Canadians have command over the NATO forces in the region.

I'm pretty sure the Dutch just replaced Canadian command.

Cool to see a glass desert? Sure, that's a great reason for using nuclear weapons!

Needless to say, I really hope this DOES NOT happen. Like I've said before: radiation knows no borders. The less of it, the better. It'll never happen, but we'd be better off if we could all make an agreement to kill each other in the conventional way and just got rid of all the damn things. And speaking of other things that will never happen, how about collecting all the extremist rulers in the world and sending them on the first manned mission to Mars. Let 'em fight it out there. Then once the power systems are all corrupted again, we can start thinking about the second manned mission to Mars. Seriously, we'd all be better off.

Modern airburst thermonuclear weapons produce very little beta radiation and virtually no fallout. In fact, the same basic design is used in the neutron bomb which is designed to leave buildings intact and inhabitable within days of the weapon's detonation (the principal differences being the amount of tritium, and whether or not the neutron pulse is reflected back into the reaction to further compress the deuterium/tritium plasma).

The "dangerous" nuclear weapons are inefficient designs, groundburst bombs or dirty bombs, all of which spread a large amount of fallout over a large area. "Radiation" can't spread itself across borders, but dust from improperly-designed or used weapons can. In any case, Israeli tactical warheads would be based on US designs (if not actually built by the US), so they'd be very nearly as safe as conventional explosives are (as long as you're standing out of the range of the thermal pulse). The dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear power are horribly overexaggerated.

[QUOTE=Andrew L]they leaked this out just to scare Iran me thinks and there wont be a second cold war Russia is broke they cant afford a second cold war ;)[/QUOTE]

It's not us with the $8 trillion gross national debt now, is it?

You actually mean to imply that there are "dangerous" nuclear weapons and "safe" nuclear weapons? Man, none of them are "safe". Try and stun me with your knowledge all you like, but nuclear and radiological weapons are NEVER cool. Do you think it matters to the sort of people who'd like an excuse to set off a nuclear weapon inside any nation that it deems an enemy? To them, a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, no matter how "safe" we can trick ourselves into thinking it is.

The dangers may or may not be overexaggerated, but you cannot deny that some of these materials take so long to degrade, that it might as well be forever. As for nuclear power, tell me there aren't more logical ways to boil water, ways that don't leave behind dangerous materials that we have no means of storing safely.

1.) Yes, there are "dangerous" nuclear weapons and "safe" nuclear weapons, just like how there are "dangerous" conventional weapons and "safe" conventional weapons. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inefficient prototypical designs. They released a lot of radioactive particles which contaminated the surrounding environment, in large part due to the inefficient uranium refining process. The contaminated particles entered the water table, the air, rainclouds, and ultimately came into contact with people in the surrounding areas. This simply does not happen with modern nuclear weapons. Strategic nuclear weapons don't even use uranium anymore.
If anything else, this is exactly why Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. Not only are they refining uranium, but they're probably not doing a very good job of it. An Iranian nuke would probably be a lot like Little Boy, and they probably don't have the technology to build an accurate/airbursting delivery system.

2.) Do you mean to imply that any weapons are 'cool'? A nuclear weapon is just a way of getting a job done. A really, really big job. Not all nuclear weapons are huge, either. Like nuclear bunker busters. But guess what? You can completely defeat a nuclear bunker buster by making your concrete bunker 11 feet deeper. Radiation and all.

3.) I agree, radiological weapons are not 'cool'. In fact I am specifically saying that modern nuclear weapons are specifically designed to not spread radioactive materials. Unless you're confused as to the definition of 'radiological', you and I are agreeing completely on this point.


1.) Nuclear weapons are a big deal because most of them are of the strategic variety. That is, they are designed for the express purpose of eradicating [an] entire population(s).

2.) I am not the person here who has been 'tricked' into believing something about nuclear technologies.


1.) We are perfectly capable of storing nuclear waste indefinitely. In fact, were it not for the ridiculous restrictions imposed on the handling and storage of nuclear waste by people who don't understand the technology and the physics (like you), we would be able to use waste products in reactors like the Canadian CANDU reactor and further reduce it.

2.) You get a greater dose of radiation from living near a coal-burning power plant than you do from living near a nuclear power plant.

3.) You inhale more alpha-emitters by toking on your hippie pot than you do from running a marathon around Three Mile Island. Even the smoke from a coal power plant contains radon gas, which means you are breathing it every day no matter where you live. Nuclear power plants do not release any gaseous emissions.

4.) You get a greater dose of radiation from having sex with someone than you would from hugging a nuclear power plant's cooling tower for a year. Everything in the universe is radioactive. You get a bigger dose of radiation from the concrete and lead shielding than you do from the reactor!

5.) People like you, who lie to themselves and pretend that nuclear power is unsafe, are the people who are hurting the planet the most out of any of us. You lie to yourselves and to others - not because you actually have any facts to back up what you're saying, but it feels right to you. You don't want natural gas, oil and coal power because it makes that big bad scary carbon dioxide and you don't want nuclear power because atoms are bad, maaaaaaaaaan. If it weren't for you, your ilk, and your NIMBY-ism* we wouldn't have the current fuel crisis or the pending environmental catastrophe. So if you wanted to ruin the planet by not letting smart people do their thing, fine work.

Okay Jon, first off: Personal attacks. Why? Does that really make your arguement better?

I'll do my best to piece this back together, and then I'm going to stop in the interest of the moderators and the other posters. You are free to say what you like, because I really don't care if I have the last word. I've been in these things once or twice before, and it seems that I forget why I don't like to do this. Then something always reminds me...

Nuclear Weapons vs. Safety:
I'm just going to reaffirm that I don't really approve of the use of any nuclear/radiological weapon, from the biggest and most modern nuclear warheads (which you would apparantly like me to believe are the sort of things that not only expose their targets to a wide spectrum of radiation, but rainbows and soft kittens as well.) to the lowliest depleted uranium munitions. First, I don't trust people when they try to convince me how flawless technology is. I grew up on a farm and have worked with machines all my life. As a result, I have an inherent distrust of them. They will always do something to screw things up. It may take a while, but it happens. Also, I don't trust other people to share your viewpoint about safety- I myself am proof enough of that. All I wish to say is that it just doesn't matter. Enemies who are determined to make a nuclear terrorist attack are likely to look for any excuse to do so. A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. Chances are they'll meet a such an attack, no mater how acutely focused, with whatever they've got- and you pointed out yourself that that in such an event, there is little chance that a modern weapon will be used. Surely we can both agree that we aren't keen on giving other people a reason to kill us.


Nuclear Power and Waste:
You say we have a way of storing nuclear waste indefinitely. Would you care to enlighten me? I hope you're not referring to the farce that is Yucca Mountain, a site that is geologically unstable and rife with cracks through which ground water runs freely. If you're referring to the Wisconsin Batholith, yes, I can agree that it's suitable. (And I live in Wisconsin. No, it's not easy to warm up to the idea, but one must consider the greater good.) Unfortunately, there's still a lot of waste to store, and the logistics of moving it safely across a crowded highway system or a decaying railway system are nothing short of daunting. As for CANDU reactors, I looked into them, and the idea sounds solid. If such technology exists, why aren't more people hearing about it?


Radiation Exposure:
Yes, I know that radiation is everywhere. You dig a hole, there's radon, yes. I KNOW this. What I can't understand is why we have to keep adding more dangerous radioactive materials into the mix.


Energy:
Yes, there are problems with every system. I just don't buy the whole line about how nuclear power is safer because of the absence of emissions. Through your arguements, you seem to be following a line that modern = safer. On this platform, I would agree that technology has caused many improvements over time. Why then are we here in the United States not only continuing to rely on a system of nuclear power reactors that are outdated and falling apart at the seams, but pushing them harder each year? There is indeed an energy crisis, and the way in which we are dealing with it is not a responsible one. Is it really that hard to consider energy conservation and change our wasteful ways? Continuing to make things bigger is not a sustainable way of dealing with the problem. Eventually we will have to cut back somewhere. It will be inconvenient, but that is the way of things.

Also, blaming the shortage of fuel on the naysayers of nuclear power is simply unfounded and unfair. Oil is not running out for that reason. There are other forces at play here.


That said, I hereby withdraw. Once again, feel free to say what you like- I will read it, but I am not replying, because the arguement needs to end. It is clear that neither one of us are going to convince the other of much of anything.


Edit: I forgot somethinig. Clearly, to some such as me, nuclear technology has a stigma. You mentioned something about feeling earlier. I have feelings about the technology, yes- manifested as a lack of trust. If you want to convince me, remove the stigma. You're damn well not going to do it by calling people names or implying that they're stupid and don't understand anything. Mentioning the CANDU reactor is a step in the right direction. If there is a way to work towards solving the problems of uranium enrichment and nuclear proliferation without in turn creating another containment crisis, I would like to hear it. It's not like I'm completely unreasonable. But when you reply with knee-jerk reactions, I'm less likely to listen to you or even take you seriously, for that matter.

Jon: Personal attacks is half the reason your post was a waste of time. Keep that crap to youself, please.

You stated, and I quote,

"To them, a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, no matter how "safe" we can trick ourselves into thinking it is."

You implied that I was foolish enough that I would be 'tricked' into believing something false. You started the personal attacks, not me. Don't whine, sob and whimper about me "implying that you are stupid" when you are trying to do the same thing to me.

As for my personal attacks: I threw yours back at you, called you a hippie, and stated that the people with your beliefs are the reason we are not able to build more nuclear reactors (a psychological disorder I call NIMBY-ism). While calling you a hippie might not have been true, the latter comment most certainly is.

To respond to the "everyone has plans" comment. Not every nation plans a preemptive nuclear strike on another nation. This is the very reason that the international community (well mainly just the US, as most other nations seem to not believe that Iran is trying to get the bomb) is trying to prevent Iran from having the bomb: To prevent nuclear attacks.

So to nuke a nation so they can't have the potential to nuke anyone else down the line (which of course is impossible to prove whether they would do so or not), well lets just say the absurdity of this isn't too hard to find.



They still emit radiation though



Why are people such ****ing hawks who want war so bad these days? You'd think that in the 21st century that people would have learned a thing or two by now.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this, because you've already declared INTERNET VICTORY! but I'm going to do it anyway.

Poisoning the well.


1.)Strawman attack.
2.) Radiological weapons are weapons that are deliberately designed to spread radioactive material. Such weapons include the use of uranium vapor as a chemical weapon; and 'dirty bombs' or 'salted bombs' that use conventional or nuclear explosives (respectively) to distribute radioactive dust (such as cobalt-60). I have specifically and repeatedly stated that we aren't talking about radiological weapons (and they aren't even nuclear weapons in any sense) but you keep bringing them up. Biased sample.

Appeal to authority.

Ignoring a common cause. (You)

Red herring; appeal to fear.

The cracks aren't a big deal. The idea of storing nuclear waste underground isn't to prevent the waste from entering the water table, it's to prevent people from having access to it.

There are only two kinds of nuclear waste that stored for long periods of time. One is 'medium' waste, which has been reduced greatly. It's placed into drums and mixed with concrete, which absorbs the radiation. These are generally low-level alpha and beta emitters and not a concern once they are converted into solid forms.

The other kind of nuclear waste that is stored for a long period of time is the high-level waste. The really, really radioactive high-energy gamma and beta emitters. What they do is refine the high-level waste, calcinate it and mix it with molten glass. This creates a solid waste which is then sealed inside a large shielded tube.

But in terms of long-term safe storage, I am indeed referring to the fact that we are able to construct things like the Wisconsin Batholith. The concept of a space elevator is also an interesting one because the main reason we aren't launching nuclear waste into space is because of the risk of a rocket exploding over a population center.

I'll agree that transporatation safety is an issue. The public misperception about nuclear material transportation is another major problem: people look at those big scary atoms and say "Not In My Back Yard!"
And, after reprocessing, there isn't nearly as much nuclear waste as most people think.

In addition to NIMBY-ism? Because CANDU reactors produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct. It's a proliferation concern.

As I have repeatedly stated, we aren't adding more dangerous radioactive materials into the mix. We dig up existing radioactive materials and use them. Fun fact: self-sustaining fission reactions happen naturally on Earth and they're called Fossil Reactors.

Strawman; Appeal to tradition.

Two reasons:
1.) NIMBY-ism. The people who think nuclear power is a good idea do not want nuclear reactors built near their homes, because they don't understand the technology.
2.) Environmental activism. There are people who think nuclear power is a bad idea because they don't understand the technology.

Even Greenpeace has shifted its stance on nuclear power toward acceptance. Know why? Because in every way, shape, and form, nuclear fission power is a much lesser evil than our current power generation system. Especially with all of the research that we've been conducting on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Yes it is, because our population continues to increase.

Even if we drastically cut back down our energy use per capita our energy demand will still rise. It will still take a lot of power to make food, clothing and shelter.

Even if we switched over to recycling just about everything it wouldn't matter, because recycling processes often take more power than original manufacturing.

And then we have the fact that building alternative energy sources like solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear reactors requires a vast amount of oil power too. So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unless we switch over to another kind of power generation technology sooner rather than later - even fission, just until we get fusion working - we are going to lose our technological civilization.

I agree.

84% of crude oil is converted into fuel sources (for transportation and power generation).

And in regards to DU rounds: These are not radioactive. The reason DU rounds are dangerous is because DU flechettes ignite when they come into contact with air. People breathe the vapor and get heavy metal poisoning. It has nothing at all to do with radiation.

Ok, I don't care who called who a fool, or a hippy, or an under-water submarine captain, just make sure this continues to be about facts and not name-calling.

While it is unnecessary that Jon`C gets a little enthusiastic like that at times, it doesn't invalidate the rest of his arguments. There's no real ad hominem there. He made his point and then insulted, separately.

Well that was an interesting exchange. Name calling or no, that was actually worth reading.

Indeed.

Well the argument against him was a sort of straw man that ignored the arguments he just laid out, so irritation is understandable.

Interesting reading material.

You see it a lot in engineering, but it's got to suck being a nuclear engineer, having a relevant answer and ignored because it isn't an answer anyone wants to listen to.