Does Every Nation on Earth Have a Right to Build Nuclear Power Plants

[WarrenPlatts]

Is it the case that every country in the world--including places like North Korea, Iran and Syria--ought to have the right to build nuclear power plants? (That is, the question is not whether such countries currently have a legal right under international law.)

A. Yes

B. No

 

[Orefa]

And more importantly... Is it the case that any country in the world has the right to decide what another country has the right to do?

 

[russ_watters]

I voted yes, but I am not blind to the danger inherrent in it. I think that countries without nuclear weapons who want nuclear plants should be monitored - it should be (if it isn't already) a component of the NPT.

 

[PerennialII]

Yes, although would like to see a system in place where for example IAEA would give permission on a case by case basis.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

And more importantly... Is it the case that any country in the world has the right to decide what another country has the right to do?

Good question. I would say only when one country is guilty of immoral acts of barbarism that are beyond the pale. Especially actual genocide, and perhaps threats of genocide backed up by nuclear tipped IRBM's.

 

[Orefa]

Yeah, I guess. I mean, if a country were guilty of immorally spreading materialism, pornography, violent passtimes and similarly barbaric practices across the planet, or if it exploited smaller countries to maintain its own standard of living, or if it had a habit of threatening various other countries now and then, if these threats were backed up by the means of carrying them out, if it had shown before that it was both able and willing to do so, if it had already forcefully overthrown governments and systems it disagreed with, then I guess any other country would have the right to stop them. On the other hand we could just stop talking of right and wrong and just realize that the law of the jungle still applies. Does any country have any right? Only the right to do whatever it can get away with.

 

[Azael]

yes I think every nation has a right to nuclear power. Mostly to limit worldwide pollution.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

WOW! 8 to 1 already if you count Orefa's vote.

I guess I'm really out of the mainstream this time!

Unbelievable. . . .

 

[jimmie]

Theoretically, governments could make your question a moot topic by effectively outlawing any possession of any nuclear-powered device by any particular nation.

Realistically, governments could, and should, focus many R&D dollars, many billions, into
developing large scale energy systems' infrastructure built to be as environmentally friendly as possible, which precludes nuclear.

As uncomfortable as it may be, human beings cannot live forever on the current energy systems.

Until there is political will to convert from fossil-based, non environmentally-friendly energy systems (see: hydroelectric), to an energy system that is environmentally-friendly (see: hydrogen), there will always be one nation that demands to use nuclear power, and there will always be an other nation that is suspicious and fearful that the one nation actually wants nuclear power for a bomb, and living with suspicion and fear is no way to live.

Does Every Nation on Earth Have a Right to Build Nuclear Power Plants

Is it right for any nation on Earth to build nuclear power plants?

Just because you can does not mean you should.

 

[Orefa]

8 to 1 already if you count Orefa's vote.

Well, I'm actually abstaining. Right and wrong is subjective, relative and not even relevant most of the time. If you want and can then do, otherwise don't. A better question might have been "Do you WANT all countries to have access to nuclear power" without injecting morality into it. Everyone can answer based on their own personal reasons. You would get more of the NOs you are looking for this way.

 

[russ_watters]

And more importantly... Is it the case that any country in the world has the right to decide what another country has the right to do?

The answer to that was decided by consensus with the forming of the UN and is a clear yes.

Well, I'm actually abstaining. Right and wrong is subjective, relative and not even relevant most of the time.

Given the content of your second post, do you see the irony of saying that? If morality is truly relative, then you cannot say that the US is immoral.

Again, the UN has reached a very specific consensus on a broad specturm of moral issues. Regadless of whether you believe it is right or wrong for that to be the case, it is a fact. Further, the fact that the member countries agreed to this moral code means that they must abide by it.

 

[russ_watters]

WOW! 8 to 1 already if you count Orefa's vote.

I guess I'm really out of the mainstream this time!

Unbelievable. . . .

