3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoThe 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.