Nuclear power and advanced tech. The good, the bad, and the mentally unstable (aka the USSR).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Oddly enough, nuclear warheads are largely obsolete, aside from being used as weapons of terror. Air-Fuel Explosives deliver about the same destructive capability over roughly the same area, but without the fallout hassles. And are FAR cheaper. You want a source of fissionables for nuclear plants? Decommissioning some of the Cold War era nukes would probably go a long way. After all, it's not like we don't have freeking Rail Gun anti-missile defenses, making the entire concept of ICBMs moot.

 

[ThatOneSlowking]

Oddly enough, nuclear warheads are largely obsolete, aside from being used as weapons of terror. Air-Fuel Explosives deliver about the same destructive capability over roughly the same area, but without the fallout hassles. And are FAR cheaper. You want a source of fissionables for nuclear plants? Decommissioning some of the Cold War era nukes would probably go a long way. After all, it's not like we don't have freeking Rail Gun anti-missile defenses, making the entire concept of ICBMs moot.

Siggy'd

 

[YX33A]

Sigh. This is why I say that nuclear power should not be used or at the least, it should be VERY heavily restricted. What prevents someone from getting enough plutonium to blow up a major city half a world away? A few flimsy agencies that can at the most send an unhappy letter to the country in question.

What prevents people from getting enough plutonium? Aside from the fact that no one really seriously uses nukes anymore... the fact that plutonium doesn't really occur naturally and it's not that useful for nuclear reactors due to running hotter then normal fissile fuels and being worse for the world when something goes wrong. It really only is useful for nuclear weapons, and even so, very few people seriously use them anymore. Aside from Best Korea and assorted Third World Despots, I suppose. But Best Korea is led by a man way too akin to a Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain to be taken seriously as a risk to the world. And even Putin would know well enough that Nukes aren't that good of weapons, as they cost too much to make, are way easier to track, and any explosive if powerful enough and used correctly causes a mushroom cloud, and that's good enough.(since it is a sign of how powerful the explosion was, and if a nuke could do it with ease in the right conditions, if any weapon can do it under the same conditions, it's about as powerful as a nuke)

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What prevents people from getting enough plutonium? Aside from the fact that no one really seriously uses nukes anymore... the fact that plutonium doesn't really occur naturally and it's not that useful for nuclear reactors due to running hotter then normal fissile fuels and being worse for the world when something goes wrong. It really only is useful for nuclear weapons, and even so, very few people seriously use them anymore. Aside from Best Korea and assorted Third World Despots, I suppose. But Best Korea is led by a man way too akin to a Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain to be taken seriously as a risk to the world. And even Putin would know well enough that Nukes aren't that good of weapons, as they cost too much to make, are way easier to track, and any explosive if powerful enough and used correctly causes a mushroom cloud, and that's good enough.(since it is a sign of how powerful the explosion was, and if a nuke could do it with ease in the right conditions, if any weapon can do it under the same conditions, it's about as powerful as a nuke)

And you've hit the only concern I have about nuclear power...

As seen currently in Iran and N. Korea, they are using nuclear power as an excuse to get fissionables for 'power generation'. Nevermind the fact that Iran is a member of OPEC and practically swims in oil compared to the rest of the world... nope, it's gotta be nuclear power. Yanno, for the kids. And the puppies. Right. Pay no attention to that enrichment facility. It's only there to... umm... help our nuclear power goals be achieved. Yea.

It doesn't need to be able to go Critical and cause an explosion to be used as a weapon of terror. Simply broadcasting nuclear materials in a 'dirty bomb' is quite enough to be used as a weapon of terror. Because, as I mentioned previously, that's about the only thing a nuclear weapon is good for anymore. They don't need to enrich it to weapons-grade for it to be used as a weapon. Even if a dirty bomb doesn't actually do all that much to background radiation realistically, depending on how heavily populated the area is, the stampede and panic could kill thousands or even millions.

Yes, virtually any power source can be weaponized, so this isn't exactly a unique argument, however nuclear problems tend to hang around a very long time, and cleanup is a PITA, so this puts it in a special category of 'hell no' in my mind.

Having said that, the nuclear material is already out there. Using it to power homes rather than blow craters in the ecology would at least safely get rid of the stuff. Eventually. We might make some kind of dent in the stash in... oh, about a thousand years or so. I see fission as a stepping-stone energy source, a temporary stopgap that we CAN use NOW. Also useful later on in 'battery pack' stashes. Setups like this one can be used to power devices with a lot of power draw over the one to ten year time frame, which will have uses even after we've largely moved on to better energy sources.

 

[dalekslayer96]

IC2 reactors are magic boxes powered off weak chaos emeralds

They ain't weak chaos emeralds. They're poisonous, magical, green rocks[DOUBLEPOST=1401444447][/DOUBLEPOST]

And you've hit the only concern I have about nuclear power...

As seen currently in Iran and N. Korea, they are using nuclear power as an excuse to get fissionables for 'power generation'. Nevermind the fact that Iran is a member of OPEC and practically swims in oil compared to the rest of the world... nope, it's gotta be nuclear power. Yanno, for the kids. And the puppies. Right. Pay no attention to that enrichment facility. It's only there to... umm... help our nuclear power goals be achieved. Yea.

It doesn't need to be able to go Critical and cause an explosion to be used as a weapon of terror. Simply broadcasting nuclear materials in a 'dirty bomb' is quite enough to be used as a weapon of terror. Because, as I mentioned previously, that's about the only thing a nuclear weapon is good for anymore. They don't need to enrich it to weapons-grade for it to be used as a weapon. Even if a dirty bomb doesn't actually do all that much to background radiation realistically, depending on how heavily populated the area is, the stampede and panic could kill thousands or even millions.

Yes, virtually any power source can be weaponized, so this isn't exactly a unique argument, however nuclear problems tend to hang around a very long time, and cleanup is a PITA, so this puts it in a special category of 'hell no' in my mind.

Having said that, the nuclear material is already out there. Using it to power homes rather than blow craters in the ecology would at least safely get rid of the stuff. Eventually. We might make some kind of dent in the stash in... oh, about a thousand years or so. I see fission as a stepping-stone energy source, a temporary stopgap that we CAN use NOW. Also useful later on in 'battery pack' stashes. Setups like this one can be used to power devices with a lot of power draw over the one to ten year time frame, which will have uses even after we've largely moved on to better energy sources.

And wonder why countries like North Korea and Iran like using nuclear power as a form of terrorism? Because the US government is so scared of a Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Villain who leads some Communist country. The US has enough power to walk in and pwn Kim Jong Un in his fat ugly face. But they're scared, which is why they'll remain with South Korea getting meaningless threats.

 

[damagingbill]

Best korea is a threat to us? Last I heard they were unable to shoot a nuke far enough to hit a man 2 miles off the coast of their land?

 

[dalekslayer96]

Best korea is a threat to us? Last I heard they were unable to shoot a nuke far enough to hit a man 2 miles off the coast of their land?

Isn't that what I just said just now? I'm saying the US is stupid for being scared of a tiny Communist country, and you just repeated that in a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spikednate12]

I understand the concern about "someone" getting enough nuclear material to do harm. Honestly, it is just going to be large government figures that could even produce the ability to collect such large deposits of the stuff. Take into the consideration the collection, protection, refinement, storage, processing, and waste removal costs and time involved. No one individual will get enough of that material before someone notices either and the government would come crashing down on them.

There's plenty of more other items people can get their hands on and cause some serious devastation if precautions are not followed. Even if it is something as simple as fertilizer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/us/texas-explosion-plant/

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Bio-weapons are the way forward guys. A nuke can only hit 1 place. A disease can spread rather well if the initial infection has no visible symptoms.

 

[pizzawolf14]

Bio-weapons are the way forward guys. A nuke can only hit 1 place. A disease can spread rather well if the initial infection has no visible symptoms.

True, but they can easily backfire into a much larger epidemic than expected. If we could control it, then that would be better due to less destruction of land.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Celestialphoenix]

True, but they can easily backfire into a much larger epidemic than expected. If we could control it, then that would be better due to less destruction of land.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You don't control it. You immunise the ones you need alive.

