Fukushima No. 1 engineer’s warning to Taiwan: Nuclear power unstable

[kristopher]

Fukushima No. 1 engineer’s warning to Taiwan: Nuclear power unstable
BY KO SHU-LING
KYODO JAN 16, 2014

TAIPEI – A Japanese engineer who helped build reactor 4 at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant said such plants are inherently unstable, urging Taiwan to ditch atomic energy for renewable resources.

Mitsuhiko Tanaka, arriving in Taipei on Tuesday with a delegation of Diet members for a six-day visit, told a press conference Wednesday that the 1986 Chernobyl disaster changed his views on nuclear power.

“Nuclear accidents are bound to happen someday, only that we don’t know when they will happen,” he said.

Tanaka, who helped build part of reactor 4 while working at Hitachi Ltd. in 1974, quit the company in 1977 and became a writer. He chronicled the discovery of a manufacturing defect in reactor 4, and the subsequent coverup, in a book in 1990.

When he went in 1988 to the then-Ministry of International Trade and Industry to report the cover-up...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/16/national/fukushima-no-1-engineers-warning-to-taiwan-nuclear-power-unstable/#.UthcX3l0Uy4

[madokie]

1. Its not a matter of If

its a matter of when. The last thing we need is for one of our own nuclear power plants to have a mishap and require cordoning off of a section of one of our major cities. Many of them are built near large metropolitan areas.
When it comes to nuclear power plant accidents it matters not why or what, it only matters that it happened. If Fukushima hasn't shown us anything else its shown us that once things go wrong its difficult to correct or deal with, however you want to put it.

Pripyat Russia is a ghost town, city if you will.

[cprise]

2. What gets me is they propose a huge expansion of nuclear

...up to 40X (yes, 4,000 percent) the 2001 levels, and expect us to think that is not a threat to life and liberty. At the very least, it would require an unprecedented police state to prevent any hint of dangerous rebellion aimed at the reactors.

The new state secrets law in Japan is just a taste of what a society suffused with nuclear fission would entail.

[PamW]

4. Police State is NOT needed

cprise states
At the very least, it would require an unprecedented police state to prevent any hint of dangerous rebellion aimed at the reactors.

The anti-nuclear community has been saying that we need a police state if we have reactors for the last 4 decades.

We have over 100 nuclear power reactors in the USA; and there has never been a need for a police state to prevent an attack on a reactor.

First, the reactors have their own very capable security forces.

Secondly, frankly I don't know what a terrorist would do. All the people who "think" a reactor is a good terrorist target don't know the insides of a reactor plant. The plants are designed so that it would be extremely difficult to cause a meltdown. The Fukushima reactors don't meet USA NRC safety specifications since the Japanese didn't adhere to the GE designs that they licensed. In the wake of Three Mile Island, limits were replaced on the operator controls ( the NRC mandated the limits be removed so operators could over-ride automatic systems ); so that even operators would have difficulty causing problems.

Third, the timescale for meltdowns is days. It takes over a day, and more likely a few to develop a problem, and reinforcements can be summoned in less time than that.

So there's no need for a "police state"; now or in the future with more plants.

It's a "scare tactic" dredged up from the past to scare people into acting / forming opinions without thinking.

The good think about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

5. And don't forget, "Deadly Force is Authorized!!!"

Deadly Force is Authorized!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458
— trackback to http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372 #post33 and others

[PamW]

8. Yes - that does happen to be a FACT!!!

Around the Dept of Energy nuclear weapons complex; the "Deadly Force is Authorized" is a FACT.

So I would suggest to all that they not press their luck like Megan Rice and co-horts did. They got off with prison sentences instead of being dead.

PamW

[kristopher]

9. But you went about 10 miles beyond that, didn't you?

The comparison of your claims with the unambiguous words of the statute (and anyone's common sense) is a remarkable thing to behold.

[PamW]

12. Your are welcome...

Last edited Fri Jan 17, 2014, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)

kristopher,

You are welcome to do the experiment to prove me wrong.

Just go to one of DOE's nuclear weapons facilities, and either run past the guard, or cut the fence and sneak in.

Be sure you bring along a copy of the statute and your interpretation of same to show the guard when he levels his weapon at you.

The courier font is preferred by the robotic machine guns if you come face to face with one of them.