Perhaps you could shed some light on what your actual opinion is...? A simple "no" doesn't really explain how your opinion would apply in the real world. Ie, are you weighing the concept of forfeiting of rights when forming your opinion on this? Few, if any rights are absolute (the only one where there is significant debate is the right to life), so saying that nuclear power is a right does not mean it can't be taken away if the country screws up.

 

[SOS2008]

Further, the fact that the member countries agreed to this moral code means that they must abide by it.

What if a country does not sign such agreements at all, or changes their position regarding agreements like the U.S. has?

 

[Orefa]

The answer to that was decided by consensus with the forming of the UN and is a clear yes.

Again, the UN has reached a very specific consensus on a broad specturm of moral issues. Regadless of whether you believe it is right or wrong for that to be the case, it is a fact. Further, the fact that the member countries agreed to this moral code means that they must abide by it.

Russ, read the question once more. It explicitly states that it's not asking if the right currently exists but if it ought to exist.

Given the content of your second post, do you see the irony of saying that? If morality is truly relative, then you cannot say that the US is immoral.

Yes I can since it is relative. But I did not, and you missed the actual irony. The point I made in the post you refer to was that if you accuse some country of "immoral acts of barbarism" then you should be prepared to receive the same accusation.

 

[Art]

Originally Posted by Orefa
And more importantly... Is it the case that any country in the world has the right to decide what another country has the right to do?

The answer to that was decided by consensus with the forming of the UN and is a clear yes.
Again, the UN has reached a very specific consensus on a broad specturm of moral issues. Regadless of whether you believe it is right or wrong for that to be the case, it is a fact. Further, the fact that the member countries agreed to this moral code means that they must abide by it.

Perhaps you'd care to explain the continuing US embargo of Cuba despite an annual vote to end it in the UN of 178 - 2 (the US and Israel being the 2 against ), the US breaches of the UN Convention on Torture, the illegal war in Iraq, not to mention the US funding and training of terrorists to overthrow democratically elected gov'ts all around the world and Israel's continuing refusal to abide by UN resolutions.

All of which you have expressed personal support for. A case of 'do as I say don't do as I do'.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

OK, Orefa abstains, but it's still 10 to 2--80% to 20%.

Why did I vote no? For the same reason we don't allow convicted felons to own guns. Those states that have a proven record of irresponsibility cannot be trusted with nuclear power plants because all too often the "peaceful" use of uranium becomes a cover for clandestine nuclear weapons programs. And some places just don't have the organizational skills to ensure that a melt-down doesn't occur and thus spewing radiation across borders, and poisening half a continent.

Besides, if a nation really wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO₂ production, there are other alternatives.

 

[Astronuc]

One might as well ask if any nation has the right to exist. I suppose it probably comes down to "Might Makes Right".

Under the UN's Atoms for Peace program, the right to have a nuclear energy program was more or less established.

Hopefully, nations will learn to use nuclear energy wisely.


http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html

http://www.iaea.org/About/history.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Hopefully, nations will learn to use nuclear energy wisely.

I notice you express your hopes for the future, implying that some nations do not presently use nuclear energy wisely. There's the rub--can unwise use of nuclear energy be tolerated by the international communty?

 

[scott1]

I don't really think North Korea can have nukes without doing somthing stupid.

 

[Astronuc]

I notice you express your hopes for the future, implying that some nations do not presently use nuclear energy wisely. There's the rub--can unwise use of nuclear energy be tolerated by the international communty?

Well, NO. Unwise use of any energy source should not be tolerated, because the resources are finite, and wasteful or unwise use will in the long run increase the suffering inflicted upon humanity.

The question ultimately becomes one of energy policy and resource allocation. And one must ask, is there sufficient energy for all, i.e. can we develop and sustain a certain quality (and perhaps add, minimally acceptable) of life for all of humanity, or will some millions or billions of people be forced to accept poor quality of life in order so others can live a more acceptable quality of life, or even luxurious life style?

However, looking a nuclear, there are several issues.

