Actually, since it was you who started the thread, it is you who is being hypocritical.
Israel is the only state in the region with undeclared Nukes.
Israel routinely threatens and attacks it's neighbors or assists in destabilizing neighboring countries (Syria?). Even kidnapping people from foreign countries, and carries out spying on it's only friend (America).
So I send your point back at you. Why create a post about a Jew hating Muslim, when Israel is a country of majority right-wing pro-war anti-muslim Jews, declaring war on neighboring countries and threatening with actual Nuclear weapons (instead of non-existant ones, since Iran has NONE).

@A10anis
ill answer that question.
neither.

your premise implies a moral "goodness" to one side while the other is "more" evil.
so you leave a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils.
yet both are evil.

how is it that when "they" perform violent acts of aggression it is "terrorism" but when "we" do the very same thing it is for the moral good.that somehow "our" violence is more righteous and justified.
see:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

this is a classic hegelian dialectic=problem-reaction-solution

the choice of "lesser of two evils" totally ignores the first part.
the problem.
and the simple fact is:WE are the problem.
WE created the problem.
THEY react to the problem.
and then WE offer the solution.
in the form of violence.

i am not,by my commentary,dismissing the very actual and horrific truths of violence perpetrated by terrorists.

my point is simply:if you are going to look at a situation honestly you have to look at the board with open eyes.

let me put it in metaphorical terms:
which would you rather be eaten by?
a great white shark?
or a hammerhead?
neither...because BOTH are sharks.

i do totally agree with you in regards to pakistan.
they have been playing both sides for quite some time now,and lets not forget..they have nuclear weapons.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Cruel Bombs, nuclear weapons, tests, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Bikini, Feynman, vsauce' to 'Cruel Bombs, nuclear weapons, tests, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Bikini, Feynman, vsauce, ww2' - edited by xxovercastxx

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

Reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium? Then where is weapons grade plutonium made? I think you'll find that it's made in exactly the same reactors as there is no real distinction between a reactor used for power generation and weapons generation other than in name.

"Uranium ore contains only about 0.7% of the fissile isotope U235. In order to be suitable for use as a nuclear fuel for generating electricity it must be processed (by separation) to contain about 3% of U235 (this form is called Low Enriched Uranium - LEU). Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to 90% of U235 (Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU), which can be done using the same enrichment equipment. There are about 38 working enrichment facilities in 16 countries"
http://www.cnduk.org/get-involved/parliamentary/item/579-the-links-between-nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons

The point is that continuation of current tech makes it a lot more economical to produce weapons tech, whether that be weapons grade plutonium or depleted uranium (DU). Reactors can cost upwards of ten billion dollars to build, why would a weapons manufacturer want to pay for one of those out of their own pocket when they can have the taxpayer's pay for nuclear power plants that can produce what they need?

"Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power"
- Dr. Amory Lovins (from NEIS)

In terms of renewables:, the 'new' renewables only account for about 3% of total energy use, so if that's what he meant then he's not far off. Stats from IEA, however, state that wind has had an average growth rate of 25% over the past five years, while solar has averaged an annual growth rate of over 50% in the same period. So their impact is increasing fairly rapidly. So I'm not sure why he's so pessimistic about them when the IEA is not.

Have environmental groups specifically spoken out against the type of nuclear reactors he is talking about? Which ones?

I think that you will find reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium, rather, they produce a grade of plutonium known as reactor grade. Weapons grade plutonium is upwards of 95% Pu239. Reactor grade plutonium is what is known as weapons usable, not weapons ready. This is because of the high contamination factor of Pu240, Pu241, and Pu242. These heavier breads of Pu have both high spontaneous fission rates (bad for your fission weapon), and considerable heat, enough so to make weapons fabrication a problem (is it bad when your closed weapons device needs ventilation to not melt itself). While these problems are addressable in advanced weapons platforms, outside of well established nuclear weapons programs, making weapons from them is very challenging.

The main trouble, however, I think is economics, and nuclear is forced to internalize many of their impacts where as other solutions, mainly fossil fuels, do not. That is a pretty key competitive disadvantage.

Also note that electricity is only a fraction of total power, total power includes many non-electrical uses, most notably motor vehicles via liquid fuels. When you look at solar in this light, it represents a sub-fraction of a percent. So 5% of annual solar electrical generation is only a small part of a larger energy picture, and picture which also needs to be weighted against the rest of the world for which solar provides very little power. This isn't an attack on solar, it is a bringing to light of how vast the gulf is to address climate issues with any one technology.

So I think you will find that he isn't off by orders of magnitude, rather, he was being pretty generous to the total amount of energy produced by solar and wind world wide, and climate issues and emissions are world issues.

Key World Energy STATISTICS IEA:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

(I trust the IEA's numbers)

But I share the sentiment that we need to reduce coal and gas to address climate concerns. The fact that German emissions have risen for 2 years in a row is troubling to say the least. I consider France and Sweden to be better models, lower CO2 per capita and electrical prices in both cases compared to Germany, and both heavy nuclear users...with Sweden using a fair deal more hydro power than France. Nuclear and hydro are the proven heavy lifters in the area of CO2 reductions, which is why I think his criticism of environmental groups in addressing climate issues is justified as they generally oppose both.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2012 IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/12-44581_ccnp2012_web.pdf

A disturbing idea for sure.

I know it's just a very visual illustration of how history might not change for the better if key elements are changed, but just to expand on his little thought experiment...

They wouldn't have had access to the neccessary raw material, would they? Pretty much every sort of metal alloy was in short supply even during the late '30s. The occupation of Narvik brought some relief, but still, a nuclear weapons program requires some pretty exotic material that you can't get at Tesco.

Interesting video.

