Nuclear threat

[DeletedUser]

I have moved some posts from the Environmental issues-thread to their own thread.

The topic at hand has become the nuclear threat, and other armageddon like threats to our whole existance, how real are they and what can be done about them.

I will leave all the original posts in spoilers and copy the parts that are relevant for this new topic to be fully visible.

With mod-greetings,
Edlit



Original post[spoil]

Umm, while a lot of plastics are presently processed using petrochemicals, they are not the sole source. In fact, the original form of plastics was/is made using cellulose (obtained primarily from cotton) and a derivative of camphor (from laurel trees). There is no petrochemical dependency for the production of plastics, it's just presently cheaper (stick a hole in the ground, and out churns decades of profit).

The most important element in the production of solar panels is silicon, the 8th most abundant element, by mass, so that's not an issue either. Solar panels can be, and are, produced using little to no petrochemical products.

The big issue with wind and hydro power is "moving parts," which requires far greater maintenance. Seriously, moving parts are far more likely to break than stationary parts and far more likely to have a catastrophic breakdown (cascading collapse). That's the real reason why solar energy is a better alternative. I mean, wind will (for all practical purposes) always be there, as will running water. The perpetual nature of these three sources of energy (four, if you wish to include geothermal in this discussion) is not in dispute, it's the harnessing of such in an affordable and cost-effective manner.

We have become dependent, spoiled if you will, upon the "cheap" of petrochemicals. As I indicated above, all it requires is one month of drilling a hole to obtain 20 years in profits. But, it's not a perpetual resource and is estimated to last maybe another 50 years before depletion. Now, that doesn't mean there won't be anymore petrochemicals (an important note to point out, particularly considering Willypete's misinformed assertions), it will simply no longer be cost-effective.

So, really, the race for alternative energy isn't because we'll be out of petroleum, it's because eventually it will be too expensive; the increasing costs to extricate and process will force the price up substantially, which will make all other dependencies also rise in costs (petroleum used in shipping, packaging, transportation, etc).

The need to resort to alternatives, the drive to research more efficient means to harness such perpetual energies as wind, water, geothermal, and solar, is not a political ploy, it's a practical reality, an economic necessity. Our societies are built on an assumption of "cheap" fuel. Now we're in a pinch to maintain those societies "as is" or face the daunting task of fundamental, and culturally shattering, societal simplification (back to the basics).

Yes plastics can be made from non-petrol sources just like houses can be powered by solar energy, but most of the time they are not. What is cheap usually wins out. I doubt we will be destroyed over the environmental issues however as the growing threat of world wide nuclear war is advancing faster than the decline of the environment.[/spoil]

Remember the old context... /Edlit

I doubt we will be destroyed over the environmental issues however as the growing threat of world wide nuclear war is advancing faster than the decline of the environment.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, silly. Willy, I was brought up with stupid nuclear blast drills and the threat of nuclear war with U.S.S.R.. I, along with many in my generation, had recurring nightmares regarding nuclear war. It was possible, it was palpable. What you're experiencing nowadays is nothing, the threat of "world devastating nuclear war" is laughable at this present stage. The possibility of a nuclear detonation is about the same, but the possibility of it escalating to full-on nuclear war is less than negligible.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its not the overt saber rattling threats that are the problem. The problem comes in where some terrorist organization sneaks one of these post USSR nukes in to the US and the US deployes a full nuclear response against all enemies as is their policy.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, it is not their policy. Use of nuclear weapons, in response to a terrorist act, is both illogical and a demonstration of the disconnect you seem to have with the whole idea of what constitutes a terrorist (i.e., borderless).

Original context... /Edlit
[spoil]lol, it is not their policy. Use of nuclear weapons, in response to a terrorist act, is both illogical and a demonstration of the disconnect you seem to have with the whole idea of what constitutes a terrorist (i.e., borderless).

Not really sure what your argument is, tbh, nor how it plays into the discussion regarding environmental issues. I mean, if your argument is, "who cares about the environment, we're all going to die from a nuclear armageddon," then perhaps we shouldn't bother debating anything and all just crap quietly in the corner awaiting the "end of days."

Frankly, I just see it as a cop-out to debating the actual topic. In other words, debate the topic or go place your head between your legs and give your arse a long kiss goodbye.[/spoil]

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you trying to troll Scamp? You took my single witicism out of context and try to call it a cop-out? My participation in this thread was on topic. With all due respect to Pete here, he's been railing on for many posts about armageddon via nuclear war, effectively derailing the discus.

#1 if you were so worried about me derailing the topic, why reply to my post
#2 MAD mutually assured destruction. The US policy to nuclear warfare. They are not just going to stand by and wait for more nukes to go off while their playing who done it. The policy is immediate
retaliation. It would not be much of a deterant otherwise.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Nuclear threat ? Meh as HS says ... there isnt one now realistically compared to 20 or 30 years ago..

That is all

PS HS this is getting worrying, the more threads we debate on the more we seem to be in agreement ................ OMG

 

[DeletedUser]

PS HS this is getting worrying, the more threads we debate on the more we seem to be in agreement ................ OMG

Nah, you're just realizing I'm always right. *smirk*


WillyPete,

The main problem with your doom and gloom assertions is that it is so incredibly, "behind the times" as to be inapplicable even for today's dime-store novelist.

MAD was a doctrine birthed and encouraged during my time. It was a doctrine of, "the only winning move is not to play," as exemplified in the 1983 movie, War Games --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

The doctrine of MAD was never actually a "policy" (despite assertions to the contrary), but the mindset associated with such was indeed palpable in the minds and actions of both military and politic, thus the doctrine was applied. However, near the end of the Cold War, this mindset started undergoing a fundamental change, as demonstrated through the MAS (mutually assured security) doctrine advocated by Reagan; through initiatives and projects such as SDIO, GPALS, BMDO, NMD, and the present incarnation titled GMD (yay for acronyms!).

A more recent doctrine, and one starting to make headway in the international arena, is a new MAS, this one standing for, "mutually assured support" (click here).

As is indicated in the abstract, this doctrine is geared to provide a new, more effective direction to addressing the threat of nuclear attack initiated by terrorists or rogue nations, and follows a mandate that, "requires all subscribing nations to mobilize fully in support of the attacked nation, in return for a promise of nonretaliation."

We are in "interesting times," as are all times. But, each time is interesting for different reasons. The doctrines or policies that birthed a culture of bomb shelters and survivalists has been steadily losing ground to a far more rational, reasoned, approach. In fact, a concerted anti-nuclear advocacy headed by "most" of the Cold War era military leaders has already broken many of the icebergs in the Pentagon and among military circles.

What continues to keep the notion alive is not military, it's political, in that irresponsible politicians utilize the rhetoric of armament and conflict as a means to perpetuate fear amongst its constituents, and thus obtain additional votes through insincere, and largely fabricated, advocations.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Nah, you're just realizing I'm always right. *smirk*

Meh ... still not gonna share a continent with you it would'nt be big enough for the both of us ya njub

 

[DeletedUser15057]

....What continues to keep the notion alive is not military, it's political, in that irresponsible politicians utilize the rhetoric of armament and conflict as a means to perpetuate fear amongst its constituents, and thus obtain additional votes through insincere, and largely fabricated, advocations.

No!! Surely those fine upstanding politicians would not use such a 'fear tactic' for political gain, would they??

Israel - "Iran are developing nuclear weapons to attack us, Israel will need to be on full alert and retaliate pre-emptively!!"

Ohhh .... OK .... I guess they would .... trouble is in the likes of e.g. Iran, Israel, and (hehe) the US, there is no real dividing line between political and military, they are really one and the same.