URA BOAT Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 Nuclear power has an extremely high energy density, however it cannot be sustained yet because it produces radioactive nuclear waste that is just stored for now...I also think it should not expand because it is very risky in its production (if anything goes wrong a lot is put to risk), and it is theoretically non renewable.Furthermore nuclear power can be used unethically!Can you elaborate on what you mean by unethically? Are you talking about the conversion of enriched uranium into potential nuclear weapons?yes i am talking about the further enrichment of uranium, and governments using the excuse that they are using it for the establishment of nuclear power as an energy source while they are actually developing nuclear weapons.IDK about other countries but USA is not doing it..U.S. Dismantles The Biggest Of Its Cold War Nukes..if you think about is thay have no need in it...they so many nuclear weapons from the cold war Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gates Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 I think the type of warfare has changed considerably from the Cold War. Just look at the war on terror! We dont need nuclear weapons anymore! Its all to do with civil security and intelligence now.Nuclear power is the way forward! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenyx Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Honestly, though... How much petroleum or other non-renewable resources does it take to manufacture a single solar cell or wind cell or hydro-turbine system? What does it take to maintain them? How much do you get in return? Seeing how well the alternatives stack up, and the fact that, though non-renewable, nuclear power is very clean, very safe, and actually has a pretty good track record compared to any other type of energy, I say go for it. The thorium alternative looks like a good idea, too, since it hasn't been converted to bombs, and unless there was a good reason, won't be converted to bombs. In this day and age, where the extreme right is vying for destruction with fossil fuels and the extreme left is vying for unsustainability with 'green' energy (and therefore destruction), ride the middle ground and take the nuke. While we may have to deal with the consequences later, look at the rate that technology advances. If we were to find a use for nuclear waste in 100 years time, then it would eliminate one of the downfalls of nuclear power. The other downfall simply requires workers that are willing and eager to work, and good design decisions. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Nuclear power has an extremely high energy density, however it cannot be sustained yet because it produces radioactive nuclear waste that is just stored for now...I also think it should not expand because it is very risky in its production (if anything goes wrong a lot is put to risk), and it is theoretically non renewable.Furthermore nuclear power can be used unethically!Can you elaborate on what you mean by unethically? Are you talking about the conversion of enriched uranium into potential nuclear weapons?yes i am talking about the further enrichment of uranium, and governments using the excuse that they are using it for the establishment of nuclear power as an energy source while they are actually developing nuclear weapons.IDK about other countries but USA is not doing it..U.S. Dismantles The Biggest Of Its Cold War Nukes..if you think about is thay have no need in it...they so many nuclear weapons from the cold warI think the type of warfare has changed considerably from the Cold War. Just look at the war on terror! We dont need nuclear weapons anymore! Its all to do with civil security and intelligence now.Nuclear power is the way forward!ya...that's what i said/meant....you need to read the link i posted in my status.. Edited November 4, 2011 by URA BOAT Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Award Winning Boss Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I think the type of warfare has changed considerably from the Cold War. Just look at the war on terror! We dont need nuclear weapons anymore! Its all to do with civil security and intelligence now.Nuclear power is the way forward!I think you've got it wrong there. It isn't a case of us not needing nuclear weaponry it's because it is not an efficient strategy because of the amount of civilians it has the potential to kill. If we don't need it then why doesn't everybody disarm and have a picnic together? if there was no hostility between nations now then there wouldn't be a single nuclear weapon around now. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Hidden's statement is very true, without tension between nations, nuclear weapons would have already been disposed of. I really don't want to get into the debate on whether countries like Iran should be allowed to develop their nuclear power plants, because there is no right or wrong answer, or whether the actions of some countries, who have nuclear weapons and don't allow the same for others, are hypocritical or not.Back to the main topic, I believe the risk of nuclear plants is far to great and if we ever want to increase the production, we must find and invent a 100% stable environment to place it in. Wind and solar powers is another way forward which has shown great potential.Guess we'll have to wait until fossil fuels are finished, I believe its 50 years away? Edited November 4, 2011 by Mort 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 US has an overwhelming amount of nuc's and even though their is still tension between country US it has no use of disarming them..ps they will never disarm all of them cuz what if a country or a terrorist gets their hands on one...anyway this is kinda of topic but i think that the nuclear weapons were the thing that kept back the ussr and usa from starting WWlll 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) URA BOAT, you are correct. If there was ever another WW, there would be nothing left afterwards.I respect that the USA wishes to keep the advancements of military weapons but I find it hypocritical when they disallow other countries from doing the same. What is everyone else's ideas? Edited November 5, 2011 by Mort 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Award Winning Boss Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/06/nuclear-weapons-world-us-north-korea-russia-iran#data Here are some numbers regarding nuclear weapons. I don't think there will be another 'world war' because of nukes. Not because they love each other now, because they live in fear of each other. Peace (the idealist definition) went out the window once we figured out how to kill others. (this is on a global basis... like international relations not brother and sister stuff lol) I think nuclear energy is a good thing but should be monitored... by who i'm not sure lol URA BOAT, you are correct. If there was ever another WW, there would be nothing left afterwards. I respect that the USA wishes to keep the advancements of military weapons but I find it hypocritical when they disallow other countries from doing the same. What is everyone else's ideas? What is politics without hypocrisy ? 