Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#281

Post by haswell »

Fidelix wrote: post #245
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep - Trump's actions are going to weaken the US's position on the world stage by pushing everyone else to provide for themselves what they had previously got from the US (security, advanced compute, etc). Trump appears to only think in short term transactional way - no long term strategy.

> pushing everyone else to provide for themselves what they had previously got from the US Did you write this, review it, then post it as if that's a bad thing? wow edit: grammar

Yes, potentially a very bad thing if it accelerates isolationist policies and further erodes US/world relations.

The sentiment I’ve seen increasingly that goes something like “but they’re freeloading” completely misses the nuance of decades of foreign policy and why the interdependence between allies and enemies alike has maintained relative peace.

If you’re worried about world wars, you should worry about the US undermining itself.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#282

Post by dahart »

snailmailstare wrote: post #118
snowwrestler wrote: post #99

Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…

Apologies to Mr Kurzweil, but I think the reality on the ground is that the cost of research into keeping an aging population alive is a raised risk of Armageddon. The political tendencies in older age demographics is bad, the politicians surviving so many decades after a first to leadership position is bad, the billionaires living long enough to find whacky ideas or even directly manipulate politics instead of gifti…

It has always been true throughout history in every country that political engagement skews heavily toward the old and the rich. I don’t know how to fix it, but thankfully Kurzweil is a hack and was wrong about most things and deserves no apologies; life expectancy might have increased a little since 2001 but human longevity isn’t really budging at all, so there is very little increased risk of a geriatric Armageddon.

I have special beef with Kurzweil’s life expectancy BS because he misrepresents facts in his essays. His famous “Law of Accelerating Returns” essay has an incredible number of misleading plots and conflated arguments, but the life expectancy graph at the bottom is a pure lie, and Kurzweil knows it. It conflates life expectancy with longevity, and it left out data from before 1840 and from between 1940 and 2000 that he already had. If you include that known data and explain what longevity is, it ruins his plot and his argument, but he wanted to pretend there’s a trend that doesn’t exist so he intentionally left it out. https://www.writingsbyraykurzweil.com/the-law-of-acceleratin...

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#283

Post by flanked-evergl »

pzo wrote: post #278
flanked-evergl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Budapest Memorandum had no security guarantees. > Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such…

Thats kind of lawyer speak, not much different when insurance company don't wanna cover you because of some tiny font paragraph or different interpretation in the contract. USA could before this war started (because they publicly on camera warned about invasion days before) tell Putin that in case of invasion they believe they cannot fullfill contract commitment so in this situation the contract would be void and the…

There is no part of the agreement that US didn't uphold. That is not lawyer speak, that is reality. If you think I am wrong cite the part they are not upholding.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#284

Post by ta20240528 »

pjc50 wrote: post #168
trhway wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is lucky that Zelensky is the President of Ukraine and not somebody like me - given that Ukraine does have plutonium from its power plants, i'd be already making the warheads (technological difficulties? they were solved 80 years ago and with the modern tech the 3 years is more than enough to produce something working). That is also notable in the context of Trump yelling at Zelensky that Zelensky is suppos…

It's very, very expensive and (until last week) it was critical to keep the US on side, which would be jeopardized by breaking the nonproliferation treaty. The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.

That's why you need 5 - 6 bombs - 1 to nuke Moscow, the rest to nuke Berlin, Paris, London, Tel Aviv if they don't help you out before it gets to this.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#285

Post by weberer »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #179
erezsh wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The green energy lobby has everything to gain, and it's been working extra to make it a reality. For example, Greenpeace has been fighting nuclear power all over the world.

The anti nuclear lobby was funded by the KGB.

Also the petroleum industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#286

Post by otherme123 »

bilekas wrote: post #13

Nuclear isn’t something to be afraid of, in fact it’s a natural progression. It’s quite safe when done right, it’s cheap, there is the disposal question but in relation to anything else it’s pretty manageable. If nuclear was a bigger resource we might even see better research into better methods of disposal.

How much nuclear? The nuclear lobby "recommends" 10-15% of the mix, but when a country has that (Spain 20%) they keep asking for more.

Also... nuclear cheap? Come on, it's the most expensive energy source of the mix, except maybe peak gas.

Nuclear is big in France, has always been big and favoured. Still no "better research" and no magic disposal, after decades of investment. We are asked for religious levels of faith but they don't deliver.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#287

Post by flanked-evergl »

Salgat wrote: post #249
flanked-evergl wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please cite the discretionary parts of the agreement that US is not upholding or will stop upholding.

The agreement has no explicit terms for whether or not nations must enforce it, that's left up to the nations to decide on their own. It was intentionally written this way, otherwise Russia would have never agreed to it.

What discretionary action suggested by the memo does the US not uphold. All I am asking for is specifics here.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#288

Post by account42 »

legulere wrote: post #144
lelag wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia. Not true at all. Russia is producing 5% of the world Uranium, and they probably use quite a lot of that domestically given they produce 8% of all nuclear power in the world with their own plant. Kazakhstan + Uzbekistan is 50% of the word production. Canada is second and will be happy to start selling to the EU. Namibia and Australia both produce twice as much as Ru…

That’s raw uranium ore. Uranium undergoes several refinement steps. In each Russia has an enormous market share.

So? Refinement doesn't have a dependency on a particular location. This is like saying nuclear energy in Germany is dependent on France and other countries. Currently it is but only because we choose to not do it locally - it doesn't have to be this way.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#289

Post by [deleted] »

morkalork wrote: post #180
snowwrestler wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. support of Ukraine fulfills a commitment we signed, and which Russia broke. The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?

Trump is slapping 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico because the USMCA agreement "is a scam" and he was the one to negotiate and sign it. After ripping up NAFTA. The USA's word is worthless now.

[deleted]

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#290

Post by mpweiher »

pfdietz wrote: post #254
mpweiher wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The US nuclear umbrella was not charity, contrary what some in the US appear to believe. It was and is a pure power play. Another little tidbit that is not generally well-known is that the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) actually requires the current nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear weapons...eventually.

You're going to see just how much of an act of charity it was when it's withdrawn.

Charity ≠ one side of a quid-pro-quo was worthless.

The US gave/gives something that is fairly easy for it to provide, and valuable to the other side.

In return the US receives something that is of great value to it and fairly easy for the other side to provide (as long as the US keeps its side of the bargain).

If US security guarantees turn out to be worthless, you will see a lot more nuclear powers as well as a drastic increase in conventional capabilities.

The US will then be one power among many, rather than a mostly unchallenged superpower.

Post reply on HN