You might want to write it on something non-flammable in case that fence you use your bolt-cutters on happens to be electrified. That way it won't burn and will be there to assure everyone that the burnt mound of carbon isn't you because you can't be harmed without a trial and the punishment can't be cruel or unusual. It will be interesting to see the results of your explanation of your rights to the robot guns and electric fence.

Your track record for interpreting what you "think" is unambiguous text having to do with either science or law leaves a lot to be desired.

PamW

[kristopher]

25. "Just go to one of DOE's nuclear weapons facilities"

I don't have to - I worked C^3 where we had nukes. The security is established and practices are In Accordance With the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute under discussion, which is modeled exactly on the statute guiding the DoD.

Let's clarify your position: you wrote:

I stated the guy in the picture REMINDS me of all the ignorant, pinhead, mal-content protestors that have challenged the security at the nuclear weapons facilities.
Those bonehead SHOULD be shot on sight - they are asking for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372#post33

Faced with criticism, you explained:

kristopher, That's the LAW as currently enacted.
If the guards see a person in the "kill zone", then they know the only way to get there is to climb over fences or cut through them as did the nun and her accomplices..i.e. they didn't "accidentally" trespass; they knew exactly what they were doing.
So if someone is in the "kill zone"; they didn't get there by accident. The US Congress enacted law giving the guards at US nuclear weapons facilities the authority to shoot and kill the people who were where they weren't authorized to be.
So no manner how you cut it; the only way that they don't wind up shot is if someone cuts them some slack.
That's what the Y-12 guards did; and the Obama Administration's Dept. of Energy went "nuclear" because the guards didn't shoot.
So I would bet that guards in the future aren't going to be so lax. As I said,they will literally, "shoot first and ask questions later".
PamW

My response was

14. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That is nothing but rightwing armchair warrior kill-fantasy bilge water.
How much time were you in uniform carrying a weapon Greg?

Fortunately caraher took a more constructive approach and and responded to me by providing the text of the law. What follows are caraher's words responding to me.

15. No kidding
I'm looking up the statutes from Pam/Greg/Rude Dog's sign. First up - 10 CFR 1047 on Deadly Force (boldface mine):

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:
(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).
(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.
(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.
Footnote(s):
1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.
(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:
(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.
(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

"DOE Manual 470.4-3" is full of details regarding things like training security forces. It's also not the most recent directive on the subject, but it is the one cited in the sign. I searched for all instances of "deadly force" in the document and found the following relevant passages:

Alternative to Deadly Force. Armed PF personnel must be assigned equipment that provides an alternative (i.e., intermediate force), in the appropriate circumstances, to the use of deadly force (e.g., side-handle or collapsible baton or chemical agents)."

Why assign them such equipment if their mandate is to shoot to kill?

PF officers will use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances to apprehend a suspected criminal.

Appendix A-3 details principles for the rules of engagement guards are to employ. It reiterates the language above:

The purpose of this Appendix is to provide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) Headquarters and Field Elements guidance in developing the rules of engagement (ROE) for use of deadly force as established in 10 CFR Part 1047.
DOE’s Use of Deadly Force Policy, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 1047, defines the circumstances when deadly force is authorized; i.e., self-defense; serious offenses against persons; theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices, or special nuclear material; and apprehension. It also states, “Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed” (emphasis added). DOE has determined that the concept in the policy of, “or cannot reasonably be employed,” needs further site-specific amplification in the post September 11, 2001, environment. To ensure acceptable protection of critical assets, site specific ROE which define the circumstances, e.g., location, time, and distance at each site when lesser means of force cannot reasonably be employed are needed. These ROE must address the concept of hostile intent as described in this Appendix.

The determination of site-specific ROE must consider the type of materials being protected, site geography, building construction, PF strength and capability, adversarial task times, adversarial characteristics as described in the current DOE Design Basis Threat, and consequences of asset loss. The ROE must clearly state under what conditions the circumstances of hostile intent have been met. Depending on site-specific conditions, the circumstance of hostile intent may be met even if no shots have been fired. Hostile intent may be indicated by the following factors, among others: a single intruder inside a Protected Area, Exclusion Area, and/or Material Access Area; the presence of any number of armed intruders on site; vehicles crashing or failing to stop at a gate; and/or a perceived aerial insertion of any number of intruders by helicopter or other methods.