 

[YX33A]

You don't control it. You immunise the ones you need alive.

You can control them, though. Make it only activate in the presence of certain genes, thus making it a weapon that can have a city full of vector agents but only a handful of victims. Scifi? Not these days.

 

[casilleroatr]

You can control them, though. Make it only activate in the presence of certain genes, thus making it a weapon that can have a city full of vector agents but only a handful of victims. Scifi? Not these days.

Kinda makes you wish that Human rights was more than just a hobby for annoying lawyers and terrorists escaping extradition. Can we go back to anathematising greenpeace please, thats so much less depressing. I'll start, grrrhhhh Greenpeace, what a bunch of naughty charlatans

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You can control them, though. Make it only activate in the presence of certain genes, thus making it a weapon that can have a city full of vector agents but only a handful of victims. Scifi? Not these days.

And then it mutates, and you're SOL and it wipes out humanity as a whole. 'Cause yanno... viruses do that. Mutate to overcome obstacles, like immunities. So do bacteria. Plenty of 'immunization resistant' strains of lots of Bad Things out there. They didn't start out that way.

Releasing a biological warfare vector is a Mutually Assured Destruction option, because you have absolutely ZERO control over mutation vectors once it is released.

And wonder why countries like North Korea and Iran like using nuclear power as a form of terrorism? Because the US government is so scared of a Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Villain who leads some Communist country. The US has enough power to walk in and pwn Kim Jong Un in his fat ugly face. But they're scared, which is why they'll remain with South Korea getting meaningless threats.

I... I don't know if I should preserve it for its amusement value, or facepalm. Since I don't have enough palms on hand to facepalm enough for this, I suppose I shall do the former.

America does not go in and wipe them out for three reasons.

1) Because it isn't our job or our business

2) Because if we did, the entire oriental east would be seriously pissed at us

3) Because they would force us to kill a sizable chunk of their civilians to get rid of the jerks in power. Or did you forget about what happened the LAST time we stuck our noses in there?

It's not that we can't, or that we are afraid to, it is that we have no damns left to give. They simply aren't worth our time, or our soldier's lives. Plus you'd have to kill off over a third of the population in the process of freeing the other two thirds, who will simply be even more paranoid about America as a result.

There is no outcome in any scenario where America invades North Korea that comes out with America gaining anything. It will piss off the other oriental nations because America stuck their nose in 'their' business, yet again. It will terrify the citizens of North Korea of American Aggression, proven by the fact that we just killed their Fearless Leader, giving birth to another thousand generations of terrorists with a specific bone to pick with America. There WILL be American soldiers who will die and will be wounded, this is an inevitable fact of war. It doesn't matter if that number is single digits, it is american soldiers who die for NOTHING. Bad move. And it will piss off the rest of the world in general because, again, America is getting involved in everyone else's business.

And a new bunch of despots will simply walk in the back door a week later and set up shop. Probably sent by China, just to make sure China has more control over the region via a puppet regime. And the people of North Korea will have a new Fearless Leader who 'achieved victory and made the imperialistic Americans run from his might and saved the people of True Korea from their despotism'.

So yea. There is no victory condition here. Why bother?

 

[casilleroatr]

And then it mutates, and you're SOL and it wipes out humanity as a whole. 'Cause yanno... viruses do that. Mutate to overcome obstacles, like immunities. So do bacteria. Plenty of 'immunization resistant' strains of lots of Bad Things out there. They didn't start out that way.

Releasing a biological warfare vector is a Mutually Assured Destruction option, because you have absolutely ZERO control over mutation vectors once it is released.



I... I don't know if I should preserve it for its amusement value, or facepalm. Since I don't have enough palms on hand to facepalm enough for this, I suppose I shall do the former.

America does not go in and wipe them out for three reasons.

1) Because it isn't our job or our business

2) Because if we did, the entire oriental east would be seriously pissed at us

3) Because they would force us to kill a sizable chunk of their civilians to get rid of the jerks in power. Or did you forget about what happened the LAST time we stuck our noses in there?