1. Sustainability - there is finite uranium and thorium resources, and to develop those resources require mining (pollution of the environment). Resources can be extended by improving the efficiency of the conversion technology, i.e. more efficient thermal -> electrical transformation, and also by breeding fissile material (U-233 from Th-232, and Pu-239 from U-238). Currently, the bulk of commercial nuclear power plants are light water reactors (LWRs), and the conversion efficiency is about 33-34% based on the Rankine (steam) thermodynamic cycle. Going to higher temperatures can increase efficiency, but at the cost of degradation of the power systems due to corrosion and wear and tear.

2. Proliferation - Breeding (and the reprocessing process) introduces technological issues, e.g. more radioactive waste, and political issues - proliferation of fissile materials, particularly Pu-239/240, which can be fabricated into nuclear weapons.

3. Nuclear waste - Yucca mountain, which is supposed to be the US repository for spent nuclear fuel, is again on hold, and the State of Nevada is attempting to terminate it - after $billions have been wasted - and many people have made $millions, with nothing to show for it. Where will the waste ultimately go.

The French reprocess their nuclear fuel, but then the fission products must be buried somewhere.

As for fusion, don't hold your breath.

Perhaps renewable sources, e.g. wind and solar. Perhaps.

I don't know of any nation that uses its energy 'wisely'. The US uses about 1/4 of the world's energy, for about 5% of the population, but the quality of life is only marginally better than other industrial areas that use far less. And if one really looks into the US, there are many people whose quality of life is rather poor - perhaps about 50-100 million (16-33% of the population).

 

[WarrenPlatts]

3. Nuclear waste - Yucca mountain, which is supposed to be the US repository for spent nuclear fuel, is again on hold, and the State of Nevada is attempting to terminate it - after $billions have been wasted - and many people have made $millions, with nothing to show for it. Where will the waste ultimately go.

Well, I can't blame the people of Nevada for not wanting a nuclear waste dump in their backyard. And it never made sense to me anyway. Just look at a geological map of Nevada, and you tell right away that the whole state is splitting apart at the seams. Why not pick a spot that's not so geologically active--like central Nebraska. But no matter what site is chosen, there is also the problem of transporting the stuff to the repository site. Better hope the trains don't derail, or that some crazy terrorist doesn't blow a truckload of the stuff with a big IED. And if the U.S. is having such a hard time dealing with this issue, what is every third world country with a few reactors doing?!? Personally, I would suggest dumping the waste in a 7-mile deep oceanic trench in an active subduction zone, where the stuff would get sucked deep within the Earth. And who pays for all this waste disposal--the customers who actually bought the electricity? I don't think so.

Also, you didn't mention the risk of another Chernobyl-style disaster. I know the Chernobyl design was an old-fashioned graphite-based reactor. Still, Three Mile Island came pretty close, and what would have happened if Mohammed Atta had flown the 767 he stole into a containment dome at an NPP, instead of the WTC?

 

[SOS2008]

Personally, I would suggest dumping the waste in a 7-mile deep oceanic trench in an active subduction zone, where the stuff would get sucked deep within the Earth.

Interesting suggestion - anyone know if this is viable?

I'm sure terrorists have considered all targets. If bin Laden tells the truth (and I've been told terrorists don't lie) then goals such as economic ruin of the U.S. is what they seek and not devastation of the environment that they also rely upon. Despite what many think, they are not insane.

 

[Cyrus]

Personally, I would suggest dumping the waste in a 7-mile deep oceanic trench in an active subduction zone, where the stuff would get sucked deep within the Earth.

Yeah, that's not even remotely reasonable for many reasons. All that will do is contaminate the entire waters of the ocean.

Windfarms are not feasible either, for many reasons. You need a LOT of them, and the more you have, the less efficient they become.

Still, Three Mile Island came pretty close, and what would have happened if Mohammed Atta had flown the 767 he stole into a containment dome at an NPP, instead of the WTC?