In other words, the "must shoot to kill" fantasy is, not surprisingly, unsupported by the laws and regulations on the sign. They are a figment of the imagination, not the orders of our Congress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458#post15

[PamW]

27. Tell that to...

Tell that to the ROBOT machine guns and electric fences.

Evidently kristopher doesn't comprehend that a ROBOT machine gun is not going to listen to him proclaim what hr "thinks" his rights are. The robot is just going to shoot.

PamW

[caraher]

28. I'm fascinated by the robot machine gun part

Please direct me to where I might learn more about the current or even imminent deployment of these robot machine guns.

The level of violent fantasy is reaching truly epic proportions here...

[PamW]

29. Samsung SGR-A1

There's the Samsung SGR-A1 which also launches grenades in addition to being a machine gun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGR-A1

http://www.mobilemag.com/2010/07/13/south-korea-deploys-grenade-launching-robots-at-border/

The robotic sentry guns that we have at our facility are made by Dillon

http://www.dillonaero.com/

It's a gattling gun type of weapon. You can watch their videos.

http://www.dillonaero.com/3000at1000.html

PamW

[Iterate]

13. This is the lady who "got off" without being shot

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

As I remember, she was armed with a can of spray paint. Slogans and all, ya' know.

Here is one of her contemporaries, Frank Cordaro:


But maybe you'd recognize him more easily from this pic:



He's another one you'd say got off without being shot dead. He's an eight time felon(trespass) who only did a year or two in prison for protests at SAC and Yankton.

Being a pretend sorta' sciencey internet scholar you may not realize that the "Ban the Bomb" peaceniks were founding members of the early environment movement (there was that unfortunate period of radiation releases), or the Frank Cordaro also was active in the family farm movement in the Midwest, with protests against Monsanto and the environmental damage of corn monoculture, Occupy the Caucuses in Iowa in 2012, and even recently arrested for rushing the stage at a P. Ryan rally. And a hundred other progressive causes. He's always been a busy guy.

But you'd have these non-violent, disobedient protestors dead, and don't think you're hiding your glee at the thought of it with a bit of bold emphasis.

In fact, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there are more than a few people posting regularly here who have walked, talked, and protested with these two. Fire away.

[PamW]

15. It turned out better than it could have.

I'm just saying that the long prison term she got is better than what could have happened.

What if the fence they cut with the bolt-cutters had many thousands of volt of electricity running through it? Today she would be a burnt mound of carbon had that fence been electrified.

Pretty DAMN STUPID to take that type of risk regardless of your cause. It doesn't take much in the way of brains to march and chant and do as your "handlers" instruct you.

PamW

[Iterate]

19. That last line is straight out of Beck, Fox, or Limbaugh,

and I don't know where you would have gotten the idea that these two had handlers other than from Beck, Fox, or Limbaugh, directly or indirectly.

In fact, they are two of the most honorable people you could ever meet, with over a hundred years of conscientious social activism between them. No wonder it's foreign to you. Cordaro alone has helped thousands of people through the most difficult times of their lives.

[PamW]

20. It's my own words...

Those are my own words.

I don't need anyone from either side doing my political thinking or writing for me.

That seems strange to many here who can only parrot their gurus.

I have no gurus in that sense.

PamW

[Iterate]

24. That's one of the most bizzare self-claims of "great minds think alike"

I think I've ever seen.

But then you actually doubled-down. The right-wing meme has always been that any left of center protest is mindless or brainless and led by handlers, puppeteers, gurus. Nevermind that most are atheists and can never agree amongst themselves, even about what to have for lunch. Only someone who was never part of such a thing would ever claim that it was led from the outside and not autonomous.

The centrist protestor is assumed to be...nevermind, that's an oxymoron.

But the right-wing corporatist or anti-rights christian fundamentalist protestor is hailed as a freethinker. Right. Carry on, fire away.

[PamW]

22. Let's see...

Let's see, the facilities that these supposedly "honorable" people criminally violated were built by the People's constitutionally elected, duly authorized representatives as a way to "provide for the common defense". Instead of honoring the wishes of the People; they opposed same.

Sounds like a couple of undemocratic, self-righteous bastards in my book.