There is another side effect of actually using nuclear weapons on Japan. People got to see their effects, and that has since made them politically unpopular (rightly so).

Without that horrific demonstration, people, and consequently governments, might not have been so averse to deploying nuclear weapons since.

"Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter."
Well said, just remember to cut both ways on that. The fact America has plenty to be ashamed of and apologize for doesn't mean it's fair game to ignore both the good that America has done, and more importantly, it doesn't abrogate the responsibility of all other nations and dicatators for their own crimes.

"You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades."

Name a muslim nation that did NOT have spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11. Yes, very few governments praised or failed to condemn the attacks, but even in states deemed American 'friendly' like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan there were people dancing in the streets and handing out candies for the kids. don't underestimate the support there is for groups with Al Qaida's ideals. Saudi Arabian 'charities' have been funnelling billions of dollars every year into northern Pakistan ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That money is used almost exclusively for the construction of male only madrassahs. Not the good kind that teach reading and arthimetic on the side either. They are the bad ones that are there for brainwashing and training up jihadists for a war they are currently waging against the moderate muslims in Pakistan.

"Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda."
You are wrong. You need to understand that America is NOT their real target or goal. The jihad is within middle eastern nations and is currently an entirely domestic war. The only care for America is that it either not get involved, or only be involved in ways that benefit them. The war in Afghanistan and drone attacks may have helped gain them some recruits, it may continue to help for years even. It also lost them their years of support and connections with senior Pakistani leadership. They have come from a place where they had close friends and strong relationships with Pakistan's ISI and military, to a place today where they are nominally speaking public enemy number one. We aren't out of the woods yet there, but I think you miss the reason all of this has been centering near and within Pakistan's borders. Everyone always talks about the uneasy nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. From the jihadists stance though, they had a devotedly Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, paranoid about it's nemesis, and were the leadership was heavily connected, infiltrated and indebted to jihadists or jihad friendly people. The jihadists desperately wanted to push the Pakistan-India conflict over the edge and those designs have been set back decades now.

When the US first follows up on Treaties that it makes with North Korea than maybe I'll give them credit enough that they can use to spy on me and others. The facts of the disputes between North Korea and the US are when the US gets more conciliatory they get more conciliatory, when we get more aggressive, they get more aggressive.

You can read it everywhere they'll write something about how North Korea is breaking it's treaties and defying the world, read down the page a bit and it'll tell you how the US first broke said treaty and allows countries to defy the world on Nuclear weapons constantly.

They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when they work so hard to destroy the world daily!

I can't believe those were legal. None of those people were in "Imminent Danger" unless these two bombers somehow had a nuclear weapon capable of destroying the entire town/county/state.

Where do you draw the line?

Israel acts like an asshole, yes, but it doesn't really fit... any of those words. It likely has nuclear weapons, yes. But it almost certainly has fewer than Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan...

F REA K S H o W

Ok can we trust these factoids?

Letter mountain: Who commisioned it?
Ballooned form what weight after his mom died? Was he skinny then suddenly fat or on his way already? He's eating himself into an early grave who cares, fuck you.

Who cares when he was born or why he is a head of state? A state of what? Children with nuclear weapons? Who cares, fuck you.
Daddy paid his way into Switzerschool, free case-study for Jungian opportunists. All the better to fuck him with, SCORE 1 for the demise of Pok Choi. Maye he can get in the douchebag protection program.

Who hasn't been found with a bondage-porn magazine during an exam?: Non-information.

Scared of barbers and calling his new self-crop the, "Ambition?" Uh, paranioia, need more cocaine and advisers, maybe that chemist with the syringe of happy-splooge...

SO he used to be like a regular kid and then he got groomed for dad's seat because the other son was kinna weakly for wanting pussy...OOOooooKay. Son with no ambitions for fageena gets to play with bombs....Riiiiight.

Gotta give it up to his new propaganda campain
of bad-hollywood-nods with 30-yr-old CG technology, cheesy bastards are as cheesy bastards do, ad infinitude. He can't help it, he's retarded.

Plastic surgery to look like the first-Reich cunt?? Brilliant. Keep up the Shatner until you destory an entire culture, fuck you Kim, yer a cunt.

(Anyone well-versed in my rants on the NK clan will remember, I fear and grieve and always have for the people of Korea, north and south. We make fun of this cunt, but let other cunts tell us we need to let him live, and that's fucked.

Start with him, and work your way up to the rich white folks who run the world into the ground, and then you have a party.

Not the Largest Man Made Non Nuclear Explosion
Halifax has you beat.
The Halifax Explosion occurred on the morning of Thursday, December 6, 1917. SS Mont-Blanc, a French cargo ship fully laden with wartime explosives, collided with the Norwegian vessel SS Imo in the Narrows, a strait connecting the upper Halifax Harbour to Bedford Basin. Approximately twenty minutes later, a fire on board the French ship ignited her volatile cargo, causing a cataclysmic explosion that devastated the Richmond District of Halifax. Approximately 2,000 people were killed by debris, fires, and collapsed buildings, and it is estimated that nearly 9,000 others were injured.The blast was the largest man-made explosion prior to the development of nuclear weapons with an equivalent force of roughly 2.9 kilotons of Trinitrotoluene (TNT). In a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada in May 1918, Dalhousie University's Professor Howard L. Bronson estimated the blast at some 2.4 million kilograms of high explosive.

*sigh, I live in Chico, and yes that is a law on the books. It came about in the 60's in protest to nuclear testing, and the city became one of the first "Nuclear-free-zones". They also wanted to keep the local state university out of nuclear research. The actual ordinance is

No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon, component of a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon delivery system, or component of a nuclear weapon delivery system under penalty of Chapter 9.60.030 of the Chico Municipal Code.

I do believe the punishment includes up to 6 months in jail, in addition to the $500 fine