That concrete is made to withstand a direct impact of an airplane at 500 mph, it would just disentigrate the airplane and leave a crack in the dome.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/video-gallery/

click on a link to load the video, kaBOOM that airplane is vaporized, literally.
Going,
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image1.jpg

Going,
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image2.jpg
Gone!
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I voted yes.

New reactor designs are far better than the old ones. Another Chernobyl or TMI would be highly unlikely. I've read that the approximated death total attributed to the use of coal in the US over a single year is several times that that have occurred in the entire history of nuclear power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are quite a few problems with wind by the way. By your comments in the Iran thread you seem to like the option a lot Warren. Most of them are pretty common sense once you think about it so I'm not going to look up sources for all of this unless you ask. Hope you don't mind.

Wind has at least two major ecological issues. The most obvious being the amount of land it takes above and beyond the city it powers just to build a wind farm. Secondly it can be a problem for the avian population which we saw in the news not that long ago.
Weather is another problem. The particular region utilizing wind farms must have a generally windy climate for the wind farms to be effective but there is still always the trouble of down times even in a windy clime.
Location location location! This is a definite problem. There are just certain places that for what ever reason wind farms are not feasable. Aside from weather and acreage some places such as mountainous regions just don't have anywhere to set up wind farms. I know that SoCal (where I live) is a bit of an exception but around here most cities are surrounded by more cities. After I traveled to other places I for the first time became rather awed by the fact that you can drive around here from city to city to city without ever leaving the city! There just isn't room to build enough wind farms to power everything around here without taking out what little nature still exists.
The last problem that I can remember from those that I have read about is line loss. Some people might think "Well if they can't build wind farms there then we can just pipe the energy in from one somewhere else." This is entirely unfeasable though because of the massive amounts of energy that would be lost off the line between the wind farm and the far away city. Advances in technology can make our energy usage more efficient and make our wind farms more efficient but very little we can do to combat line loss over extended distances. A wind farm HAS to be relatively close to it's customers or it just won't be effective.

This is what I have gathered from what I have read. If anyone thinks I am wrong please point out your issues but as far as I can tell wind will never be anything better than an augmentation to an energy plan with something else as it's primary energy source in most instances.
I'm not down on wind completely I just don't think it's THE answer to the energy problem which a lot of people have made it out to be. I believe England has a rather ambitious wind energy plan. It may work out pretty well for them. I'd always welcome it as a secondary power source. I'm sure there are even measures to be taken that can prevent the issue with regards to avian populations.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Interesting suggestion - anyone know if this is viable?

Of course it is. I wouldn't steer you wrong:

Subductive waste disposal method is the state-of-the-art in nuclear waste disposal technology. It is the single viable means of disposing radioactive waste that ensures non return of the relegated material to the biosphere. At the same time, it affords inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material. The principle involved is the removal of the material from the biosphere faster than it can return. It is considered that ‘the safest, the most sensible, the most economical, the most stable long-term, the most environmentally benign, the most utterly obvious places to get rid of nuclear waste, high-level waste . . . The subductive waste disposal method forms a high-level radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate, so that the waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. (Rao, 2001, Current Science 81:1534-1546)

This technique has been patented in the U.S. and Canada and the process described in detail.

As far as terrorist attacks on U.S. NPP's, they have been targeted; plans of U.S. NPP's were found with captured Al Quada in Afghanistan. And no one knows what would happen to a containment structure that was hit by a 767. The containment structures were not specifically designed to withstand such impacts. And the kinetic energy of a fully loaded 767 is an order of magnitude greater than a F-4 fighter, Cyrus. Also, the pools used to store spent fuel rods are less protected and more likely to release mass quantities of radioactive materials into the atmosphere when hit. And NPPs are also vulnerable to attack by well-trained commando teams.

