• Kyrias@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Good.

    If the 21st century has taught us anything is everyone needs their own nuclear deterrent. If you get clean energy out of it too that’s a big bonus.

      • Kyrias@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Because people keep invading countries or threatening to invade countries.

        • Sure, but MAD has never actually been tested.

          Suppose Russia drops a tactical nuclear warhead on Ukraine tomorrow. Will anyone start dropping nukes on Russia in response?

          Suppose Russia starts a ground invasion of the Baltics; will France drop a nuke on them? Or would we just get another large-scale conventional war where neither side dares to touch their nukes?

        • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Still, a deterrent you can’t use is not a good deterrent. It also makes you more of a target for invasion since you can’t get them overnight

          • Photonic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            On the contrary, a deterrent you never have to use is the best deterrent. That’s how you know deterrence works.

            No nuclear power has been invaded or attacked on a scale that has any meaning. I think Russia recently has been the first, but they obviously struck first.

            Only a small minority of countries have been attacked while developing their nuclear capabilities, or rather it was an excuse to start a war against those countries.

            We know that a non-existent nuclear weapons program was used as a casus belli in the war in Iraq and probably again in Iran, although in the latter case we don’t know for sure yet whether they actually kept their end in the Obama deal.

      • ms.lane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Cleaner than most other forms of energy, yes.

        Hydro has huge ecological problems of its own that we just skip over since it’s carbon free* (except the concrete)

        Wind is actually good, do more wind.

        Solar troughs are great in hot places, PV is great in milder to cold places (PV drops off in efficiency a lot over 35c, but this can actually be mitigated by putting panels on water, which also prevents evaporation of reservoirs, win-win)

        But most of the worlds energy use is in transport (well, before AI) and we’re going to need nuclear to support moving from fossil fuels to electric, though only really China got the memo. Germany is busy hamstringing itself in every way possible.