4 ms·
Nuclear reactors make awful targets in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea if conflict is a risk and there are alternatives.
by RandomLensman 6mo ago
Nuclear reactors make awful targets in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea if conflict is a risk and there are alternatives.
- palata 6mo ago> and there are alternatives That's a big if, though. Solar and batteries require globalisation, based on fossil fuels. I feel like nuclear reactors are a better choice. > in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea On the other hand, blowing nuclear reactors could be considered a big escalation. We see with Iran and Ukraine that it's not exactly the first thing one wants to target.
- RandomLensman 6mo agoFor shipping? Wind, Tidal or geothermal are also around, for example.
- palata 6mo agoMy point was that photovoltaic is "an alternative" to nuclear reactors, but an alternative that relies on globalisation. Nuclear reactors... much less.
- panick21_ 6mo agoFor many nations that is really not the primary reason to choose infrastructure. And even if that is your goal. Then building a 500MW reactor you can drop in the ground is likely a pretty decent solution.
- RandomLensman 6mo agoNeed to drop it really deep - which 500MW reactor is available for that?
- baranul 6mo agoExactly right. Who wants to live any where near a nuclear reactor in a conflict between countries or general war. Despite a country not having nuclear weapons, targeting the nuclear reactors of other countries, is almost as good. It's very clear now that infrastructure of all kinds are increasingly fair game. Nuclear reactors, data centers, water processing plants, hospitals... Both sad and ridiculous, but that's the level of insanity reached.