• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%

  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%
  • Total voters
    166
cpwill said:
1. The plants were hit with an earthquake larger than had ever been believed they would face. They took it and were fine.
2. Then the plants were hit by a Tsunami that wiped out that whole section of Japan. They still haven't recovered. The plants took it and were fine.
3. The plants lost power. They shifted automatically to the secondary, took it, and were fine.
4. The backup ran beautifully, just as it was supposed to
5. Then the recovery wasn't able to re-link the plants back to the grid fast enough and that is what caused excess build-up. No "meltdown" event, no massive spewage, the numbers that everyone freaked out were silly. At one point (I was in Japan supporting the recovery effort at the time) everyone started freaking out about the water having certain portions of radioactive material, so I had to do the math - you would have had to drink 15 gallons of the water a day every day for something like two years before it became actually dangerous.

The Fukushima Daichi plants, contra the easy bumper stickers and the wavetop view of "nuclear, bad thing happened, stuff went bad" are actually a powerful testament to the safety of this energy source.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but that's not saying a serious leak wouldn't be dangerous, like Chernobyl?
 
It all depends on how ecologically active the area is. Georgia really isn't in terms of concerning events. Human activity risk is not location dependent.

So I say bring the nuke plants. The risk in my area is quite low.
 
ChrisL said:
Fair enough but that's not saying a serious leak wouldn't be dangerous, like Chernobyl?
Click to expand...
them krazy rooskies built that plant WITHOUT containment ! But the way they exploded it, even a containment building wouldn't have helped much,
the graphite burns.
Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor all of ours are water moderated

If you study how they actually blew the thing up you'd be amazed.
Funny thing is they continued to operate this type of reactor to this very day without incident.
I'm still freaked out that they kept the other reactor at Chernobyl turnin' n burnin' till 2000 !
So yeah the enviro-wackos don't screw things up in Mother Russia
 
cpwill said:
a powerful testament to the safety of this energy source.
Click to expand...
yup coal has killed many more people by far
the facts are crystal clear but we can't build nukes. Well the Chicoms are slappin' em together as fast as they can.
 
tacomancer said:
It all depends on how ecologically active the area is. Georgia really isn't in terms of concerning events. Human activity risk is not location dependent.

So I say bring the nuke plants. The risk in my area is quite low.
Click to expand...

AngryOldGuy said:
them krazy rooskies built that plant WITHOUT containment ! But the way they exploded it, even a containment building wouldn't have helped much,
the graphite burns.
Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor all of ours are water moderated

If you study how they actually blew the thing up you'd be amazed.
Funny thing is they continued to operate this type of reactor to this very day without incident.
I'm still freaked out that they kept the other reactor at Chernobyl turnin' n burnin' till 2000 !
So yeah the enviro-wackos don't screw things up in Mother Russia
Click to expand...

I guess it couldn't be any more dangerous than dealing with those nuts in the ME! ;)
 
iguanaman said:
So Assad is turning over all his chemical weapons that he never even admitted having before because the U.S is weak? Good thinking Sherlock.
Click to expand...

We've know for decades that Syria had an extensive weapons supply and capability. (not even including what they got from Iraq)

The only non-surprise is the bumbling regime leader we have here.

But hey, nice that your complimenting the MSM's continuing support of dear leader. :spin:
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm mixed on that.

One thought is this. As long as oil isn't excessively expensive, why shouldn't we deplete theirs first? save ours for when everyone else runs out.
Click to expand...

If we had a president with that as his policy it would be worth discussing but we have a president dead set against ever using our fossil fuel reserves so the point as of now is moot. When an ant fossil fuel person says what you did I roll my eyes but when someone like you says it I take you serious. If it was stated policy I think the debate would be which is preferable, saving our reserves or not funding terrorist states. Then there is the jobs going after our energy would create which we could sure use right now.
 
ChrisL said:
Fair enough but that's not saying a serious leak wouldn't be dangerous, like Chernobyl?
Click to expand...
If you insist on using 40 year old, poor designs then yes, you might have a problem.

So let's offer a prize for the best designs for large, medium and small nuclear energy systems and then let's build them everywhere. You get your clean alternative energy, we get inexpensive electricity and the nation's economy booms (not literally...)
 
Misterveritis said:
Everyone retains the right to be wrong. Those who fear the night and what is under the bed are allowed to also fear nuclear power.
Click to expand...

There are other "problems" with nukes too. Where to put the waste is just one problem.
 
Yucca Mountain
problem solved

next
 
My personal preference is to wrap the stuff up and dump it in the Marianas Trench (or anyplace where one tectonic plate is sliding over another) so Mother Earth can recycle the stuff in her core.
 
Sounds like a good idea to me.

Could give ole Military CBRN guys like myself a good job on the outside in Radiation Safety.
 
Diogenes said:
one tectonic plate is sliding over another
Click to expand...
you'd have to be sure it would subduct otherwise it would become part of the new plate that is growing out and venture across and millions of years from now end up on the beach! j/k :p
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If we had a president with that as his policy it would be worth discussing but we have a president dead set against ever using our fossil fuel reserves so the point as of now is moot.
Click to expand...

Think long term. Besides, Obomba is history in '17.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
you'd have to be sure it would subduct otherwise it would become part of the new plate that is growing out and venture across and millions of years from now end up on the beach! j/k :p
Click to expand...

After millions of years, I don't think it will matter.
 
ChrisL said:
There are other "problems" with nukes too. Where to put the waste is just one problem.
Click to expand...
I think a better way to think of it is where do we keep the incredibly valuable by-products of creating extraordinary amounts of inexpensive electricity while we figure out how to use it next.

There is a place that has been studied to death.
 
Misterveritis said:
I think a better way to think of it is where do we keep the incredibly valuable by-products of creating extraordinary amounts of inexpensive electricity while we figure out how to use it next.

There is a place that has been studied to death.
Click to expand...

Do tell.
 
Yes,

If the government used chemical weapons on the population that is a big problem.

If the rebels were able to obtain chemical weapons and use them, that is an even bigger problem.

However, the only solution is a full invasion with boots on the ground. Any other option only opens up a vacume for insurgents or other states in the area to fill the void. If we just lob missiles in and destroy the ability of the government to deflect invation from influences from AQ, the Taliban or other islamic extremist groups, we may stoke an even worse situation in Syria then the one that currently exists.
 
Last edited:
Capster78 said:
Yes,

If the government used chemical weapons on the population that is a big problem.

If the rebels were able to obtain chemical weapons and use them, that is an even bigger problem.

However, the only solution is a full invasion with boots on the ground. Any other option only opens up a vacume for insurgents or other states in the area to fill the void. If we just lob missiles in and destroy the ability of the government to deflect invation from influences from AQ, the Taliban or other islamic extremist groups, we may stoke an even worse situation in Syria then the one that currently exists.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Like we did in Libya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom