Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

A nuclear reactor for Saudi Arabia

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

A nuclear reactor for Saudi Arabia.  With help from America.  What could possibly go wrong?

 

https://www.timesofi...tm_medium=email

 

 


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#2
JadeBlackOlive

JadeBlackOlive

    Weird Old Bat!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,048 posts
  • LocationCanada

Ah....gee...……...


Jade  Meeow!

 

Canada


#3
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

Ah....gee...……...

 

 

Yes.  Even Trump knows that a nuclear Iran is bad news.  But a nuclear Saudi Arabia?  Pure madness.  And America is going to HELP!

 

And Israel seems to be fine with it.

 

Can a nuclear Saudi Arabia live in harmony with a nuclear Iran?

 

What could possibly go wrong?


  • JadeBlackOlive likes this
Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#4
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 21,706 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

Nuclear reactors vary widely in their usefulness in making weapons. To make bomb grade stuff you need a breeder reactor and reactors designed for power are not typically breeder reactors.

I think we should not support Saudi Arabia in any way, military or commercial, until they leave the dark ages. That won't be happening soon.

 

A nuclear war is inevitable because the weapons are controlled by humans. A really huge, global nuclear war could help reduce the carbon pollution being thrown into the air by humans.  If the majority of humans were gone it would be better for our planet.


  • Aging Disgracefully likes this

Join our religion of love and peace or burn in hell!


#5
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

Nuclear reactors vary widely in their usefulness in making weapons. To make bomb grade stuff you need a breeder reactor and reactors designed for power are not typically breeder reactors.

I think we should not support Saudi Arabia in any way, military or commercial, until they leave the dark ages. That won't be happening soon.

 

A nuclear war is inevitable because the weapons are controlled by humans. A really huge, global nuclear war could help reduce the carbon pollution being thrown into the air by humans.  If the majority of humans were gone it would be better for our planet.

 

 

Nuclear war would likely result in nuclear winter.  That is one way to reduce global warming.  It's not my first choice.


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#6
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Nuclear reactors vary widely in their usefulness in making weapons. To make bomb grade stuff you need a breeder reactor and reactors designed for power are not typically breeder reactors.

I think we should not support Saudi Arabia in any way, military or commercial, until they leave the dark ages. That won't be happening soon.

 

A nuclear war is inevitable because the weapons are controlled by humans. A really huge, global nuclear war could help reduce the carbon pollution being thrown into the air by humans.  If the majority of humans were gone it would be better for our planet.

No, a nuclear war, or any kind of war, would be horrible for the planet because wars never have any regard for the environment.  They consume massive quantities of natural resources, use those resources to build weapons, and use those weapons to destroy ecosystems and habitats.  The aftermath of any kind of war would destroy supply chains, drive up scarcity, and set technological advancement back hundreds of years.  Any surviving humans would most likely resort to more wasteful and polluting means of energy production.

 

Nuclear winter would also cause massive crop failures due to insufficient sunlight.  Assuming the temperature also drops, this would shorten the growing season.  Less plant growth on Earth means less CO2 uptake.  This is assuming the radiation doesn't contaminate everything and kill all the plants anyway.

 

In any kind of war, it's always the poor who suffer and die first.  Wars are never targeted and precise.  The majority of casualties are innocent civilians.  Advocating for war is tantamount to wishing death on the poorest people and marginalized groups.  This is why neocons and neoliberal war hawks have no problem waging war for profit, because they know they won't be touched up in their ivory towers, while the poor fight and die for them.


  • Cousin Ricky likes this

The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.


#7
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

No, a nuclear war, or any kind of war, would be horrible for the planet because wars never have any regard for the environment.  They consume massive quantities of natural resources, use those resources to build weapons, and use those weapons to destroy ecosystems and habitats.  The aftermath of any kind of war would destroy supply chains, drive up scarcity, and set technological advancement back hundreds of years.  Any surviving humans would most likely resort to more wasteful and polluting means of energy production.

 

Nuclear winter would also cause massive crop failures due to insufficient sunlight.  Assuming the temperature also drops, this would shorten the growing season.  Less plant growth on Earth means less CO2 uptake.  This is assuming the radiation doesn't contaminate everything and kill all the plants anyway.

 

In any kind of war, it's always the poor who suffer and die first.  Wars are never targeted and precise.  The majority of casualties are innocent civilians.  Advocating for war is tantamount to wishing death on the poorest people and marginalized groups.  This is why neocons and neoliberal war hawks have no problem waging war for profit, because they know they won't be touched up in their ivory towers, while the poor fight and die for them.

 

 

Nuclear war would be different in one regard.  There is no hiding from radiation.  The elite will also perish.


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#8
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Nuclear war would be different in one regard.  There is no hiding from radiation.  The elite will also perish.

There are fallout shelters, which would be something only the privileged could afford.  Now, if a nuclear weapon falls directly on top of the site, no bomb or fallout shelter is going to do any good.  However, the way to avoid a nuclear weapon is to go somewhere that is unlikely to be targeted, like a sparsely populated or wilderness area.  Those with the means to evacuate still stand a better chance than those too poor to leave their homes.  Therefore a nuclear war is still far more likely to affect the poor the most.  There's no such thing as an indiscriminate weapon.  War always discriminates.

 

Another consideration is, which countries have the most nuclear weapons and which have none?  The poorest countries are the ones with no nuclear weapons.  They're the most likely to be destroyed first, whether in proxy wars between superpowers, or in a nuclear war, because they have no deterrence or means of retaliation.  If the nuclear weapon doesn't hit them directly, the survivors are still going to suffer worse than in other places, because poor countries have less infrastructure or economic means to recover from a disaster.  Millions of poor people will die of cancer and radiation poisoning, as well as scarcity and disease, in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange.