PamW

[Iterate]

23. By that standard MLK, Ghandi, Thoreau, John Lewis, Bill McKibben, Nelson Mandela,

Steve Biko, Lanza del Vasto, Susan B. Anthony(illegally voting), Thich Quang Duc, Daniel Berrigan, Nobel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú, Caesar Chavez, Dorothy Day, Phil Radford, Sophie Scholl, plus certainly many tens of millions less famous, who violated some law or did minor damage to property, are (again by your standard) criminals and "undemocratic, self-righteous bastards".

It's exactly the same theory of non-violent political action and civil disobedience, and the same set of progressive causes.

And we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who among many others, was arrested for trespass at the Naval facility on Vieques. Eventually the movement won and the area can now claim the distinction of being both a National Wildlife Refuge and a superfund cleanup site. I can leave you with something to cheer about, because civilian David Rodriguez was killed by a too-close Navy practice bomb.

And let's not forget Al Gore (he's a democrat, you know):
"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

Fire away.

[PamW]

26. You made my point..

You made my point with that "rogues gallery"; many though not all; I hold in EXTREME disdain

If you can't protest in the legal manner which the Constitution provides for "the redress of greivanves" then maybe one should shut up.

PamW

[Iterate]

30. Not surprised you'd call that (too short) list a "rogues gallery" and hold them "in EXTREME disdain"

Does it matter that the Americans on the list were all Democrats/progressives with many holding elected offices?

Maybe the list should have been longer so that we could get a fine-grained impression.

These people were marching with a permit. They were trying to preserve a park and prevent houses from being torn down -for a parking lot. Reagan hated them. One guy was later killed, but I'm gathering you'd say he was taking his chances.




The guy on the far left of this pic has been arrested many times, often for anti-war protests, but was acquitted of the most serious charges. He did go on to do other things as well, wrote books, held office. Through no fault of his own, he defines the spit on Obama within DU. I'm guessing he belongs in your "rogues gallery" as well, because he never did "shut up".




The people who put up this banner without permission now face charges and possibly years in prison. They didn't "shut up".




I'd like to go on with hundreds more examples, and to spread it to international coverage, but given the status of those in your "rogues gallery" it's not likely you'd cut minor players any slack. So I'll just end with this, the consequences of your POV for non-violent civil disobedience:

At the protest site Monday, Kocherry said police opened fire on Dr. S.P. Udayakumar, convenor of the nonprofit group People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, but Udayakumar, along with fellow protestors, escaped by lying on the ground. Fellow activists took them from the protest area by boat for their safety.

The police have entered Idindakarai village for the first time since the protest has begun last year searching for the leaders, Kocherry said. “They have been publicly announcing all the households to push Udayakumar out to the streets and not provide shelter to any of the leaders. They have been conducting a search raid in all the houses. They have been also announcing that if Udayakumar was found in any of the houses, the whole family would be encountered to death.”
http://ens-newswire.com/2012/09/11/two-dead-in-protest-of-indias-largest-nuclear-power-plant/

[PamW]

31. Rouges Gallery

There are people like ML King and Nelson Mandela that were truly fighting for the inalienable rights of people. Not even a majority of the people can deny anyone their inalienable rights; and the USA was founded on that principle.

However, there are others who just don't like the choices that the majority made when it comes to something that the majority certainly has a right to do.

For example, the Navy has to have a place where they can test fire their munitions and have their drills and war-games. That's not violating anyone's rights. So the Navy reserves some section of land, like a beach in Puerto Rico or somewhere else. You might not like where the Navy and or Congress decided to put their test range; but it's their call, and they aren't violating anyone's rights. If you protest and they move the test range; it only means that you moved it out of one backyard and into someone else's backyard. Big deal.

Nuclear power is LEGAL in the USA as well as in India. If people are protesting, they are protesting a LEGAL activity. They are not protesting for rights; they are protesting because they don't like a CHOICE made by the government. The protesters have to stay within the code of conduct allowed for protests. In the USA, that means you don't block streets, or inhibit the legal travel of other citizens....

If protesters don't behave properly; then they are subject to all the sanctions that the local laws allow.

I don't know where some people got this "idea" ( term used loosely ) that if they are protesting, then they have free reign to violate the law. About 20 years ago, the local nuclear protestors put a proposition on the county ballot that said the county sheriffs department couldn't arrest them if they were protesting. As one might have expected, that bit of self-serving trash got defeated in a landslide.

PamW

[Iterate]

33. Of course you have to exclude King and Mandela from "the rouges gallery".

If you didn't that would be racist, right? Not cool to have "EXTREME disdain" for those two.

But that puts you in a tight spot, because you then have to delineate their cause from others, so their cause becomes inalienable rights, and everything else becomes a mere contemptible protest against law and majority, even when, in fact, the majority was most often with the protest and the laws were either inequitable or simple misdemeanors. Not that any of that really matters to you; your vengeful reactions to any protest or protestor is clear enough.

But you forgot Lewis. And as I remember, Hayden was also a Freedom Rider for a time; he's been active in environmental issues as well. And Bikko, you missed him, and without him Mandela's exclusion from the your "rogues gallery" makes no sense. Rice and Cordaro were active in civil rights issues, labor and environment too. Martin Luther King was anti-war and freshly active in the labor movement when he was killed.

Sparing Rigoberta Menchú from "EXTREME disdain" on your personally-approved list makes no sense, as she's cut from the same cloth as King and Mandela. Allow me to save some typing:

In 2006, Menchú was one of the founders of the Nobel Women's Initiative along with sister Nobel Peace Laureates Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan Maguire. Six women representing North America and South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa decided to bring together their experiences in a united effort for peace with justice and equality. It is the goal of the Nobel Women's Initiative to help strengthen work being done in support of women's rights around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Mench%C3%BA

Ooops, look what happened when I pulled that string. Around the world, connected.

Berkeley started as an "inalienable rights" free speech movement that Reagan hated so much, but the conflict with Reagan grew over a fight against the seizure of private property for a development. Somewhere down that chain of events James Rector gets killed watching from a rooftop. It sometimes happens when you bring in the military to enforce...property seizure rights.

It's most puzzling though that you'd leave off Gandhi, except that if you include him as safe from your "rogues gallery", as the founder of the modern non-violent movement you would certainly need to include Lanza del Vasto, his student and collaborator. I can see where that would be uncomfortable for you, as del Vasto went over time from a campaign in Algeria against torture (I assume it's an inalienable right not to be tortured), but then moved on to non-violent protest against the seizure of farmland for a military base, and later protests against French nuclear weapons, reactors, and plutonium production.

And Sophie Scholl, she passed out illegal pamphlets; no free speech for her and executed within days. She knew the law; she didn't "shut up".

The unifying theme here is that all of these people who lived long enough learned that human rights, civil rights, labor, social justice, peace(or at least anti-miltary expansion), community control, and a healthy environment are inexorably connected. That concept is now well-established. In practice, at one extreme you have Haiti, the other Denmark. In practice, civil rights and social justice are low carbon; militarized police states, not so much.

And that's why this matters in E&E. That's why your contempt for non-violent civil disobedience and glee with their persecutions and prosecutions matters -all in the defense of the military excess, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, Keystone, assumed property rights, and abusive, corrupt regimes. Again the relevant awkward translation from India: "They have been conducting a search raid in all the houses. They have been also announcing that if Udayakumar was found in any of the houses, the whole family would be encountered to death.” That's the police state you support.

Al Gore gets it. He might have been half a beat late and unnecessarily tempered, but there it is again:
"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

Now march and chant along with with Al (he's a Democrat):"we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience". Fire away.

[CreekDog]

36. Martin Luther King protested using Civil Disobediance, do you think he shouldn't have?

[PamW]

18. How bad were those releases?

Let's see how bad the releases were that people were getting so bent out of shape over.

Courtesy of scientists at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

What is "Fallout" as a percentage of background? <0.03%

PamW

[PamW]

32. How do you defend the USA?

The USA is a great experiment in how a country should be run.

The USA has faced threats to its very existence; from the Government of England originally, to more modern day threats from the Fascist powers of World War II, to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Thankfully, we have many Patriots that sacrificed their blood and their lives to maintain this great nation.

Even today; the USA has a nuclear-tipped armada of missiles arrayed against it, courtesy of Russia.

So how will we defend the USA from Russia's nuclear-tipped armada of missiles?

Do you think a bunch of "peaceniks" singing "Kumbayah" is going to deter Russia:

http://d.lib.ncsu.edu/collections/catalog/0228016

Do you think that will hold Russia's missiles at bay?