3 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) URA BOAT, you are correct. If there was ever another WW, there would be nothing left afterwards. I respect that the USA wishes to keep the advancements of military weapons but I find it hypocritical when they disallow other countries from doing the same. What is everyone else's ideas? well if you think about it if a terrorist got their hands on a nuc they wouldn't be held back by the fear of starting nuclear war..i wouldn't be suprized they sat on the nuc as it was being dropped...only rational people should have the nuc's... http://www.guardian....ussia-iran#data Here are some numbers regarding nuclear weapons. I don't think there will be another 'world war' because of nukes. Not because they love each other now, because they live in fear of each other. Peace (the idealist definition) went out the window once we figured out how to kill others. (this is on a global basis... like international relations not brother and sister stuff lol) I think nuclear energy is a good thing but should be monitored... by who i'm not sure lol URA BOAT, you are correct. If there was ever another WW, there would be nothing left afterwards. I respect that the USA wishes to keep the advancements of military weapons but I find it hypocritical when they disallow other countries from doing the same. What is everyone else's ideas? What is politics without hypocrisy ? wow didn't even suspect how much nuc's Russian has(btw im not sure if it means russia as if present day..if so then it had even more nuc's because when ussr when bankrupted the new gov. sold nuc's for money and stuff...but if it means ussr then they should of not wrote russia(make you question how correct the data is)) Edited November 5, 2011 by URA BOAT 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Award Winning Boss Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 wow didn't even suspect how much nuc's Russian has(btw im not sure if it means russia as if present day..if so then it had even more nuc's because when ussr when bankrupted the new gov. sold nuc's for money and stuff...but if it means ussr then they should of not wrote russia(make you question how correct the data is))It means russia... it's from 2009 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 also their is a graph that shows amount of nuc's over time...looking at it you can notice that after 1985 the amounts of the nuc's started to fall..that is the time most people say the cold war ended... over all it a good source 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 URA BOAT, you are correct but in this world everyone thinks of their own benefit. Countries who have this technology usually disallow others from it so they have a certain edge of power over them. Get where I'm going with this? 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 ya i see what you are talking about cuz that's how it is...but that's not a bad thing...giving power to a mad man can result a catastrophe... look at Hitler what if he was the one that developed the nuc first... 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Atleast he stated his opinion. He would state whatever he believed in, even if wrong and very Bullish. 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 i don't think you would feel that way if he wiped out a country like Britain and who know maybe even some of USA/Canada...or you wouldn't say so if the war happened in your backyard...it can be argued that when he stated his compain he had good intentions but when he got absolute power he went mad and their are no excuses for him for doing what he did...like the Jew's.....and if Hitler would of gotten his hands on a nuc...well who know maybe you and i wouldn't be talking about this right now..u know? 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uknowithaha Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 I agree with URA. Hitler went mad with power. I think Mort wanted to say that atleast he didn't lie, am I right?Anyway Nice to meet you all! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Award Winning Boss Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 I'm confused as to where this thread is going lol anyway, if Hitler got nukes part of me thinks the cold war would have started earlier... he may have gone crazy with power but he wasn't stupid. He would be destroying his own nation if he did launch any attack Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
URA BOAT Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 well first the talk was about if nuclear power(not bomb power, but electricity power) is good..but then some one said something about countries having nuclear, and how it was not fair and stuff...that lead to the disscution who should have the nuc weapons...which lead to not all should have(example: Hitler)....so ya that were we are heading in this thread..if he got the nuc's he would but the first and only one with it(Americana's didn't develop their nuc in in till Germany surrendered)...your right he was not stupid, if he has a weapon that can bring all nations on their knees he would of used it.. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Award Winning Boss Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 I'm still of the opinion he wouldn't have though... let's say he bombs Britain... wouldn't America have replied? I don't think anything would have happened because what's the point of building an empire if everyone is dead? plus the Manhattan project started 1942 and at that stage Germany were pretty much on the back foot. Iran apparently has nuclear warheads, and I don't think America is willing to invade them 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.