 

Nobody should be advocating for any kind of war.  I posted a new topic on this in the Peace vs Religion section.


The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.


#9
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

There are fallout shelters, which would be something only the privileged could afford.  Now, if a nuclear weapon falls directly on top of the site, no bomb or fallout shelter is going to do any good.  However, the way to avoid a nuclear weapon is to go somewhere that is unlikely to be targeted, like a sparsely populated or wilderness area.  Those with the means to evacuate still stand a better chance than those too poor to leave their homes.  Therefore a nuclear war is still far more likely to affect the poor the most.  There's no such thing as an indiscriminate weapon.  War always discriminates.

 

Another consideration is, which countries have the most nuclear weapons and which have none?  The poorest countries are the ones with no nuclear weapons.  They're the most likely to be destroyed first, whether in proxy wars between superpowers, or in a nuclear war, because they have no deterrence or means of retaliation.  If the nuclear weapon doesn't hit them directly, the survivors are still going to suffer worse than in other places, because poor countries have less infrastructure or economic means to recover from a disaster.  Millions of poor people will die of cancer and radiation poisoning, as well as scarcity and disease, in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange.

 

Nobody should be advocating for any kind of war.  I posted a new topic on this in the Peace vs Religion section.

 

 

 

No one is advocating war.  I only make observations.  I used to be a Home Health Aide.  This I know.  When the rich get sick, they languish in more comfortable beds than the poor.  Still, they languish.

 

So, the elite go to some desolate, low population area.

1.  Radiation travels on the winds.  Death may be delayed.  It will find them.

2.  Life in such an area requires skills.  Do the elite have such skills?  No.  They do not.

 

An analogy, if I may.  When the meteor -- the one that killed the dinosaurs -- came, the great and powerful perished.  The mice lived.  They needed little and they found it.


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#10
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

No one is advocating war.  I only make observations.  I used to be a Home Health Aide.  This I know.  When the rich get sick, they languish in more comfortable beds than the poor.  Still, they languish.

They're also more likely to have access to healthcare, have higher quality healthcare, and are more likely to survive.  What you're saying is similar to arguing that doing away with all healthcare would be worth it, because it also causes harm to the rich.  Your thought experiment isn't targeted at the wealthy elites, it's across the board.

 

 

So, the elite go to some desolate, low population area.

1.  Radiation travels on the winds.  Death may be delayed.  It will find them.

2.  Life in such an area requires skills.  Do the elite have such skills?  No.  They do not.

If conditions on Earth are so bad that radiation can travel anywhere and kill anything, including those living in remote areas, then pretty much everyone is going to die.  All humans, as well as all the species that this nuclear war was meant to "save" from humans.

 

The wealthy have servants, which is another way of saying they have access to services the poor do not.  Do you think someone like Donald Trump would travel anywhere alone, and try to survive on his own?  If there were any kind of national emergency, he'd bring people with him to wait on him.

 

 

 

An analogy, if I may.  When the meteor -- the one that killed the dinosaurs -- came, the great and powerful perished.  The mice lived.  They needed little and they found it.

That's a question-begging analogy because it oversimplifies what happened.  Large groups of species went extinct.  If something similar were to occur today, that would mean the human species goes extinct.  The same would go for the most fragile species on Earth, and by that I mean currently endangered.  This is the exact opposite of saving the planet from the harm humanity has caused.


The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.


#11
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

Quite likely, Humanity would be gone.  All of us.  After the bombs fall, the rich won't have any of the needed survival skills.  The poor will already be dead.  Including the servants, who would otherwise be taking care of the rich.  When all the doctors are dead, health insurance won't matter.  When money is worthless, being rich won't help.  

 

Most animal life will probably perish with us.  Much of the plant life as well, though not all of it.  Unless even the bacteria are destroyed, evolution will just have to happen all over again.  

 

Yes, the elite may have a few pathetic years in their bomb shelters.  When the food and water run out, the radiation will get them.  Likewise, the radioactive dust.

 

Are we keeping score?  There will be no winners.


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#12
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Quite likely, Humanity would be gone.  All of us.  After the bombs fall, the rich won't have any of the needed survival skills.  The poor will already be dead.  Including the servants, who would otherwise be taking care of the rich.  When all the doctors are dead, health insurance won't matter.  When money is worthless, being rich won't help.  

 

Most animal life will probably perish with us.  Much of the plant life as well, though not all of it.  Unless even the bacteria are destroyed, evolution will just have to happen all over again.  

 

Yes, the elite may have a few pathetic years in their bomb shelters.  When the food and water run out, the radiation will get them.  Likewise, the radioactive dust.

 

Are we keeping score?  There will be no winners.

 

Then it looks like we agree that the thought experiment of a global nuclear war would not save the environment, and would in fact destroy it.

 

The fact of the matter is that humans are part of nature and the environment, whether we like it or not.  There's no separating humans from the natural world.  Anything that happens to the environment will happen to us, and anything capable of destroying humanity will also take the planet with it.  This lesson primarily goes for right wingers and religious fundamentalists who believe humans are somehow exalted or apart from nature, and can therefore screw with the Earth without any consequences.  However, it also goes for those fringe environmentalist ideologies (whom I would call fake leftists) who believe human extinction would somehow save the planet.

 

How do they plan on wiping out the human species without causing apocalyptic levels of damage to the environment?  Any disaster, natural or artificial, intended to force human extinction would eradicate all the species these so-called environmentalists are trying to save.  Any campaign to kill large numbers of humans (e.g. a war) would kill the most vulnerable humans first, which includes those working the hardest to protect the environment; the wealthy elites don't care what happens to the planet, and they would be the last to go.


The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users