Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it a truism that, in the 20th century st least, civilian nuclear power plants were simply a wheeze for the actual grand plan: weapons manufacturing? The two are coupled in a way that doesn’t feel comfortable.

Imagine a different timeline in which something called an Apricot bomb became the ultimate must-have weapon of mass destruction to ensure a seat at the big boys diplomatic table. E.g. you smash apricot stones together to produce annihilation.

Suddenly we have government programmes researching the health benefits of apricot juice, a system of distribution of apricot juice to all elementary schools, university departments funded specifically to produce generation after generation or stone fruit experts, oh and sure, a bomb or two, but trust our top men: that’s not the main focus, silly citizen!



This isn't true. There are many countries that have had nuclear reactors for decades and have no nuclear weapons.

Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Germany, Canada and more.

List of countries with nuclear power :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations


True, and this is the reason why no one believes the Iranian government's claim that they are enriching uranium only for civilian purposes.


Imagine all the left over arsenic waste.


Come friendly bombs. Sweet almond flavoured release.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: