Ted Re...People have too many fears when it comes to nuclear; plus, its becoming a real problem disposing of the radioactive waste.
What fears are you talking about, concerning the new style plants. Even the old plants, from the 60s never had a major accident which killed anyone,here, in the states, and now we have the benefit of 40 yrs of experience, and engineering progress. Besides,when you consider coal pollution kills a reported 10,000 people a yr, from pollution, there is no contest, that nuclear is safer. Then you throw in the greenhouse gas problems coal, oil and natural gas have, nuclear is a clear winner.
Add in the fear of terrorism and I think nuclear is a no show.
There are ways to control terrorism, as far as nuclear plants go. They can be built underground, if necessary, and the waste sent with the Natl. guard, if necessary, to a reprocessing plant, or storage facility. Once again, a small price to pay for the enormous benefits.
There are other alternatives. We need to pick two and focus our resources on them.
What other alternatives are ready for prime time at this moment? Conservation, and renewables can only get you so far. We should be working on all three. Coal gasification and fuel cells are limited in scope and in the future yet.
I am not talking defeatist; I am being realistic.
Insane is more like it. Here is what you said.
....................................................................................
I further believe that this dependency is what has gotten us to this point in Iraq. Dependencies always lead to trouble for both people and nations. And I believe our current position [in Iraq] is very untenable and very unwinnable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why don't you look up the word defeatist, and tell me how your view differs. We have already won the military combat part. It is the rebuilding that is now the problem. It may take different tactics, or more or less troops,more resolve than we want to expend, but unwinnable is ridiculous.
They do not favor us when we fight insurgents.
Really. And that is why the insurgents are now going after Iraqi civilian targets. Far more insurgents are being arrested or killed, than are wounding or killing our soldiers. In fact, at this time, I believe 576 soldiers have been killed in Iraq. When you consider we have 135,000 soldiers in Iraq, that is about 1/2 of 1 percent of the soldiers, in little less than 1 yr. In Antietem, in just one day 23,000 soldiers on both sides were killed. 25% of Lee's army was put out of commission. Yet, the civil war went on for another 2.5 yrs. The death rate for our soldiers in Iraq is 1/3 the normal death rate here in the states, for the average population, where approximately 1.3 percent of the people die each yr, from old age, murder, drugs, etc. Close to ten times the number die just from car accidents. Yet here you are, ready to throw in the towel. Ridiculous. That is not to say, those 576 lives don't have value. Of course they do. But If we attain our goals, it will be well worth the costs; because those lives must be balanced against the risks we are taking with our oil dependency and security and position in the world, if we don't.
Before the war, insurgency fighting was the greatest worry of our military leaders.
SO, our greatest worry is a far cry from unwinnable. New tactics, and new technologies will defeat them, just as suredly as tactics and technology defeated standing armies. It's just a matter of time. |
