|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 11:49:39 GMT -4
I for one really wish the cold war was faked, because then we'd have nuclear power all over and this global warming thing wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. What? Are you arguing that nuclear power is causing global warming? Even the most rabid pro-warmists admit that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. Are you arguing that the Cold War caused global warming? And if it were faked then they wouldn't have built as many real tanks, planes, etc. that emit greenhouse gasses? Or are you trying to say something entirely different? I think you got hold of the wrong end of the stick there, Jason. If I read correctly, the suggestion is that more nuclear power usage would reduce carbon emissions.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 30, 2010 11:50:13 GMT -4
I for one really wish the cold war was faked, because then we'd have nuclear power all over and this global warming thing wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. What? Are you arguing that nuclear power is causing global warming? Even the most rabid pro-warmists admit that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. I think that's what he's saying... if it wasn't for the cold war we wouldn't be so scared of nuclear power and we would be using it more for our power needs. That would mean fewer coal power plants etc. On the other hand, without the cold war, would our understanding of nuclear power be what it is today? The US and USSR did a lot of research into nuclear that possibly wouldn't have been deemed necessary without the war.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 11:55:00 GMT -4
On the other hand, without the cold war, would our understanding of nuclear power be what it is today? The US and USSR did a lot of research into nuclear that possibly wouldn't have been deemed necessary without the war. Fair point. The nuclear industry wouldn't be where it is today without the cold war.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2010 12:03:02 GMT -4
Hmmm, perhaps I should have read more closely. I'm not sure if the Cold War is the reason people are so irrationally scared of radiation and nuclear power. I always thought it was all the bad press the few accidents have gotten and a general fear of the unknown.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 12:10:37 GMT -4
Hmmm, perhaps I should have read more closely. I'm not sure if the Cold War is the reason people are so irrationally scared of radiation and nuclear power. I always thought it was all the bad press the few accidents have gotten and a general fear of the unknown. Well it's a tough question, especially for those of a green persuasion. After all they spent a lot of effort fighting against nuclear power, but now it seems the logical way to go.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 30, 2010 12:26:29 GMT -4
Sounds like an interesting game PeterB. [Peeks out of secret gamers closet] Sure is. One of those never-enough-time-and-resources-to-do-what-I-need-to-do games. Same for me. I was glued to the newspapers and TV news, seemingly from about August to November 1989, watching as events slowly escalated, from day to day fearing a crackdown. In the back of my mind was what had happened in Beijing back in June. In my case it was my Year 11 English teacher, in 1983. He was Polish, and had left Poland with his family only a year or two earlier, leaving behind all their possessions except the family silver. He told us a few stories about what it was like living in a "workers' paradise".
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 12:36:58 GMT -4
Makes me wonder if Rodin is young enough to NOT remember it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 30, 2010 13:37:25 GMT -4
As I've said, I accept "the Cold War was faked" as the only conspiracy theory of my knowledge where "too young to remember" is a realistic explanation of its belief. There's just so much of the Cold War which was part of everyone's life every day. I don't understand how anyone who was there can believe it.
Then again, I don't understand how anyone who wasn't can, either.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 15:24:31 GMT -4
As I've said, I accept "the Cold War was faked" as the only conspiracy theory of my knowledge where "too young to remember" is a realistic explanation of its belief. There's just so much of the Cold War which was part of everyone's life every day. I don't understand how anyone who was there can believe it. Then again, I don't understand how anyone who wasn't can, either. I have no idea how true it is, but it was reputed that there were nuclear targets here in little ole Ireland from both sides as it was a logical landing place in the event of a european war since we are the westernmost part of Europe. Even if untrue, it was still a worry at the time. ETA oops random extra word deleted
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 30, 2010 16:31:53 GMT -4
I grew up with the absolute certainty that there were nuclear weapons pointed at my hometown, or at least its reasonable vicinity. But why would the Soviet Union need a landing place in case of a European war?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 30, 2010 17:01:56 GMT -4
There were a few articles a few years ago about USSR invasions maps of the UK. I seem to remember that ecologists are using them as they listed places that are a bit dodgy where ours do not? They did not want troops wading into chemical factories and they also listed the streets you could get several T72's down. Have to have a root for them. Edit click meQuick google threw this up and rings a bell from when I first heard it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 17:30:57 GMT -4
I for one really wish the cold war was faked, because then we'd have nuclear power all over and this global warming thing wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. What? Are you arguing that nuclear power is causing global warming? Even the most rabid pro-warmists admit that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. Are you arguing that the Cold War caused global warming? And if it were faked then they wouldn't have built as many real tanks, planes, etc. that emit greenhouse gasses? Or are you trying to say something entirely different? I thought he was saying the opposite, but now you've confused me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 17:33:12 GMT -4
I grew up with the absolute certainty that there were nuclear weapons pointed at my hometown, or at least its reasonable vicinity. But why would the Soviet Union need a landing place in case of a European war? Growing up, we thought that if the Russians bombed the U.S., they would come from over the Arctic and some could land on us.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 30, 2010 18:20:30 GMT -4
I grew up with the absolute certainty that there were nuclear weapons pointed at my hometown, or at least its reasonable vicinity. But why would the Soviet Union need a landing place in case of a European war? I suppose that there were options for a non nuclear option and there must have been plans for taking territory in a conventional land war. They did have numbers. The armies were toe to toe for years and maneuvers were followed closely by either side. I understand they even had a trawler off the coast during the Apollo years? They certainly eves dropped during the Falklands. But, as the maps link above may give a clue, you do not have those to invade a smoking hole so without any material to hand I assume they had plans for the airbourne or sea bourne invasion. That of course would mean there was a war raging across Europe and they were winning and we had not pressed the red button in a desperate defence.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 18:56:17 GMT -4
I grew up with the absolute certainty that there were nuclear weapons pointed at my hometown, or at least its reasonable vicinity. But why would the Soviet Union need a landing place in case of a European war? The Soviets would want to deny it's use to any U.S force as a landing zone. I have no idea if it was true, but people believed it
|
|