Yes, and that dates from the era when everyone thought that a "nuclear winter" (from an exchange of nuclear bombs between the US and USSR) was a more immediate risk than a long slow problem of climate change. That's what the French government carried out a terrorist attack against Greenpeace in New Zealand for: the Rainbow Warrior was protesting against French nuclear weapons testing.

Has everyone forgotten that the current crisis kicked off over the question of exactly how much uranium of what purity Iran is allowed to have? Do people really think that every country in the world should have multiple nuclear reactors?

▲

L_226 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do people really think that uranium consuming reactors that produce plutonium are the only type of nuclear reactors?

▲

pjc50 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Of the operating set of reactors today, what percentage are those vs., say, Thorium?

▲

L_226 15 hours ago | parent [-]

yes, but that is not the point. The point is that countries pursued uranium reactors as a priority to produce plutonium for weapons. It did not / does not have to be this way, and the conflation of all nuclear reactors as either being at risk of meltdown or linked to nuclear weapons has resulted in the current situation. The green movement did us all a disservice by choosing not to clarify the difference, and here we are in 2026 still burning coal, which continues to produce more radioactive waste than all the nuclear reactors ever built - and released directly into the environment!

	▲	leonidasrup 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are many claims that Thorium fuel cycle is nuclear proliferation safe, it is safer but not perfectly safe. Uranium-233 bread during the Thorium fuel cycle can used to construct nuclear weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material "A declassified 1966 memo from the US nuclear program stated that uranium-233 has been shown to be highly satisfactory as a weapons material, though it was only superior to plutonium in rare circumstances." Many nuclear energy opponents require absolute nuclear proliferation safety.

▲

GorbachevyChase 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was under the impression that Carl Sagan basically made up the concept of nuclear winter because of his political alignment.

And, yes, every country should have nuclear power and nuclear deterrence. Please contrast how the US negotiated with North Korea and Libya. Or what happened to Ukraine after they denuclearized. You might be impressed at how palatable peace becomes when leadership has to consider their personal safety and not just cynical economic and political calculus in their use of force.

▲

noosphr 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes.