A grassroots group of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki wins the Nobel Peace Prize, calling for an end to nuclear weapons. Can we ensure a future free from the devastation of nuclear war? Join the fight for peace and disarmament. #NobelPeacePrize #EndNuclearWeapons
The weapons need to go first without question. But I think that the power stuff might realistically be needed badly for us to put as much of a dent as possible into getting fossil fuels out of use on the grids. There are less problematic options that are around (Thorium is the one I have seen), and of course China is doing some major progress towards fusion which would be massively game changing. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t use renewable options like geothermal, wind, tidal, etc…
But I think the threat of MAD is that main thing that needs to be stopped. The threat of MAD is not effective if a armed nation refuses to take an L if they fuck around and find themselves losing land fast. Israel is currently the big threat for actually using a nuke as they would rather take everyone out as they find out that their military isn’t as good as they claim. They are starting wars on multiple fronts and are not a large (fake) nation. They are also ran by a very similar death cult of hawks that the US has had over various periods (so many mf-ers were wanting to use shit the moment a leftist party gained support anywhere).
Sadly I don’t know how we could actually remove all weapons. As all of the current holders would most certainly keep some hidden. And they would say that it was “needed” because “what if the others don’t actually do it???” headspace.
There are less problematic options that are around (Thorium is the one I have seen), and of course China is doing some major progress towards fusion which would be massively game changing. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t use renewable options like geothermal, wind, tidal, etc
A brief glance through search results did show thorium as less problematic, but not without a significant amount of concern; oxidation being the most immediately notable. I’d prefer to look at other options and get busy with them. I’ll try to look more into it in the coming weeks at my leisure. Do you have any links on fusion (not YouTube, I’m sulking over their shenanigans, yes I’m being petulant)? I’m sure I should be terrified, but for some reason, this feels (yes, vibes ok?) more exciting, more promising-- but perhaps I’m over-romanticizing the potentiality and probably seriously minimizing the risks. I just don’t see anything about it in my usual media sources.
The threat of MAD is not effective if a armed nation refuses to take an L if they fuck around and find themselves losing land fast. Israel is currently the big threat for actually using a nuke as they would rather take everyone out as they find out that their military isn’t as good as they claim. They are starting wars on multiple fronts and are not a large (fake) nation.
Israel is a problem, and their shenanigans at the behest of and in conjunction with my own nation (USA) has my intimate apparel in as many twists and knots as the fabric can accommodate. And I don’t know what can be done about them, without the United States getting on board, and we all see how that is going. And the USA is the only state known to have ever used the bomb, which imo, makes us the problem, because without us in the mix, Israel would have been solved shortly after the Six Days war, in my estimation. I’m rambling and talking in circles, please suffice it to say, I see no clear solution, if the rest of the Western world doesn’t draw a solid line with the USA and Israel and to the devil with the economics of it. Perhaps it could be suggested that military personnel and ambassadors have over-stayed their welcome. I can’t begin to imagine the ramifications.
BRICS is an interesting and brilliant move, afaict. Moody already downgraded US credit before. If creditors were to begin demanding more than just servicing payments and later doing $n amount of forgiveness in exchange for major policy changes, that would be interesting. The forgiveness amount would have to be significant enough to entice the US, without giving them back too much financial leverage, because facing facts, money is power, and that’s all governments care about in the end. I don’t imagine any of them care very much about us regular people, outside what emotional appeals they can use to induce us to continue being their pawns, and those held up as national heros may be knights and rooks on the global board, but will never be the kings and queens. I slept on this reply and woke up still cynical.
There may occasionally be great leaders who actually do care, but we see how they’ve been neutralized. I personally probably over-romanticize Che Guevara, and remember how he’s demonized for example, shooting caught deserters on the spot. In cold, harsh reality, passions aside, it was war and how are guerilla forces to “more humanely” deal with such issues? It was practical and expedient, so too for the Jacobins, but I digress significantly, but will add one of the bravest things I can remember uttered is to the effect of, “Shoot, it is only a man you kill.” I don’t know whether he felt fear in that moment, and it’s not the point. He didn’t beg like a dog for a wretched life. It’s easy to be dispassionate so far away in time and proximity, you know?
Sadly I don’t know how we could actually remove all weapons. As all of the current holders would most certainly keep some hidden. And they would say that it was “needed” because “what if the others don’t actually do it???” headspace.
