"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein
As I read, the treaty actually is for Iran to 'dismantle' 98% of their nuclear facilities. Which is to help protect their citizens, and prevent any private nuclear weapon creations.... This way we don't have to have as many containments and watch over the individual's as closely ... which will give the U.S. some breathing room, not having to watch them all the time... and will give individuals in Iran a sense of lenience and, moreover freedom... How would you feel knowing there's 2 nuclear power plants within a mile of your home? Having these be dismantled will be safer for the citizens of iran, u.s. soldiers, and will make all the allies not be so 'trigger ready'. If they follow along with the treaty, then our allies will notice they are moving in a positive direction. However, if they break the treaty - the United Nations and our allies are right there to put soldiers back in and contain them.... --- I don't see why all the nuclear facilities aren't just shut down - and we follow suit with what they were doing in japan, korea, and texas with solar power fields. I don't see much benefit to keeping nuclear facilities ... they have to be cooled down so much to prevent explosions, they have to have highly precise and accurate equipment to properly achieve nuclear fusion, and they produce unnecessary emissions. I thought we're trying to prevent global warming? (Hence why bill gates and warren buffet donated a few billion towards it)
Nuclear power relies heavily on the environment that the facility is built in. Many places like Japan, Iran etc. just aren't build for nuclear reactors either because the area is too tectonically active or there just isn't enough regulation. Somewhere like Australia (and parts of America) however, I wouldn't see any problem with a nuclear reactor because there aren't any major fault lines to damage the equipment and the safety regulations are very strict. While its good that Iran is getting rid of many of its nuclear facilities, I don't think it should be used as an example of what the rest of the world should be doing in regards to their nuclear programs (in terms of civil power production).
Like with the nuclear disaster in Japan a few years back, the nuclear reactor exploded and caused hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate for their health. The nuclear reactors are DANGEROUS. Men were not meant to have this type of power. The ability to wipe out a country and kill millions of people at the push of a button is a power that no man should have, no matter how powerful they are. The reactors split the uranium atom, which leaves it highly radioactive. If the reactor starts to meltdown, the radioactivity will be spread far and wide, creating massive injuries for anybody who lives anywhere close to the reactor. This type of process is not made to happen in nature, and one day, (since people do not learn from past experiences) there will be a massive meltdown that wipes out a lot of people. Nuclear facilities should be disabled. Period.
The problem with claiming that "NUCLEAR POWER WILL KILL US !!!111" is that it ignores the fact that Fukushima and Chernobyl happened not because nuclear energy is dangerous and in itself unsafe, but because they happened due to human error. (Fukushima being a dumb place to build a reactor and Chernobyl being that the operators ignored protocol.) Also, if you eat a banana a day for an entire year, you'll have become more radioactive than if you lived near a nuclear power plant.
But what can we replace them with? Coal? You might say solar panels, and so would I, but the input-output ratio on nuclear reactors far exceeds solar energy, as well as the fact that solar panels don't work in a lot of the world because there is simply not enough sun exposure. In Canada we have CANDU reactors, which don't need refined uranium and in my opinion are a lot better than the US counterparts. Unless you want to dam rivers everywhere or suggest a better alternative I would recommend staying with nuclear power. Nuclear power is great if you can do it right and safely, but look at oil - a huge fuel in the modern economy. It can easily wipe populations of marine life out with one tanker spilling. The reactor in Japan was just poor planning where a major earthquake could cause such a major problem. I for one, support nuclear power as it is much cleaner and efficient than out cheapest alternative, coal. In America the government shouldn't tax solar or something as to promote investment in the damn things, because right now there is definately not enough alternate energy to replace fossil fuels. Also, at the push of a button we could destroy our world with conventional explosives, we have more than enough... PS: 20 grams of uranium = 400KG(880 pounds)of coal https://cna.ca/technology/energy/how-reactors-work/ And for safety - https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/safe/ And pollution - https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/clean/
Like others have said, Chernobyl was caused due to human error among others things, while the Fukushima reactor meltdown was because there was a massive earthquake followed by an unprecedented tsunami. Like what I said before, if you build a reactor in the right place, then the chance of a huge disaster is very low. The main question is, would you rather just say "We know climate change is an issue, but we don't want nuclear reactors so we won't do anything" or say "you know what, if we design and build a nuclear reactor properly so that we can at least reduce the number of coal power plants now, we'll reduce global warming and we can get rid of them once something better is available".
Exactly. We have had two major mistakes to learn from, and hopefully we can learn from them. There has been way more accidents shipping oil through the oceans then with nuclear reactors.
The problem with nuclear accidents is of course that when things go wrong, its a mistake we pay for a long time, but even the death tolls of nuclear power are less than even deaths related to HYDROPOWER. It's really not that bad, as long as we use it right.
I agree with you here, but why do we study history? This was one of the first things I learned in history class, is so that it does not repeat itself. Yes it is better and more efficient than other forms of energy, but when there is an issue, it shuts down hard and is hard to recover from, seen in the cancers still being discovered due to the Chernobyl incident. Yes there are accidents shipping oil. Those are catastrophic, yes. Nuclear reactor meltdowns, whether due to human error or not, still effect a lot of people. I agree with this. However, humans will be humans. We are bound to make mistakes. It is in our nature. Both of the incidents have been due to human error in some form or another. Chernobyl- Disregard of policy Fukushima- Lack of proper planning If we iron out all the kinks, which it seems we are still in the process of, nuclear power will be effective, and we should not have many problems in the future, but like oil, there are still problems. There is no perfect way to provide energy for millions of people, as we have seen in recent years. With many improvements coming and fields of science rapidly changing, it is being made safer. There will still be human error, and that is a given. The safety regulations are very good, as long as nobody disregards them, nuclear power should be very safe.
Yes, humans will be humans, and we will make mistakes. However, if we have an attitude where we don't take any risks, then we aren't going to get anywhere. We can't just not do what we did in the past, instead we should refine what we have done to try to iron out the kinks.
Obama: "Iran will not make nuclear weapons." I'm pretty sure Hitler said that he will not invade the USSR in WW2, and we all know how that turned out. I'm convinced that Iran will still make towards a nuclear weapon even after the nuke deal, Iran cannot be trusted. The people of Iran are so anti-American that the Iranian navy publicly attacked a wooden mock up of an American aircraft carrier, if that doesn't raise red flags then I don't know what else will. The Iranian navy only forgot one thing, in a real scenario, the aircraft carrier will fire back with missiles, guns, and aircraft and will send their puny navy to the depths of the Persian Gulf, where their navy belongs.
And America has never done the same thing? Like I said earlier, it is Iran's best interest to not make nuclear weapons after this deal. The people of Iran are only anti-american because America crippled their economy with sanctions. This agreement is going to reverse that and allow Iran to join the world economy, which is a good thing not just for them, but for America as well. And we all have to remember that this isn't just an agreement with America, it's an agreement between Iran and the worlds biggest powers (including Russia). Anti-American sentiment isn't going to cause then to backflip on this agreement.
If they did, they'd be breaking international law and would have every ally of America rolling into their country. And you're so anti-Iranian you fail to realise America have done the same thing to other countries before, and that America deserves the hate they get from Iran. Humans will be humans, and as a species we always learn from our mistakes. It's how we got to where we are now in the first place. The picture, the signature and the post makes him look like an overly-patriotic fool. What if I live in an area that's still being affected by the fallout the Chernobyl 'incident' released across Europe 30-something years ago? Will I turn into a ghoul if I eat more bananas? D:
I think it's a good thing that the US finally starts to take Iran a little more serious, one way or the other. I don't know the contents of the treaty of course, but at least this seems a lot more serious and civilized than trying to root a 'befriended nation' (Iraq) into waging war on the nation you don't like (Iran). However, I also think there is a little bit of hypocrisy involved as well. You see, there is a treaty on nuclear weapons called the Non-Proliferation treaty. It opened for signing in 1968 and its main goal is to allow countries access to nuclear technology while reducing the risk of that technology being used for warfare (weaponry) by making them promise that they'd use their gained knowledge for peaceful goals and not weapons. Guess what? Unlike the US (who are basically merely recognized as a nuclear power) Iran has actually signed this treaty. Of course they were also accused of having violated the terms of this treaty in early this century (2002 - 2004) because "experts" were convinced that they were working on a nuclear power program with the intend of producing weapons. Small sneer: the same kind of experts (from my point of view) who were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I've yet to see those surface to be honest. Although I have no reason (as in solid arguments) not to believe the accusations it seems plausible that Iran is actually trying to find other sources of energy. And lets not forget that Iran has been accused of being part of the "axis of evil" for years now. In my opinion that mostly sterns from the attack on the US embassy in Teheran around 1980. Here's the thing.... In Germany (one of my favorite countries) people started an energy savings project in a town, by making parts of that town fully self powered. It's been a while since I read this, I believe the town was called Heidelberg but I'm not 100% sure. One of the main idea was to re-use animal drops ("doo doo's") and actually use those to power a centralized heating system which extended throughout parts of the city in order to safe energy and distribute the heating. It was pretty revolutionary (to my understanding) at that time. Here's the interesting part: at one time Iran, out of all countries, had sent an official delegation to look and investigate those energy saving methods. So to be informed about the whole thing, they showed some pretty serious interest. Sure, this could have been a planned diversion. But considering their reputation I'm pretty convinced that no one would have expected this to get pictured widely on the news. Not even Iran, you may think a lot about their government but they're not stupid, at least I think so. My personal impression is that Iran, being an oil producing country, realizes like no other that oil will only last them so long and that they'll need to come up with alternatives before they run out. So with that in mind, back to the OP, I think it's a very good idea that the US finally drops their propaganda and hate speeches (personal impression) and instead starts approaching these countries a little more serious and in a more diplomatic manner. And to close... The following is strictly my personal opinion based on nothing more but impressions and observations from the past. No more, no less (I can pretty much back up most which I said up there with news articles): I think that in the end we may very well need countries such as Iran when it comes to current threats such as IS. And I know this may sound a bit peculiar considering that Iran's national religion is the Muslim religion and that they're also very strict about that (the Sharia (Muslim / religious law) is in power there). Thing is: Iraq was / is also a Muslim religious country and under the reign of Saddam Hussein none of those IS uprises would have been tolerated nor possible. You may not like what those countries stand for, you may even be frightened by their believes and morales (I know I am) but if you meet them with only hostility and mistrust from the very get go then you'll only give them more reasons to dislike and hate you. I'm not saying we should blindly trust countries such as Iran, nooo way. But I do think its a good idea to at least take them serious without all the "axis of evil" propaganda B.S. (disclaimer: B.S. stands for "best seller" of course ).
When you wrote this, what did you picture as the means to 'contain them'. Are you saying use military force (e.g. kill people) to enforce this?
IMO, once the 'big guys' (So the US, UK, France, Russia, a few others who are nuclear-capable) are all on fairly equal terms with each other and a nuclear attack won't happen, we should all disarm. Nobody deserves the power take thousands, even millions with the bigger nukes, of lives in a few moments. On a smaller scale, I also think nobody should be doing drone strikes (the rules of war, which the US doesn't follow, prohibit things like this being used) The UN have peacekeeping forces to stop people doing stupid stuff, and soldiers in these situations are only allowed to kill civilians in self-defence, pretty much. I'd also want the UK left out of it - when Tony Blair announced we were going to war with Iraq, he was met with opposition that the government didn't listen to, and as of now we've been involved in Afghanistan, Syria, and are now fighting against ISIS - again, hardly anybody wants us to be in the Middle East. I hope our government learns that we want to be neutral in stuff like this.
