| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Xanatos
I post too much
 Reputation: 18
Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 2559
Location: US
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: [Debate] Nuclear Proliferation |
 |
|
So you don't say anything stupid, a nice topic paragraph.
| Wikipedia wrote: |
Nuclear proliferation is a term now used to describe the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations which are not recognized as "nuclear weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, the governments of which fear that more countries with nuclear weapons may increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (up to and including the so-called "countervalue" targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons), de-stabilize international or regional relations, or infringe upon the national sovereignty of states.
Three nations, none of which signed or ratified the NPT, have acquired, or are presumed to have acquired, nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and Israel. Critics of the NPT and nuclear weapon States cite this when they charge that the NPT-system is discriminatory. |
I say proliferation is good, as it provides the most reasonable solution to global warming via nuclear power-plants. 15% of the world's electricity is nuclear, from only 439 plants. At this rate, only 2927 plants will be needed to power the world, assuming they don't become even more efficient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sponge
I'm a spammer
 Reputation: 1
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 6009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First off, nuclear proliferation is not spreading information about nuclear energy in use for energy, nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear information in use as a weapon. So in essence, nuclear proliferation is bad.
Now, on to my second point. Uranium is not a renewable resource. Uranium enrichment, which is needed to create the fuel to power reactors, is not 100% conversion. Some amount of uranium is lost. Also the amount of radioactive waste all of these reactors would make is enormous. There will be no way to despose of it. Right now we put the waste in the ground. With that many reactors there will be no more areas to dump our nuclear waste. The radioactive decay time is extremely long, which means that waste is staying there for 1000's of years.
_________________
Last edited by sponge on Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Localhost
I post too much
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 3402
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^ To your first point, that is what i thought it meant from reading that short little clip-it.
I think it would be a bad idea to share nuclear weapons with other countries... because it could promote a nuclear holocaust.
Also @ the nuclear reactors stuff... We dont want another Chernobyl now do we?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blank
I post too much
 Reputation: 1
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 3044
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sponge wrote: | First off, nuclear proliferation is not spreading information about nuclear energy in use for energy, nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear information in use as a weapon. So in essence, nuclear proliferation is bad.
Now, on to my second point. Uranium is not a renewable resource. Also the amount of radioactive waste all of these reactors would make is enormous. There will be no way to despose of it. Right now we put the waste in the ground. With that many reactors there will be no more areas to dump our nuclear waste. The radioactive decay time is extremely long, which means that waste is staying there for 1000's of years. |
Uranium is not renewable, but it contains an abundance of energy. So much so that no plant can harvest all of it before shit begins to go down.
Most plants now place the underused uranium in large tankers and throw them into man-made lakes nearby to cool. In this way, they can harvest the uranium and make more of what is left. I need to check my sources. This is stuff I got from a project I did about a year ago.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sponge
I'm a spammer
Reputation: 1
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 6009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's completely stupid. They DO NOT put waste into lakes.
Also, uranium does deplete itself until it is no longer good enough to sustain fission. They can take some of the waste and reprocess it once again, but only fractions of what was useful before are left.
A spent fuel pool is far different from a lake. Also, the fuel is not reused after it is being kept in a spent fuel pool.
Not only this but nuclear reactors are not invincible, should one overheat if we build thousands more increasing the chance of an accident, it would be a disaster. Global winds spread radiation fast.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sathanas069
Grandmaster Cheater
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 560
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I disagree with nuclear power meant for weapons but I agree with the use of it to power electricity. The only thing that we need is a place where we could securely place the disposed/waste of the reactors, my country right now is facing hardship because the people rejected the use of nuclear reactor to power our country, and I say that we made a big mistake for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blank
I post too much
Reputation: 1
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 3044
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sponge wrote: | That's completely stupid. They DO NOT put waste into lakes.
Also, uranium does deplete itself until it is no longer good enough to sustain fission. They can take some of the waste and reprocess it once again, but only fractions of what was useful before are left.
A spent fuel pool is far different from a lake. Also, the fuel is not reused after it is being kept in a spent fuel pool.
Not only this but nuclear reactors are not invincible, should one overheat if we build thousands more increasing the chance of an accident, it would be a disaster. Global winds spread radiation fast. |
Bold: k.
Ic. Thanks for the clarification, then.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoffyJ
Expert Cheater
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
doesn't really matter if everybody has nukes... unless some one wants to destroy the whole planet (including themselves) they wont launch them. the time it takes one missles to get there any amny more will be launched
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sponge
I'm a spammer
Reputation: 1
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 6009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JoffyJ wrote: | | doesn't really matter if everybody has nukes... unless some one wants to destroy the whole planet (including themselves) they wont launch them. the time it takes one missles to get there any amny more will be launched |
you make no sense. at all. Think about the human psyche.
Also interested on what the OP has to say... seeing how he completely butchered his own argument he brought up.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xanatos
I post too much
Reputation: 18
Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 2559
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sponge wrote: | | JoffyJ wrote: | | doesn't really matter if everybody has nukes... unless some one wants to destroy the whole planet (including themselves) they wont launch them. the time it takes one missles to get there any amny more will be launched |
you make no sense. at all. Think about the human psyche.
Also interested on what the OP has to say... seeing how he completely butchered his own argument he brought up. |
Honestly, I took this standpoint to raise controversy, so they would be moar debates, which failed D: b.c rs is dead etc etc
You win =3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haseo123
Newbie cheater
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| come on people nuke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