Of course they would. One country we absolutely know has nukes, and never admitted it. People were executed for saying so. And that may be the best argument for avoiding fission power and some international agency that is truly more inclusively global could be designed for inspection. I don’t have any idea. I’m pretty ignorant and spitballing, trying to imagine a reality outside the lines drawn. I’m open to criticisms and suggestions. I’m not a young woman with an immigration as versatile as I’d prefer.
The weapons need to go first without question. But I think that the power stuff might realistically be needed badly for us to put as much of a dent as possible into getting fossil fuels out of use on the grids. There are less problematic options that are around (Thorium is the one I have seen), and of course China is doing some major progress towards fusion which would be massively game changing. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t use renewable options like geothermal, wind, tidal, etc…
But I think the threat of MAD is that main thing that needs to be stopped. The threat of MAD is not effective if a armed nation refuses to take an L if they fuck around and find themselves losing land fast. Israel is currently the big threat for actually using a nuke as they would rather take everyone out as they find out that their military isn’t as good as they claim. They are starting wars on multiple fronts and are not a large (fake) nation. They are also ran by a very similar death cult of hawks that the US has had over various periods (so many mf-ers were wanting to use shit the moment a leftist party gained support anywhere).
Sadly I don’t know how we could actually remove all weapons. As all of the current holders would most certainly keep some hidden. And they would say that it was “needed” because “what if the others don’t actually do it???” headspace.
A brief glance through search results did show thorium as less problematic, but not without a significant amount of concern; oxidation being the most immediately notable. I’d prefer to look at other options and get busy with them. I’ll try to look more into it in the coming weeks at my leisure. Do you have any links on fusion (not YouTube, I’m sulking over their shenanigans, yes I’m being petulant)? I’m sure I should be terrified, but for some reason, this feels (yes, vibes ok?) more exciting, more promising-- but perhaps I’m over-romanticizing the potentiality and probably seriously minimizing the risks. I just don’t see anything about it in my usual media sources.
Israel is a problem, and their shenanigans at the behest of and in conjunction with my own nation (USA) has my intimate apparel in as many twists and knots as the fabric can accommodate. And I don’t know what can be done about them, without the United States getting on board, and we all see how that is going. And the USA is the only state known to have ever used the bomb, which imo, makes us the problem, because without us in the mix, Israel would have been solved shortly after the Six Days war, in my estimation. I’m rambling and talking in circles, please suffice it to say, I see no clear solution, if the rest of the Western world doesn’t draw a solid line with the USA and Israel and to the devil with the economics of it. Perhaps it could be suggested that military personnel and ambassadors have over-stayed their welcome. I can’t begin to imagine the ramifications.
BRICS is an interesting and brilliant move, afaict. Moody already downgraded US credit before. If creditors were to begin demanding more than just servicing payments and later doing $n amount of forgiveness in exchange for major policy changes, that would be interesting. The forgiveness amount would have to be significant enough to entice the US, without giving them back too much financial leverage, because facing facts, money is power, and that’s all governments care about in the end. I don’t imagine any of them care very much about us regular people, outside what emotional appeals they can use to induce us to continue being their pawns, and those held up as national heros may be knights and rooks on the global board, but will never be the kings and queens. I slept on this reply and woke up still cynical.
There may occasionally be great leaders who actually do care, but we see how they’ve been neutralized. I personally probably over-romanticize Che Guevara, and remember how he’s demonized for example, shooting caught deserters on the spot. In cold, harsh reality, passions aside, it was war and how are guerilla forces to “more humanely” deal with such issues? It was practical and expedient, so too for the Jacobins, but I digress significantly, but will add one of the bravest things I can remember uttered is to the effect of, “Shoot, it is only a man you kill.” I don’t know whether he felt fear in that moment, and it’s not the point. He didn’t beg like a dog for a wretched life. It’s easy to be dispassionate so far away in time and proximity, you know?
Of course they would. One country we absolutely know has nukes, and never admitted it. People were executed for saying so. And that may be the best argument for avoiding fission power and some international agency that is truly more inclusively global could be designed for inspection. I don’t have any idea. I’m pretty ignorant and spitballing, trying to imagine a reality outside the lines drawn. I’m open to criticisms and suggestions. I’m not a young woman with an immigration as versatile as I’d prefer.