Alternatively, one might use the capabilities of the US Navy's fleet of Trident Fleet Ballistic Missile Subs:

If it's all the same to you; I put my trust in the US Navy.

The USS Tennessee launches 4 of her 24 missiles in about a minute; each of those missiles if they were live would have multiple nuclear warheads, each of which would be many times the destructive power of the World War II bombs. Someone would have a pretty bad day if that happened for real.

THAT is what keeps the peace.

PamW

[Iterate]

34. Utterly bizarre

Palinesque even. I guess if you're loosing an argument, it's time to wave the flag and talk about commies. A facepalm, free with every line.

But as a pretend sorta' sciencey internet scholar(as has been your former claim), and now international internet tough guy, you really should leave history to the historians and leave diplomacy to the peaceniks at the Conference on Disarmament and Global Zero. It's a bit less carbon, for real.

[PamW]

35. DELUSIONAL????

It's DELUSIONAL to make the claim above that someone is "losing an argument".

At this point, we only have a difference of opinion as to how to keep this great nation safe and secure.

In the face of the fact that Russia targets nuclear-tipped missiles at the United States, Iterate believes our response is to have peaceniks go to the Conference on Disarmament and Global Zero. Sure maybe it's less carbon; but do you REALLY "think" ( term used advisedly ) that Putin is really going to listen to a bunch of peaceniks on nuclear disarmament?

GET REAL. Putin doesn't care a whit about peaceniks at some self-serving conference. ( They're probably smoking more dope than talking anyway. )

The only thing that is going to counter the force that Russia threatens the USA with; is the force the USA has to threaten back.

That's NOT "waving the flag". I'm pointing out a REAL capability that the USA has; and it is that capability that holds the Russian threat in check.

Come on; President Obama, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his stance on nuclear weapons, acknowledges that the USA has to maintain its present nuclear deterrent. As the Obama Administration's own Nuclear Posture Review 2010 states:

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

At the same time, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States must sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal - to maintain stability with other major nuclear powers, deter potential adversaries, and reassure our allies and partners of our security commitments to them.

That's NOT "flag waving"; that's US national security policy and commitments in foreign policy.

It's the REAL WORLD and not some dope-induced fantasy of the peaceniks.

PamW

[Iterate]

38. Astonishingly, Sister Megan Rice didn't train to negotiate with Putin.

But then, that wasn't her functional role.

And that's the problem with your cartoon view, you only have room for two characters per panel.

Between Rice and "Putin" are -tens of millions?- of others whose functional role varies from policy analyst, academic, advocate, translator...all the way right through the State Fepartment and on to any final Senate vote for ratification. Any movement for peace or disarmament is necessarily large and varied. I'm not pointing that out to you, I'm just mentioning it in case Virginia Foxx or the author of "A Prayer for Soldiers, The Military Heart" might be reading.

No, Rice's role, as was that of other activists, is at least threefold: to express and keep a moral center, to keep the issue in the public attention, and mainly, to put their bodies on the line so that people like you who advocate repression are held at bay. They are the canaries in a coal mine, walking point, sniper bait, tripwires: just pick a metaphor. Without them, and others who defend them, the ones who form or support the actual policy, are at risk.

In some ways it's not unlike MIRT or the people in GD who monitor Limbaugh memes, because without them E&E would be flooded with trolls.

So let's look at the "dope-induced" peaceniks who lead Global Zero:

Damn, too many to list. Way more than I thought.

http://www.globalzero.org/our-movement/leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Zero_%28campaign%29#Notable_signatories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Abolish_Nuclear_Weapons

Ha, look at this:
"Mitt Romney maintains that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”. "
"Global Zero:Fewer nukes, more security" http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2012/05/global-zero

Ok, I'll just list a few of the founders/early supporters. Still too many -so you only get a dozen out of hundreds.
George Shultz, James Baker, Gen. (Ret.) James Cartwright, Richard Branson, Jeff Skoll, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, Sam Nunn, Bruce Blair, Matt Brown, Richard Burt...so yea, fuckin' potheads all of them. Reads like a list of fans at a Dead concert.

And Obama, admitted smoker, supports Global Zero. He's said so.

Conference on Disarmament -I'm bored with typing. OMG, it's the UN!

Conference on Disarmament (CD) is a forum established by the international community to negotiate multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements. Established in 1979, it was the forum used by its member states, currently numbering 65, to negotiate the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

While the conference is not formally a United Nations (UN) organization, it is linked to the UN through a personal representative of the United Nations Secretary-General; this representative serves as the secretary general of the conference. Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly often request the conference to consider specific disarmament matters. In turn, the conference annually reports its activities to the Assembly.

The Conference succeeded the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1960), the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1962–68) and the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (1969–78).

In the 1990s, the Conference held intensive efforts over three years to draft the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty text and its two annexes, but it did not succeed in reaching consensus on the adoption of the text. Australia then sent the text to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where it was submitted as a draft resolution.[1] On 10 September 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted by a large majority, exceeding two-thirds of the General Assembly's Membership.[2]

Currently under discussion are a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), a pact to prevent an arms race in outer space (PAROS), nuclear disarmament, and negative security assurances (NSA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_on_Disarmament

Smoking dope, every one of them. The UN is just one big bong, a chimney I tell ya'.

I'm not getting into early cold war dynamics or grossly overbuilt deterrence or missile revenge fantasies with you. "Pretty bad day" indeed. If people haven't seen enough, one more round won't help.

Besides, not to be rude, but I'm loosing track:
"dope-induced fantasy of the peaceniks"; "peaceniks at some self-serving conference. ( They're probably smoking more dope than talking anyway. )"; "They got off with prison sentences instead of being dead. "; "Tell that to the ROBOT machine guns and electric fences.", "It doesn't take much in the way of brains to march and chant and do as your "handlers" instruct you. "; "many here who can only parrot their gurus."; "undemocratic, self-righteous bastards"; "rogues gallery"; many though not all; I hold in EXTREME disdain"; "bit of self-serving trash";"pretty bad day".

It's clear enough what you think of fellow Democrats and progressives who don't "shut up". Fire away, or not.

[cprise]

6. O RLY?

You didn't hear all the news correspondents clucking about "dirty bombs" when the Boston Marathon bombing had first been reported. It took many hours for that theme to subside.

This is a refrain of the pro-nuclear, pro-police political establishment. Its their scare tactic they use to keep expanding police and military budgets.

[PamW]

7. OH PULEEEEZ...

OH PULEEEEZ - Dirty Bomb????

Here's what SCIENTISTS like myself think of "dirty bombs". Courtesy of MIT's Technology Review:

The Dirty Bomb Distraction

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402850/the-dirty-bomb-distraction/

Courtesy of University of California - Berkeley:

Why a can of petrol is more dangerous than a dirty bomb

http://physics.berkeley.edu/index.php?option=com_dept_management&act=news&Itemid=419&task=view&id=174

The charlatan and unscientific "fear-mongering" threats such as "dirty bombs" are no justification for police state tactics.

You came up EMPTY again in providing any logical support for your claim.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.

PamW

[kristopher]

10. You are damned by your own words, PG.

Deadly Force is Authorized
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458
— trackback to http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372 #post33 and others

It's impossible to read that and not realize where you are coming from. What I don't understand is WTF are you doing on a progressive forum?

[madokie]

11. Shilling for the nuclear power industry

That's pretty plain to see if you ask me

[cprise]

14. I know there's an element of hysteria re: dirty bombs

But I think you buy into it more than some of the anti-nukes here. Your position is inconsistent.

[PamW]

16. Not inconsistent at all

Show me where I've ever given any credence to dirty bombs.

As a scientist, I didn't need Professor Muller to tell me they are much ado about nothing.

Because of my scientific understanding, I don't fear radiation and radioactivity like the "Chicken Littles" one normally finds here.

PamW

[cprise]

17. You do so implicitly

every time you advocate extreme force against someone who would interfere with a nuclear facility; or when you refer to nuclear security forces as if you were proud of them.

[PamW]

21. I AM proud of them

I'm protected by them.

When all you are attempting to do is to get to work in the service of this great Nation's security; and you are surrounded by the dirtiest, foul-mouthed, and most brainless that Berkeley has to offer; those security forces can be most reassuring.

I'm not advocating violence; I'm just saying what is going to happen to people who don't know how to behave and can't see beyond their own self-righteousness.

