Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance • Hacker News Board

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#291

Post by snailmailstare » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

xybercow wrote: post #234

FrancisMoodie wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, so you're claiming that GDP data and such is not correct? Any source on that? Because I see multiple sources reporting that in 2023 the GDP of Russia was $2,009,959M and that of Italy was $2,300,941M, although Italy has a higher debt %. Which would confirm the original posters claim considering Italy is a much, much smaller country than Russia. What I find a common trope is people claiming facts are incorrect wi…

At the start of Feb 2025 USD was 100 RUB, a few days ago it was 85 RUB. Does this mean their nominal GDP grew by 15% in one month? In some cases it's fine to use Nominal GDP while in other cases, you should use GDP PPP instead. When you look at PPP figures, Russia's economy is on par with Germany or Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) Anders Puck Nielsen just published an interesting v…

> Does this mean their nominal GDP grew by 15% in one month?

If they could keep selling in rubles without a fall in exports or prices then the month's contribution to GDP was 15% higher than the previous one. That doesn't seem very confusing.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#292

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #275

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MAD argument still applies Ukraine isn’t in and probably never will be in a position to credibly threaten a MAD second strike to Russia. From number of warheads to strategic depth, it’s not a realistic option. Instead it would seek to credibly threaten limited nuclear war using tactical nukes. This would only make sense with European support. And at that point, it almost makes more sense for Europe to directly ente…

> credibly threaten limited nuclear war Both sides have to agree to the "limited" part for it to stay limited. Mind you, threats of nuclear escalation are routine from Russia.

> both sides have to agree to the "limited" part for it to stay limited

It’s more that each side has to moderate itself. That’s true if both have nukes or just one. And it’s much easier to moderate oneself when it’s in one’s own interest, e.g. to avoid getting nuked.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#293

Post by flanked-evergl » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

ta20240528 wrote: post #264

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…

Oh yes, so many subtleties. From now on anything short of "Can I press the red button myself?" will not cut the mustard.

Really odd that everyone is mad that the US is supposedly breaking an agreement that nobody can actually point to.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#294

Post by ta20240528 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

flanked-evergl wrote: post #293

ta20240528 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes, so many subtleties. From now on anything short of "Can I press the red button myself?" will not cut the mustard.

Really odd that everyone is mad that the US is supposedly breaking an agreement that nobody can actually point to.

I never said they are breaking the word of any agreement. I just told you what they are are all thinking. And there is nothing you can do to stop it now.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#295

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #257

mpweiher wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if it is [technically] correct, then it's obviously not "propaganda", but simply the truth. Now you obviously can argue that there should be other considerations, but that is your argument and interpretation, not the obvious truth that the actual data needs to be judged against.

Just to be pedantic, propaganda doesn't have to be false.

"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views".

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#296

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:13 PM UTC

aw4y wrote: post #22

The problem with nuclear in Italy is just one: how many time have you read about a public bridge fallen because of bad construction? Same for roads, houses and so on. Most of the time the reason is the company building those, trying to spend less in materials and avoiding regulations - something unfortunately not so unusual in Italy. So imagine what could happen with a nuclear plant... (nuclear is safe, building in I…

[deleted]

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#297

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:13 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#298

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:14 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #277

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death toll from that incident was one (1). You can see online, nuclear power is actually one of the safest methods of energy generation, behind solar and ahead of wind, because sometimes dudes fall from the tops of the windmills. Could you start looking at the second-order effects of the meltdown to get a higher death toll? Probably, but you could probably also look at all of the pollutants generated by solar pan…

Death toll so far . Projections of cancer deaths from Fukushima go up into the hundreds.

That's not true.

The WHO says there will be no detectable health effects.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#299

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:18 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #273

Ekaros wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better and more modern designs with sensible passive features and so on will solve a lot of the problems compared to these ancient plants.

These more modern designs don't solve the primary problem of nuclear, which is cost.

That is not really the case.

Nuclear power is extremely cost effective, even with the current plants.

The individual plants are currently expensive, because they are large and produce huge amounts of power. Since that means you only have a fairly small number of plants, that means the risk is higher than preferable.

However, even with existing designs, building a common design multiple times and overlapping the build times brings down risk, build-time and costs tremendously.

The German Konvois were built for DM 5.8 billion in less than 6 years, and we were just getting started.

China is currently building their version of the passively safe Westinghouse AP-1000, the CAP-1400, in 5 years for $ 3.5 billion.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#300

Post by gpderetta » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:19 PM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #255

gpderetta wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you effectively have nuclear weapons without a civilian nuclear power infra?

Depends on what you mean by "effectively". Yes, you can absolutely have nuclear weapons without nuclear power infrastructure, North Korea and Israel both have nuclear weapons, but no nuclear power programs. Having a civilian program makes things a little easier, or at least easier to hide. Italy does have a tiny uranium reserve, which it never mined, but I'd guess that they'd need to buy the uranium they'd need for a…

I don't know how effective are NK nuclear weapons, but Israel would definitely count. But according to WP[1], Israel has "research reactors" which might or might not have military use.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Israel