Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

The great danger of nuclear plants is this:

If unmaintained they risk melting down. Meltdowns could spread fallout that lasts thirty years or more, instead of the thirty days typical of nuclear weapons fallout.

Any state planning a nuclear war or other major war, that didn't want to risk all these plants melting down, would do what?

Wind them down. Reduce energy use. Reduce on-site fuel. Shut them down, or even possibly begin to dismantle them.

I guess thats why they kept fear mongering about 'get your vax!' Because if enough of the world population refused to go along with voluntary sterilization, plan (b) was simple--

Wipe out all the cities with air bursts.

The great danger of nuclear plants is this: If unmaintained they risk melting down. Meltdowns could spread fallout that lasts *thirty years* or more, instead of the thirty days typical of nuclear weapons fallout. Any state planning a nuclear war or other major war, that didn't want to risk all these plants melting down, would do what? Wind them down. Reduce energy use. Reduce on-site fuel. Shut them down, or even possibly begin to dismantle them. I guess thats why they kept fear mongering about 'get your vax!' Because if enough of the world population refused to go along with voluntary sterilization, plan (b) was simple-- Wipe out all the cities with air bursts.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (8).
[–] • 0 pt

no

I respect your opinion dampcat. Nevertheless, this analysis is a little short.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Planning the decommissioning nuclear plants is a long process because you have to have already planned (and built) the replacement power capacity, have the personnel to do the job and funded it all.

Unless you are Merkel in which case yes you can act like a headless chicken, trash your own energy sector and then panic when you find you can't just rapidly un-decommission a plant once you've left its safety permits expire and you've lost the political will and support to build new ones. Plus you can' just "make more fuel rods" on demand, they have to be ordered a year in advance and they didn't

Meanwhile the UK is planning eight new nuclear reactors https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61010605

France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron

The EU is thinking about it https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-included-in-EU-s-repowering-plan

Italy was thinking about building 10 new ones https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-italy-approves-decree-on-nuclear-sites-selection-1346133

However Spain will reduce their plants (but they can build solar anyway)

Although pretty much everyone will fail to build most of these, because Europe lacks the trained personnel to do it apart from France, plus they are expensive, local planning is a bitch and hippies will cry into their mead at the whole idea

[–] • 1 pt

So it's money and politics then. Tell me merkel works for someone other than germany, without telling me she works for someone other than germany.

Thank you for the insight dampcat!

I think us westerners and the asians are being very carefully played by the eurasians.

[–] • 2 pts

Merkel really did put Europe into a shitty position by not standing up to the Greens in Europe, there was no need other than an emotional kneejerk after Fukushima to drop nuclear, and EU cock waving over Renewable Energy leadership led to Putin spotting when Germany had become the weak link in the energy sector

I even have to give Trump credit for pointing this out, although I believe he was just repeating one of his advisors, he didn't actually know much about Europe

Germany needs to stop being a faggot over 'muh nazi history' and start taking security more seriously, not all threats are military

The Left of course didn't help