Pages: 1

 

2007-04-16 07:42:10
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7208|Argentina
As the World Nuclear Association prepares to discuss how to meet the huge surge in demand for nuclear power, the BBC's Humphrey Hawksley wonders if the so-called "nuclear renaissance" could also prompt a complete re-examination of global nuclear policy.

As long as more countries opt for nuclear energy, there will be more conflicts and crises.
"The present system is a fraud, a few countries can't continue to tell the rest of us what to do", India's Foreign Minister.

What do you think? 
Will we have more crises in the future?
Should today's system change, allowing everyone to have nuclear energy?
Would it be fair to deny the benefits of nuclear energy to "suspicious countries"?
What requirements should a country meet in order to have nuclear energy?
2007-04-16 07:52:43
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6999|San Diego, CA, USA
> Should today's system change, allowing everyone to have nuclear energy?

No, especially with countries like Iran that will use it irresponsibly.  Fussion is the future in Nuclear technology, but it won't be ready for another 50 years at least.  The probelm with Fission is that its by-product can be used to make Nuclear bombs.


> Would it be fair to deny the benefits of nuclear energy to "suspicious countries"?

Yes.  However, I think those countries with Nuclear energy could provide power to their neighbors without sacraficing poliferation.

> What requirements should a country meet in order to have nuclear energy?

In my opinion NO additional countries, no matter how 'nice' they are, should be allowed to have nuclear energy - its too dangerous.
2007-04-16 08:26:32
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7000|EUtopia | Austria

Harmor wrote:

> What requirements should a country meet in order to have nuclear energy?

In my opinion NO additional countries, no matter how 'nice' they are, should be allowed to have nuclear energy - its too dangerous.
Wait, whom do you mean with additional countries?
2007-04-16 08:27:32
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7215|Dallas
Here, I can sum up how the rules should read in two words.

Not allowed.


Nuclear energy, even with all it's benifits, just creates problems.  People don't trust it, or someone's trying to use it to make a bomb, or someone is having a meltdown and contaminating half the world with nuclear radiation, etc etc. 

Just go with solar, wind and hydroelectric power.
2007-04-16 08:30:42
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6980|Global Command

Cougar wrote:

Here, I can sum up how the rules should read in two words.

Not allowed.


Nuclear energy, even with all it's benifits, just creates problems.  People don't trust it, or someone's trying to use it to make a bomb, or someone is having a meltdown and contaminating half the world with nuclear radiation, etc etc. 

Just go with solar, wind and hydroelectric power.
That will only work if George Bush succeeds in killing half 85% of the worlds people.
2007-04-16 08:32:11
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7000|EUtopia | Austria

ATG wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Here, I can sum up how the rules should read in two words.

Not allowed.


Nuclear energy, even with all it's benifits, just creates problems.  People don't trust it, or someone's trying to use it to make a bomb, or someone is having a meltdown and contaminating half the world with nuclear radiation, etc etc. 

Just go with solar, wind and hydroelectric power.
That will only work if George Bush succeeds in killing half 85% of the worlds people.
No, as he'd certainly not let those live who are against petroleum as fuel for power plants...

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard