The issue in article was about being successful BUILDING nuke plants, not "shutting down" the plants: Bluntly, France built lots of plants and Japan and German

The issue in article was about being successful BUILDING nuke plants, not "shutting down" the plants: Bluntly, France built lots of plants and Japan and Germany didn't. And as in the Georgia example, the US has had trouble BUILDING. So, the issue I addressed was WHY for the building or not building, nothing about shutting down. Sooo, the lack of fit was that emotional France built lots of plants and rational Germany and Japan didn't -- in addition, the US, awash in science and engineering smarts, has been slow to build the plants and, in the Georgia example, spent way too much money and took way too long, dropped the ball. My explanation was -- France had a government with more power, closer to an autocracy. Explanation in one word, autocracy. Why claim that France can be autocratic? DeGaulle ... Napoleon, Kings. Soooo, if an autocracy had an advantage, why??? It's common, a usual thing: Any major project needs some strong defenses or will get picked on, picked nearly to death, by attackers. Where are the attackers? Easily, politicians, lawyers, and journalists -- on average, attacking is a big part of their jobs. This need for defense against these three sources of attackers holds for essentially any large project of any kind. One source of the defense -- autocracy. Is this more clear???