest nuclear power. They had good reason to want to share the gargantuan costs of maintaining the world's biggest nuclear military.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That may have something to do with Iran's public vow to want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. One practical way of doing this would be to drop a nuke or two and I wouldn't put it past Iran to do just that. One of the more realistic scenarios on how you could jump start a massive war would be for Pakistan to 'donate' a couple of nukes to Iran who would then use them on Israel.