Considering how often Pakistan calls for nuclear war or it addresses Osama as a martyr, I would put it along side North Korea in terms of a global threat.
Last I remember when Indian elections were near, it was India that attacked Pak, but failed and its pilots got captured. Who were later returned without further escalation on Pak side. Pulling stunts like that and risking ww3 over elections would seem to indicate Indian govt to be a bigger threat to world peace. Not to mention complete disregard of human rights by occupying kashmir and oppressing natives there.
Both India and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons and capable delivery systems. I don't see how the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy could make anything worse
I'm no nuclear weapons expert, but I doubt that a peaceful nuclear reactor is going to be a top target. It might just be easier to nuke an enemy's cities and military bases.
The comment seems to imply Gavin Newsom decided to shut the plant down-- but it's owned by a private corporation, PG&E. Did we expect Newsom to take control of the plant and keep it open? I can maybe see a case for policy change, but I don't see California being that different from other states in this regard.
While I don't like the trend of closing nuclear plants, this isn't a straightforward decision just to "keep it on", from what I understand. There were seismic concerns for the plant, which is probably a worthwhile consideration given its location in California.
Additionally, I think how the plant performed cooling (drawing from the adjacent ocean) would also negatively impact the local ocean environment, and that type of cooling process was being phased out of California more generally.
FWIW, I'm a fan of nuclear, but I think it's worth digging deeper into underlying problems so we can see what the future solution may need to overcome.
17 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 48.5 ms ] threadGavin Newsom must be the dumbest motherfucker alive.
While I don't like the trend of closing nuclear plants, this isn't a straightforward decision just to "keep it on", from what I understand. There were seismic concerns for the plant, which is probably a worthwhile consideration given its location in California.
Additionally, I think how the plant performed cooling (drawing from the adjacent ocean) would also negatively impact the local ocean environment, and that type of cooling process was being phased out of California more generally.
FWIW, I'm a fan of nuclear, but I think it's worth digging deeper into underlying problems so we can see what the future solution may need to overcome.