As for wind, 6% of the Earth's land surface could generate 5 times the current world-wide demand for electricity. It's true that managing the supply and demand for electricity gets tricky when wind power penetrates more than 20%-70% of the total supply; but the grid makes use of gas and coal fired plants that are "part-loaded"--that is these plants have the capability to rapidly adjust their output to match fluctuations in supply and demand. And though nuclear is not intermittent, it suffers from an analogous problem in that it cannot rapidly adjust output to meet fluctuations. That is, nuclear electricity is not part-loaded; nuclear is used as base-load capacity that still needs to be tied to part-loaded gas and coal-fired plants. Unless, of course, nuclear energy was stored mechanically by pumping water for example, or perhaps by generating hydrogen. But then again, wind energy can be stored using the same methods. If this makes wind energy less efficient, well then nuclear suffers from the same problem.

As for birds, it's true that some birds are killed by turbines. But automobiles also kill birds by the millions every year, more millions of birds fly into plate glass windows, are killed by hunters, cats, and oil spills and so on, so in the grand scheme of things, wind turbines are not major sources of bird mortality. Typically, the bird card is played by those suffering from NIMBY syndrome, and not because an endangered bird species will go extinct if a wind farm is built.

As for the land that the turbines take up, a rancher that leased a section of his or her land to a wind energy outfit, would only lose about 1% of the available graze to roads and foundations. Cows and antelope don't seem to mind much.

And it's true that major areas of the U.S. are pretty marginal for wind--e.g., most of the southeast portion of the country. Still, power generated by coal-fired plants is piped some respectable distances. I believe that the Jim Bridger plant near Rock Springs Wyoming sends most of its power to California. And loss of efficiency over distances is a problem that plagues other energy sources as well. Coal can be bought at the mines in Wyoming for $10 a ton, but the Japanese pay $50 per ton because of the cost of shipping. So nuclear might have an advantage here. However, as new superconducting wires come on line, this problem will disapear. Also offshore areas are the best for wind--it's mostly steady, and with little turbulence, so off-shore wind might work in a place like SoCal where all the land has already been developed. Cape Cod is actually classified as a zone 7 wind area--the best there is.

As far as costs to poor people, if a carbon tax was charged for fossil fueled electricity, wind energy would definitely be cheaper. In fact, wind energy has received very little government support. The government only charges nuke plants one tenth of one cent per kilowatt hour to take care of the spent waste. What a ripoff! Here in Colorado, you can buy wind energy in 100 kWh blocks, if you want. The New Belgium Brewery here (they make Fat Tire) runs entirely off of wind energy--they felt guilty for pumping out so much CO2 from fermentation. Usually, the wind energy is slightly more expensive, but I guess you get the satisfaction of not contributing as much to the greenhouse effect as recompense. However, with the price spike in fossil fuels last summer, if you had bought the wind futures, you would have actually saved money. With the new 1 to 3 megawatt turbines that are now being mass produced, the cost of wind energy is going to go down while fossil fuel electricity (and nuclear if it were honestly accounted for--not to mention that most of the high grade uranium ore has already been dug up) prices are only going to increase. So, in the near future, we can expect wind energy to be the cheapest form of electricity there is.

And also the safest. When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a wind turbine? And while coal mining is a dangerous business, it's also not the case that Americans have not been killed by nuclear radiation from the Three Mile Island debacle (Mangano, 2004). And who knows how many people got cancer from Chernobyl? Really, we've been lucky so far, and maybe we shouldn't push it. And if 50,000 people are killed by a clandestine nuclear bomb constructed under the cover of peaceful nuclear power or because someone swiped some plutonium, are we going to count those deaths as a result of nuclear power?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe that the Jim Bridger plant near Rock Springs Wyoming sends most of its power to California.

That's odd. The only out of state electricty listed on the CA Energy Commission's page comes from PNW and DSW in Arizona.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/energysources.html

off-shore wind might work in a place like SoCal where all the land has already been developed.