PamW

[kristopher]

3. Taiwan has been having a huge debate since before Fukushima

And now they are literally fighting about it on the floor of the legislature.

[arachadillo]

37. Taiwan Nuclear Energy

al jazeera recently ran a nice video of the nuclear debate in Taiwan. Not sure if the video link is the same program I saw, but it appears as if the nuclear power debate in Taiwan has been ongoing for a couple of years.

http://www.aljazeera.com/PROGRAMMES/101EAST/2010/03/20103210510155960.html

[kristopher]

40. Nuclear power justifies extending use of deadly force authority to rent-a-cops?

Legislation would allow guards to use deadly force

LANSING — Nuclear power plant security guards have no more authority to use force than civilians.

But lawmakers have introduced bills in the House and Senate to change that by allowing them to use deadly and non-deadly force within reason.

“It would allow them, in specific situations that they deem necessary, to use force to remove someone from a power plant,” said, Rep. Al Pscholka, R-Stevensville, the primary sponsor for the House bill. “This is not something where security officers will be able to shoot protestors. It is to prevent terrorists from coming to the door of a nuclear power plant.”

Nuclear plant security officers can only use force now to prevent imminent death, but this law would give them the same authority as a police officer, said Terrence Jungel, Michigan Sheriffs’ Association executive director.

Police officers can decide when it is necessary to use force because their job is to protect themselves and the public...

Read more: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20140224/News/140229510

[MADem]

41. This is not something where security officers will be able to shoot protestors.

Which is a direct quote from the article...?

Nuclear plant security officers can only use force now to prevent imminent death...


I'm not really clear why they need "more" authority. If a terrorist is trying to blow up/damage a reactor, that's "imminent death" to me. If a terrorist tries to shoot a guard trying to place them under arrest, that's "imminent death" to me.

I read the full article but the logic isn't jumping out at me. Maybe there are additional limitations in the training that they receive...?

[kristopher]

43. I think it adds a layer of implied legitimacy to any such action

Take the degree to which Zimmerman's role in neighborhood watch worked to add legitimacy to his actions.

And then take the degree of wanton violence that line police are able to get away with.

The "security guard" level is somewhere between I'd think. As to the claim that they wouldn't be able to shoot protestors, well, cops aren't able to shoot kids answering the door with Wii controllers either...

[MADem]

44. That murdering Zimmerman isn't a good example, though.

He was a "volunteer" to the point where he just kinda decided to go on out on patrol, no one "sanctioned" him, he wasn't on a watch rotation with a regular schedule, and no one said "Say, jerk, pack yer pistol--ya never know when ya might need to shoot some kid carrying candy and iced tea, talking on the phone to his girlfriend!"

My reading of this is that these guys will get more training than a mall cop. I still don't quite get the distinction/difference with regard to shooting someone, though. If someone is where they don't belong and presents themself as a danger/threat to the people guarding the installation, shoot 'em.

[kristopher]

45. The actions of the militarized police demonstrate what that worries me.

Why would we want an energy system that requires its own paramilitary security organization. Maybe we should just contract it out to Blackwater or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays.

[MADem]

46. Well, all of our energy systems are vulnerable--if not to people trying to breach

the facilities physically, then people who are trying to hack the grid via computer.

Maybe the day will come when we have our own individual energy systems, but that's gonna demand a paradigm shift in a big way. I don't think I will live long enough to see that kind of thing.

[kristopher]

47. The social consequences of nuclear power are unique

and not to be equated with anything else. Fossil fuels do their damage one way, and nuclear does it another - but they both exert a tremendously negative affect on a culture over time.

[MADem]

48. Someone hacking the electricity grid can do a helluva lotta damage and that doesn't matter

how that power is generated.

[kristopher]

49. Apples and oranges

The capacity to go Chernobyl is part of nuclear power. That has consequences to social order which are unique. The consequences of a single plant differ from a few which are different than a nation completely reliant which is yet different from a world locked into a system dominated by fission plants.

There is a fairly well developed body of literature on the ramifications of nuclear power to social order if you're interested.

[MADem]

50. Well, I like wind and solar, myself.

That said, so long as we are using nuclear power, we need to be certain that it's protected. We probably could do a better job on that score.

[kristopher]

51. +1