It's not that we can't, or that we are afraid to, it is that we have no damns left to give. They simply aren't worth our time, or our soldier's lives. Plus you'd have to kill off over a third of the population in the process of freeing the other two thirds, who will simply be even more paranoid about America as a result.

There is no outcome in any scenario where America invades North Korea that comes out with America gaining anything. It will piss off the other oriental nations because America stuck their nose in 'their' business, yet again. It will terrify the citizens of North Korea of American Aggression, proven by the fact that we just killed their Fearless Leader, giving birth to another thousand generations of terrorists with a specific bone to pick with America. There WILL be American soldiers who will die and will be wounded, this is an inevitable fact of war. It doesn't matter if that number is single digits, it is american soldiers who die for NOTHING. Bad move. And it will piss off the rest of the world in general because, again, America is getting involved in everyone else's business.

And a new bunch of despots will simply walk in the back door a week later and set up shop. Probably sent by China, just to make sure China has more control over the region via a puppet regime. And the people of North Korea will have a new Fearless Leader who 'achieved victory and made the imperialistic Americans run from his might and saved the people of True Korea from their despotism'.

So yea. There is no victory condition here. Why bother?

There may be no victory condition for America going to war with N. Korea (at least now) but I don't agree with your arguments.

1. There are several reasons why the U.S does have an interest in that part of the world. American interests are tied up especially with Japan and South Korea, not to mention China. Not too sure about S. Korea and Taiwan but the U.S has treaty obligations to Japan's defense. America may not want to be the world's policeman anymore (which is up to American's of course, I am not one) but there will always be world criminals, like the tyrannical Kims. South Korea, Japan and China are all very important trade partners, and the two former are important allies so an adventuring North Korea would disrupt pretty much all of that.

2. North Korea is not popular, and I don't think there lifeline, the CCC, is unconditionally admired either. I don't think East Asians will uniformly castigate the Americans if a war were to happen between it and North Korea. That depends on far to many things though - South Korea's involvement, China's involvement, spillover into other disputes so much stuff

3. Here you might well be right. I have no idea however how such a war might play out, and frankly I don't really want to find out.

Insofar as a strategy laid out in a minecraft forum for the successful invasion of of one country by another is bound to fail, I don't think it is inevitable that the Korean problem will be resolved against American interests. So long as South Korea is at least maintained as is then that will be something at least. If things carry on at this rate, the fate of North Koreans probably has more to do with China than America. And while the Kims' primary instinct is self-preservation then a crazy nuclear spree is hopefully unlikely (who knows what else they might do though).

I won't say what Americans should or shouldn't do, or where their soldiers should or shouldn't fight (I would prefer they stay alive though), because I am not an American. If the Koreas could be reunited a la east and west Germany then that would be great. Good reasons for not accelerating this process include.

1. Where will the North Koreans go (politically and geographically)

• North to China
• South to the good Korea (is South Korea in a position where it could incorporate a population of up to ~25 million in wartime)

2. Even if North Korea falls quickly without a single Nuke being fired, will other countries in the area acquiesce. History could repeat itself.

3. If you are facing conventional military defeat anyway, what is stopping you from launching any nukes you still control (has this been tested before?)

4. Of course, huge risk for little gain. American lives lost perhaps for nothing

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Also theres no oil in N. Korea.

 

[damagingbill]

Also on the chernobyl thing, 31 people died in that, and over 3,000 in 9/11
I do not think nuclear power is as bad as people say it is.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Also on the chernobyl thing, 31 people died in that, and over 3,000 in 9/11
I do not think nuclear power is as bad as people say it is.

31 directly killed.

The actual death toll is uncountable, but probably in the 100,000's.
(Trying to remember that special the National Geographic did on it)​

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Also theres no oil in N. Korea.

Did I ever say they had any? I specifically called out Iran as an example there for a reason.

 

[christhereaper]

Did I ever say they had any? I specifically called out Iran as an example there for a reason.

I think it was meant as "there's no oil, so there's no need to invade".