We do have three major wind farms in CA but they only produce about 1.5% of our electricity. Newer turbines would likely increase that ofcourse.
---edit---
In fact Tehachapi Wind Resource provided the most electricity of any wind farm in the world in '99.
---/edit---

As for birds, it's true that some birds are killed by turbines. But automobiles also kill birds by the millions every year, more millions of birds fly into plate glass windows, are killed by hunters, cats, and oil spills and so on, so in the grand scheme of things, wind turbines are not major sources of bird mortality. Typically, the bird card is played by those suffering from NIMBY syndrome, and not because an endangered bird species will go extinct if a wind farm is built.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/11-1-04pr.pdf
CA lawsuit alleging "Wind turbines at Altamont have killed an estimated 880 to 1,330 golden eagles, hawks, owls and other protected raptors each year for the past 20 years"

 

[russ_watters]

What if a country does not sign such agreements at all, or changes their position regarding agreements like the U.S. has?

I won't entertain the allegation about the US, but in general the world community has the means and moral authority to enforce it's morality if it chooses to and the fact that that morality was agreed upon by something like 99% of the world gives it justifiable weight. The UN isn't perfect, but it is the best we have and so far it has worked reasonably well.

Russ, read the question once more. It explicitly states that it's not asking if the right currently exists but if it ought to exist.

To me, they are one and the same. Are you saying you don't think the UN should exist?

Yes I can since it is relative.

As with previous things, anyone can say whatever they want, but what you are saying is logically flawed. If you claim a relative morality, then you have no moral/logical basis in which to challenge the morality of others. Only if you think your morality applies universally can you apply it universally: you claimed a relative morality and then applied it universally.

The point I made in the post you refer to was that if you accuse some country of "immoral acts of barbarism" then you should be prepared to receive the same accusation.

Heh - what makes you think I'm not prepared to receive such accusations? I'm quite ready to accept international scrutiny on the US's actions. You're hoping to find a double-standard where none exists.

 

[russ_watters]

Much more to respond to, but one thing...

And no one knows what would happen to a containment structure that was hit by a 767. The containment structures were not specifically designed to withstand such impacts. And the kinetic energy of a fully loaded 767 is an order of magnitude greater than a F-4 fighter, Cyrus.

Not quite correct: the F-4 test was not done because that kinetic energy was the design criteria, it was done to assist in the creation of models for such impacts. The actual design criteria is much tougher (I'll have to look for what it actually is).

Also, total kinetic energy is much less important than energy density in an impact like that. Because of that, an airplane that hits a concrete containment structure - regardless of the airplane's size - will accordion-into the structure and the kinetic energy will be absorbed relatively easily.

 

[Orefa]

It explicitly states that it's not asking if the right currently exists but if it ought to exist.

To me, they are one and the same.

Let me spell out the difference. When you ask if the right currently exists, you ask about the law. When you ask if the right ought to exist, you ask a personal opinion. This thread is an opinion poll.

Are you saying you don't think the UN should exist?

Absolutely not. I have no idea why you think that.

in general the world community has the means and moral authority to enforce it's morality if it chooses to and the fact that that morality was agreed upon by something like 99% of the world gives it justifiable weight.

Then we agree. There is a difference between a majority of nations deciding on a course of action and a single country doing the same, as my initial post was asking. If you read it once more without preconceived assumption you will probably see that you actually agree.

If you claim a relative morality, then you have no moral/logical basis in which to challenge the morality of others.

You got it.

you claimed a relative morality and then applied it universally.

I did no such thing. You wanted to see it this way so this is what you saw, only it wasn't there. I showed by example that when you accuse anyone of immoral acts then anyone can do the same thing right back. Moral indignation is no justification for attacking a country.

You seem to over-interpret many things for the sake of argumentation.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

OK, the count now stands at 17 to 8--the naysayers have been gaining significant ground, but are still outnumbered more than 2 to 1. Interestingly, it seems that the yes-people are a little more outspoken in their opinions. Are the naysayers afraid of something?

That's odd. The only out of state electricty listed on the CA Energy Commission's page comes from PNW and DSW in Arizona.

The Bridger plant is owned by Pacificorp (http://www.pacificpower.net/Homepage/Homepage35756.html) and is linked to six western states, including northern California, and Oregon.

Regarding Altamont, it was an older farm that used smaller faster moving turbines mounted on slat contructed towers (instead of tubular) and there might be some siting issues as well (e.g. siting the turbines in a pass where there is a lot of raptor traffic). Nationally, the raptor mortality is much less than the .15 raptors per turbine per year reported at Altamount. As Altamont is refitted with the newer, larger turbines, the mortality rate should go down.

, total kinetic energy is much less important than energy density in an impact like that. Because of that, an airplane that hits a concrete containment structure - regardless of the airplane's size - will accordion-into the structure and the kinetic energy will be absorbed relatively easily.

Let's hope you're right. But what about the spent fuel ponds?

 

[PerennialII]

Let's hope you're right. But what about the spent fuel ponds?

Wouldn't say the situation is quite that straightforward even with respect to containment structures. After 911 the criteria for evaluating airplane impact have been revisited (in some countries at least - one detail promoting revision needs has been the increase in sizes of airplanes, especially the 'difficult parts' with respect to impact like engines etc.), new analyses of existing structures have been made (and are still under works) and design criteria for new installations differ from the old ones. And not all reanalyses have been slam dunks (in a good way), a pretty difficult loadcase in any event.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me spell out the difference. When you ask if the right currently exists, you ask about the law. When you ask if the right ought to exist, you ask a personal opinion. This thread is an opinion poll.

I know - all I was saying is that for me the answer to both questions is "yes".

Absolutely not. I have no idea why you think that.

You questioned international moral authority. If there isn't international moral authority, then the UN shouldn't exist.

Then we agree. There is a difference between a majority of nations deciding on a course of action and a single country doing the same, as my initial post was asking. If you read it once more without preconceived assumption you will probably see that you actually agree.

In your posts #2 and #6, you never once used the plural version of the word "counrty". You never said that it was ok for the UN to decide, just that it wasn't ok for one country to decide.

You got it.

I did no such thing. You wanted to see it this way so this is what you saw, only it wasn't there. I showed by example that when you accuse anyone of immoral acts then anyone can do the same thing right back. Moral indignation is no justification for attacking a country.

You did it again right there! You're the moral relativist here, not me: I know that moral absolutism means that no country is beyond judgement. You're the one who suggested that no country should be allowed to judge any other in the same breath that you were doing just that!

You seem to over-interpret many things for the sake of argumentation.

Question-talking forces people to fill in the answers to your questions. It is a debate tactic that allows you to make insinuations while avoiding the trouble of actual declarative statements and explicit assertions that you must then logically defend. If you change your tactics, you'll avoid the risk of people misinterpreting you.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's hope you're right. But what about the spent fuel ponds?

http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/security/crash_analysis.htm

Structures that house reactor fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants would protect against a release of radiation even if struck by a large commercial jetliner, according to analyses conducted over the past several months by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

State-of-the-art computer modeling techniques determined that typical nuclear plant containment structures, used fuel storage pools, fuel storage containers, and used fuel transportation containers at U.S. nuclear power plants would withstand these impact forces despite some concrete crushing and bent steel.

The analysis used several criteria that increased the severity of the crash scenario. Most notable was the assumption that a large aircraft traveling low to the ground at speeds similar to the estimated speed of the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, precisely executes a hit that transfers the full impact of the crash to the structure being struck. Separate analyses assumed direct hits by both the aircraft’s fuselage and a 9,500-pound engine. This size engine is typical of the majority of aircraft currently in service; it would envelop engines on 767-400s, 757-300s, 747-400s, 737-800s, DC 10-30s, MD11s, A320-200s, A330-200s and L1011-500s.

The analysis also increased severity by assuming that a Boeing 767-400 would strike at its maximum takeoff weight (450,000 pounds) even though fuel would be consumed both in takeoff and en route to any power plant site.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see how you can say "no". Every country has the right to nuclear power. Every country also has the right to protect its interests and act accordingly if threatened by another. Naturally, these countries must face the global consequences of their actions, but that is not to say that they do not possesses the right in the first place.