3 ms·

Exactly. Renewables are resoundly economically advantageous over micronuclear and don't have the Chernobyl, forever waste problems, physical security issues, or

Exactly. Renewables are resoundly economically advantageous over micronuclear and don't have the Chernobyl, forever waste problems, physical security issues, or potential proliferation risks. It doesn't save the planet or save money, so don't spread risk throughout populated areas unnecessarily.

anovikov 2y ago
I'd remove the proliferation risks - face it, proliferation is a done deal and everyone who can afford a nuke will have one in the next 30 years, including many private entities (Elon Musk for sure but quite probably, many much smaller ones, plus churches as well). Otherwise, right.
- CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
  What makes you think that?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I'm not him, but the Manhatten project cost ~$25 billion dollars and didn't have access to today's physics knowledge or computer-aided design capabilities. There are a lot of countries that can match $25 billion in expenditure - Musk spent almost twice that on Twitter - and the real cost is probably lower. We've also got a lower-bound on the difficulty of producing missiles based on what North Korea can do.
- banish-m4 2y ago
  No. You're wrong. The proliferation risk exists where significant enrichment fuel is used or the design is feasibly adaptable to breeding. These conditions are entirely avoidable by design, or by simply eliminating the entire category of risk by doing something else more profitable.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  proliferation is a real concern but this part is completely ill-founded > including many private entities (Elon Musk for sure but quite probably, many much smaller ones, plus churches as well) Modern (that is since the end of the middle ages) State exists because they enforce the “monopoly of violence”, there's no way any private individual could be allowed to have nukes. Even in Russia, the realm of Oligarchs' PMCs (well before Prigojin assassination) the State always maintained full control on its nukes (and when Russia was a failed state at the beginning of the 90s, the US worked hard to make sure it was the case). Private entities with nukes could only happen in the event of a complete collapse of the US as a State, in which case nuclear proliferation would be the least of your problems (and even then, I don't see China not intervening to stop that from happening anyway, like the US did in Russia)

anovikov 2y ago

I'd remove the proliferation risks - face it, proliferation is a done deal and everyone who can afford a nuke will have one in the next 30 years, including many private entities (Elon Musk for sure but quite probably, many much smaller ones, plus churches as well). Otherwise, right.

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
What makes you think that?
- roenxi 2y ago
  I'm not him, but the Manhatten project cost ~$25 billion dollars and didn't have access to today's physics knowledge or computer-aided design capabilities. There are a lot of countries that can match $25 billion in expenditure - Musk spent almost twice that on Twitter - and the real cost is probably lower. We've also got a lower-bound on the difficulty of producing missiles based on what North Korea can do.
banish-m4 2y ago
No. You're wrong. The proliferation risk exists where significant enrichment fuel is used or the design is feasibly adaptable to breeding. These conditions are entirely avoidable by design, or by simply eliminating the entire category of risk by doing something else more profitable.
littlestymaar 2y ago
proliferation is a real concern but this part is completely ill-founded > including many private entities (Elon Musk for sure but quite probably, many much smaller ones, plus churches as well) Modern (that is since the end of the middle ages) State exists because they enforce the “monopoly of violence”, there's no way any private individual could be allowed to have nukes. Even in Russia, the realm of Oligarchs' PMCs (well before Prigojin assassination) the State always maintained full control on its nukes (and when Russia was a failed state at the beginning of the 90s, the US worked hard to make sure it was the case). Private entities with nukes could only happen in the event of a complete collapse of the US as a State, in which case nuclear proliferation would be the least of your problems (and even then, I don't see China not intervening to stop that from happening anyway, like the US did in Russia)