WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

499

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)

[–] 3 pts

That could be true with "old" reactors that were designed to make bomb materials.. Modern reactors (depending on the design) basically are not able to melt down at all. And by modern... Some of those designs are from the 70s.