I question this: "we rely on nuclear plants to sustain all the electronic devices and memory data we use." They are part of the mix, but not the only energy source for electronics and memory data. In the US and Spain, for example, nuclear provides about 20% of electricity. I also question whether "mutually assured destruction" is a concept that is durable for centuries. Militants who are willing to kill themselves, for one, aren't likely to care about it. That we haven't seen nuclear weapons used is mostly dumb luck, I think. Nixon was considering them for Vietnam. There have been close calls from misread signals and accidents. It's frigging precarious.
The Spain blackout you mention wasn’t caused "unreliable" non-nuclear sources, as you imply — it was caused by an overwhelmed grid, not a lack of supply because of non-nuclear/renewable energy.
Nuclear safety expert Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who I interviewed, said designs for small modular nuclear reactors are being rushed through approval, and some coolants are not safe. He's also written that small modular reactors aren’t a reliable solution for data centers. "SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production." https://blog.ucs.org/edwin-lyman/five-things-the-nuclear-bros-dont-want-you-to-know-about-small-modular-reactors/
A former DOE nuclear security official warns that sodium coolants — used in designs like Terrapower's facility being built in Wyoming — have a long history of problems: “There’s never been a sodium reactor that has actually met its promises. They’ve all had leaks and fires and explosions and toxic releases,” Tallen said. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/01/25/former-dea-nuclear-security-official-says-wyoming-reactor-not-safe/
What's more, in Pennsylvania, Three Mile Island is being reopened to power Microsoft's data centers, despite its previous partial meltdown.
Nuclear weapons proliferation — the actual subject of my post — is a separate issue that you keep muddling with civilian nuclear power advocacy. My point was as the memories of the horrors of Hiroshima are fading, and it may take another nuclear showdown to finally put an end to nuclear arms.
The idea of using nuclear weapons didn't stop with MacArthur. Nixon considered using nuclear arms in Vietnam; George W. Bush considered using "tactical" nuclear weapons in Iraq. Furthermore, you keep assuming that rational players will be at the controls -- for centuries, forever. I don't hold that assumption, particularly as more countries join the nuclear club. (And what if those governments, or their nuclear weapons, are taken over by suicidal militants?) What's more, as I pointed out before, there have been numerous close calls already -- errors and miscommunications that nearly triggered nuclear responses, In 1983, as one example, "Soviet early warning satellites were operating correctly but were fooled by sunlight reflected from clouds and sent data that erroneously reported an incoming attack by U.S. nuclear missiles... had the officer on duty followed procedures he would have recommended launching Soviet missiles." https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/04/Close%20Calls%20with%20Nuclear%20Weapons.pdfhttps://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm
You can take Mel out of France, you even take Mel out of Barcelona, but you can never take Camus out of Mel.
He does haunt me.
I see what you did there!
You know me too well, Wilson.
I question this: "we rely on nuclear plants to sustain all the electronic devices and memory data we use." They are part of the mix, but not the only energy source for electronics and memory data. In the US and Spain, for example, nuclear provides about 20% of electricity. I also question whether "mutually assured destruction" is a concept that is durable for centuries. Militants who are willing to kill themselves, for one, aren't likely to care about it. That we haven't seen nuclear weapons used is mostly dumb luck, I think. Nixon was considering them for Vietnam. There have been close calls from misread signals and accidents. It's frigging precarious.
The Spain blackout you mention wasn’t caused "unreliable" non-nuclear sources, as you imply — it was caused by an overwhelmed grid, not a lack of supply because of non-nuclear/renewable energy.
Nuclear safety expert Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who I interviewed, said designs for small modular nuclear reactors are being rushed through approval, and some coolants are not safe. He's also written that small modular reactors aren’t a reliable solution for data centers. "SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production." https://blog.ucs.org/edwin-lyman/five-things-the-nuclear-bros-dont-want-you-to-know-about-small-modular-reactors/
A former DOE nuclear security official warns that sodium coolants — used in designs like Terrapower's facility being built in Wyoming — have a long history of problems: “There’s never been a sodium reactor that has actually met its promises. They’ve all had leaks and fires and explosions and toxic releases,” Tallen said. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/01/25/former-dea-nuclear-security-official-says-wyoming-reactor-not-safe/
What's more, in Pennsylvania, Three Mile Island is being reopened to power Microsoft's data centers, despite its previous partial meltdown.
Nuclear weapons proliferation — the actual subject of my post — is a separate issue that you keep muddling with civilian nuclear power advocacy. My point was as the memories of the horrors of Hiroshima are fading, and it may take another nuclear showdown to finally put an end to nuclear arms.
The idea of using nuclear weapons didn't stop with MacArthur. Nixon considered using nuclear arms in Vietnam; George W. Bush considered using "tactical" nuclear weapons in Iraq. Furthermore, you keep assuming that rational players will be at the controls -- for centuries, forever. I don't hold that assumption, particularly as more countries join the nuclear club. (And what if those governments, or their nuclear weapons, are taken over by suicidal militants?) What's more, as I pointed out before, there have been numerous close calls already -- errors and miscommunications that nearly triggered nuclear responses, In 1983, as one example, "Soviet early warning satellites were operating correctly but were fooled by sunlight reflected from clouds and sent data that erroneously reported an incoming attack by U.S. nuclear missiles... had the officer on duty followed procedures he would have recommended launching Soviet missiles." https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/04/Close%20Calls%20with%20Nuclear%20Weapons.pdf https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm