[extropy-chat] thorium for reactors

Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 26 12:48:43 UTC 2004


--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:

> Hello, how so?  We in the US could do damn well to convert our own 
> reactors to something more benign and economical from multiple 
> perspectives.
> 
> I really don't see what it has to do with one of your favorite hobby 
> horses, why we should be belligerent hither and yon, Mike.    As the 
> data is not fully in on thorium we can't expect Iran to be using it 
> already, can we?

The technology has been around for a decade already, Samantha, which
you'd notice if you had looked at the dates on the papers....

> 
> As I have said before here, if I was a citizen of a Middle East
> country I would be clamoring for nukes.  States with nukes don't
> become a target for American aggression.   Of course there is that
> awkward point where we claim the right to preemptively attack a
> country just for preparing to defend itself against attack.   If
> it is OK for Pakistan and Israel to have nukes, states known for
> some belligerence, then why is it automatically wrong for Iran to
> have them?

Ah, one more treat of Samantha Atkins' massively selective memory at
work. Hmmmmm, I seem to recall a 45 year period called by some the Cold
War, of US agression against the Soviet Union, a nuclear power with,
for much of that period, greater nuclear capacity than the US.

Because while Israel and Pakistan have been belligerent, they have not
been belligerent toward us, or toward anyone that wasn't similarly
belligerent toward them, who was also numerically superior.

> 
> It would be great if no country had nukes of course and if no one
> ever wanted to harm anyone while we are about it.  But that is not
the
> world we live in. In the face of a country with overwhelming force
and
> the will to use it in one's neighborhood it is quite rational to want

> weapons powerful enough to lessen the odds of attack.  Yes, there is 
> the inherent danger involved.  But is this really reason enough that 
> any government would not seek to defend itself if it believes it is
> in danger?

Both Brazil and South Africa have shelved nuke programs, as has Libya,
which did so specifically BECAUSE it thought it was next on our list.

Nations pursue nuclear programs because up until recently, nobody has
been willing to enforce the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.

What I find so amusing here, Samantha, is that you have historically
been someone who has deplored the nuclear arms race, you claim to be a
libertarian, yet you are endorsing the use of mass destruction weapons
as a means of self defense. Why are you now endorsing Mutual Assured Destruction?

=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list