Why no thread on the French military intervention in Mali?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Uhmn, do you really think that anyone cares about US security interests ? Except yanks ?

We're the ones who count.

[Alexander's Horse]

I miss the Cold war, things were so much neater

[Kidlicious]

The disaster in Japan could have been totally avoided, but TEPCO decided to save a few bucks.

And companies never do that at the expense of safety. HC is right. Nuclear power is totally safe.

[Alexander's Horse]

threadjack in progress...open the cocks..

[Guynemer]

Nuclear power is awesome. Clean and safe And if you think either of those are false, you're an ignoramus.

See, up to this point, you're doing fantastic.

Even the disaster in Japan was a vindication of their safety.

And, once again, I am forced to

[Hauldren Collider]

And, once again, I am forced to

Ah, but I have an explanation. Despite getting hit by a ****ing tsunami, it still hurt very few people. It took one of the biggest natural disasters in history to bring it anywhere near the vicinity of a meltdown, and we still didn't get another Chernobyl.

[Dauphin]

Oh that is delicious irony. Referencing Chernobyl was either a stroke of brilliance or a retarded own goal.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think we can reasonably place soviet nuclear power plants in another class of safety risk from the rest of them, Dauphin. The lesson from Chernobyl wasn't "don't have nuclear power", it was "don't let soviets have nuclear power".

[PLATO]

Oh but Mali does matter, in fact, very much to the French. Most of the uranium used in France's 59 nuclear reactors comes from Mali. France is heavily dependent on nuclear power.

This certainly shed a new light on the situation for me.

[Guynemer]

Ah, but I have an explanation. Despite getting hit by a ****ing tsunami, it still hurt very few people. It took one of the biggest natural disasters in history to bring it anywhere near the vicinity of a meltdown, and we still didn't get another Chernobyl.

Yes, it hurt very few people, because the area was ****ing evacuated, and "very few" people is not zero.

To say that it was a vindication of their safety is just... come on, man. You actively hurt the argument saying things like that. And I support nuclear power.

[Hauldren Collider]

The point I was making is that it takes a truly cataclysmic event to make nuclear power even remotely dangerous.

[Dauphin]

I think we can reasonably place soviet nuclear power plants in another class of safety risk from the rest of them, Dauphin. The lesson from Chernobyl wasn't "don't have nuclear power", it was "don't let soviets have nuclear power".

What was the lesson of Three Mile Island? Don't let Pennsylvania have nuclear power?

[Dauphin]

And to put things in perspective. Which was worse. TMI and Fukushima or Deepwater, Valdez and every other oil spill?

[Guynemer]

The point I was making is that it takes a truly cataclysmic event to make nuclear power even remotely dangerous.

Earthquakes and tsunamis are not a "truly cataclysmic event", especially not in Japan. Yes, it was worse than most, but it was not the worst ever.

Nuclear power can be very, very safe, clean, efficient, and effective. BUT, it must be planned and used and monitored very wisely, because the consequences of something going wrong are dire. Building a nuclear plant with sub-optimal materials in a known tsunami zone in the most tectonically active region in the world is not very wise, and was, in fact, an inevitable disaster.

[Hauldren Collider]

What was the lesson of Three Mile Island? Don't let Pennsylvania have nuclear power?

Not a single person got hurt by Three Mile Island.