Do you think that the development of nuclear devices has left us better or worse off?

[Ttuck]

Do you think that by developing nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, we are better off today than we would've been without them? On one hand, dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki pushed the Japanese into surrendering. On the other - the Russians obtaining and developing nuclear weapons lead to the cold war. Nuclear power plants have offered cheap - mostly safe electricity. But they also are a source of nuclear waste - something we haven't found a good way to get rid of aside from burying it. We face a threat of terrorists obtaining or building their own nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. But then we've got nuclear powered naval vessels - allowing ships far greater range and no need to regularly come in to port to refuel.

What do you guys think?

Read More

 

[Mark W.]

What do you guys think?

You should troll somewhere else is what I think.

 

[Ttuck]

You should troll somewhere else is what I think.

How would i be trolling when posing a legitimate question.

 

[PaulZ]

The point is: In spite of `50 years of wailing and gnashing of teeth, mankind has not incinerated itself. Pretty good control eh?

 

[Ttuck]

The point is: In spite of `50 years of wailing and gnashing of teeth, mankind has not incinerated itself. Pretty good control eh?

i wouldn't go so far to say pretty good control.

Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.[5] Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57% (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[5] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961)


Not to mention all the nuclear bombs we have dropped on our own soil that have irradiated vast swaths of our own country. in the united states alone we have detonated over 1000 nuclear devices. over 900 of those in our own country.

If you havnt seen the documentary atomic cafe i suggest you watch it. It is a very informative and has tons of video of how we sent our own men into nuclear fallout zones right after explosions. There are countless people that have been affected due to radiation exposure.

 

[Ttuck]

here is also a map of all the areas in the united states that have been affected by nuclear fallout. about 60% of the us.

File:US fallout exposure.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mark W.]

yep see a man on a trolling mission

 

[Ttuck]

yep see a man on a trolling mission

Seriously... you're the one trolling on my thread adding nothing to the original topic. So if your not going to add anything informative to the topic don't post.

 

[Mohawk13]

I'll bite....More people have been killed in the last 68 Years from auto accidents than By Nukes. Not saying they are safer than cars, But facts is Facts. Japs Got what they deserved..Period. Ruskis too timid to pull the trigger. Arab Nations with Nukes are the wild card. Yeah, the waste is hazardous, need to figure a way to recycle it or dispose of it in a better manner...Other than that, not much to discuss....Next...

 

[Ttuck]

I'll bite....More people have been killed in the last 68 Years from auto accidents than By Nukes. Not saying they are safer than cars, But facts is Facts. Japs Got what they deserved..Period. Ruskis too timid to pull the trigger. Arab Nations with Nukes are the wild card. Yeah, the waste is hazardous, need to figure a way to recycle it or dispose of it in a better manner...Other than that, not much to discuss....Next...

Awesome! i appreciate your opinion! thanks for your post.

 

[jib]

There is to much BS in politics that prevents us from having clean affordable energy.
I'm not saying we should stick with oil and coal, but for now it makes sense given the current economic climate, all the other options are unsafe or to expensive.
Keep in mind this Country is on the brink of economic collapse and if you are concerned about the environment you better hope it doesn't happen.
I recall vast supplies of solid methane found on the ocean floor, but for the fear of CO2 they did not explore.

 

[Redcap]

Seriously... you're the one trolling on my thread adding nothing to the original topic. So if your not going to add anything informative to the topic don't post.

Kiddo, what you are doing is painfully obvious.

 

[PaulZ]

I was talking about the Cold War. I am out, no use conversing with a zealot, and a zealot who uses the word "awesome" at that.

i wouldn't go so far to say pretty good control.

Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.[5] Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57% (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[5] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961)


Not to mention all the nuclear bombs we have dropped on our own soil that have irradiated vast swaths of our own country. in the united states alone we have detonated over 1000 nuclear devices. over 900 of those in our own country.

If you havnt seen the documentary atomic cafe i suggest you watch it. It is a very informative and has tons of video of how we sent our own men into nuclear fallout zones right after explosions. There are countless people that have been affected due to radiation exposure.

 

[Mohawk13]

Sometimes the Zoo Keeper Has to Entertain The Monkeys...and Then Lock Them Back Up...

 

[Trlsmn]

Yes we are better off, nuclear technology/science like it or not is part of how the universe works, science and the quest to learn how the universe works is inevitable.

Its like asking are we better off with automobiles, if your child was run over and killed by a car would you question getting rid of automobiles? Auto accidents have killed way more than nuclear technology.

 

[AlphaCoyote]

I don't know why there is so much hostility and so many accusations of trolling here. The guy is asking a legitimate question and taking the pulse of the forum members on something serious. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, but show a little respect even if you feel grumpy.

Yes, on balance I think both nuclear weapons and nuclear power have been net positives.

Nuclear weapons saved more lives in WWII than they cost, and the fact that they saved American lives is a relevant fact to me. During the cold war, they probably kept us from going to war with the Soviet Union. Deterrence worked. And in the end, the Soviets couldn't keep up with us both militarily on the nuclear front and economically, so their bankrupt system failed, freeing millions who were enslaved in the pre-nuke, post WWII era. Too soon to tell if the tiger we've unleashed will bite us, but so far, a net positive for nukes.

For nuclear power, it's not even close in my view. Spent fuel is an issue, but it hasn't created an environmental hazard yet, unlike the millions of tons of other fuels that would have been used to generate the same power.

 

[slingshot1943]

Nuclear waste is reprocessed now. There is very little to dispose of.

 

[newtoynwfa]

26 years in the submarine force, including two tours on trident submarines - yes it worked, we're all still alive and no one pushed the proverbial buttons!! Is it worth it? To me, anyday that you wake up alive is better off than those who do not.

 

[Botte Hork]

I kind of like having smoke detectors in my home and the availability of some medical imaging technologies as well as some medical treatments, which require nuclear technology. Especially the smoke detectors would fit most common "nuclear device" descriptions.

 

[Joe Link]

Even if you guys feel someone is trolling, I'd rather you give him the benefit of the doubt

Yes, I believe we are better off with nuclear technology.