Timeline for Nuclear power for nomads
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2017 at 12:48 | comment | added | Flummox uses codidact.com | @Andrew Grimm, I'll look into it later. Was hoping you had a good source on me being wrong. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 12:46 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | @Flummox 1) I can see Japan and South Korea as possible nuclear weapon states, but I can't see Germany as one. 2) A civilian nuclear energy program providing cover for a nuclear weapons program is not the same as saying that a nuclear weapons program is a necessary pre-requisite for civilian nuclear energy. 3) The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 12:27 | comment | added | Flummox uses codidact.com | @Andrew Grimm, I am curious, do you have a source on the opposite? As in that the processes are different. As far as I know the 2 are quite linked. I'd loved to be proved wrong in this, as the use of nuclear energy project is often seen as a cover for a nuclear weapons project. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 12:22 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | @Flummox I can't see how that link answers my question. It claims that nuclear weapon work in the US lead to nuclear reactors in the US, but doesn't indicate how it lead to nuclear reactors in other countries. In addition, the source doesn't seem very reliable and trustworthy. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 8:23 | history | edited | Flummox uses codidact.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| Apr 26, 2017 at 8:13 | history | edited | Flummox uses codidact.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Why nuclear power and weapons are close.
|
| Apr 26, 2017 at 8:03 | comment | added | Flummox uses codidact.com | @Andrew Grimm Finding a link for that was easier then I thought: neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 22:30 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | How is building nuclear weapons a pre-requisite for building nuclear reactors? | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 21:08 | comment | added | Flummox uses codidact.com | @rm -rf slash, China would nuke them, in Mongolia if possible. USA would sink the fleet in transit. No contest. War has become to tech dependent for an other Mongolian Clusterduck. Maybe one day again. But not the 16th century and later, thus far. | |
| S Apr 25, 2017 at 18:15 | history | suggested | Nick Matteo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Spelling etc.
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | rm -rf slash | 1: When the Mongols didn't raze entire cities, they did leave plenty of infrastructure and human knowledge intact. After conquest, conquered people go back to work, just with a different boss' boss' boss. 2: Let's imagine a Mongol Empire 2.0 arose today, took over China, and sent a fleet to conquer America. Perhaps America would use nukes on Mongol China, but what if they reached the West Coast? Would you nuke San Francisco? Seattle? Los Angeles? Would it be worth the permanent cost? | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 17:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 25, 2017 at 18:15 | |||||
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:34 | comment | added | Flummox uses codidact.com | @rm -rf slash, 1) I've read about the Mongols doing that. It's just that the scale of the project is really really big, with a huge amount of people. And the transfer of knowledge is one thing, you need the tools aswel. 2) No country that has nukes has been conquered in our world. At the least you can make sure there is no country left to conquer. At the worst there is no planet left to live on. Nukes are instant stalemate. And that is why countries want them. And nuclear reactors are very controlled nukes... | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | rm -rf slash | The Mongols were no strangers to specialized labor, and they often employed people like engineers and administrators, moving them across great distances if need be. I don't see why a nuclear-capable civilization couldn't be conquered by modern Mongols who don't need to understand all the complexities of nuclear power to make use of its benefits. | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:14 | history | edited | Flummox uses codidact.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more info on the diffuculty
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 14:57 | history | edited | Flummox uses codidact.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
just better links
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 13:05 | history | answered | Flummox uses codidact.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |