Russia signs deal with Venezuela to build a nuclear power plant

The Taepodong II ICBM (Yes ICBM) is thought to be capable of reaching places like Kansas City, Chicago, Denver and Cheyenne in it's 3 stage configuration. (Maximum range ~10, 000 kilometers) In it's 2 stage configuration it can hit Anchorage.

First of all, that's a hypothetical range. Second of all, the missile doesn't even work.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you guys find "insane" or "crazy" about North Korea getting the one weapon that prevents America, which has military bases all over South Korea from invading it. Isn't that extremely rational and logical and what they should be striving for?

Why does America have thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads? Because it is insane? No, because it doesn't want to relinquish that kind of power.

Why would Venezuela (and similarly with Iran) want nuclear power instead of burning oil? Because they don't want to become some piece of garbage country in 20 years when their reserves run dry and they never delved into alternative forms of energy.

The only way you're going to stop the spread of nuclear energy is by blowing everyone up because nobody is going to give up the right to social progress (Whether I agree with it or not).

Nice Straw Man Political there. You one of those bitter Europeans that have got a beef with America because it's all over the place or something?

What's insane about NK getting their hands on Nuclear weapons is that North Korea doesn't actually subscribe to the concept of MAD. Nuclear weapons are meant to be political tools, anyone who understands diplomacy in a post-nuclear world knows this. North Korea either has the balls or lacks the intelligence to restrain itself from actually using these weapons. Considering they're an aggressive military dictatorship.

Maybe if NK hadn't decided to completely blow off peaceful relations with their southern neighbor and started trying to militarily posture themselves America wouldn't percieve them as such a dramatic threat? Contrary to what YOU might know, NK wasn't always so hostile.

And frankly, your idea that America keeps all these nuclear weapons so they can "have the power" seems also rather dumb. The reason we have such a stockpile is because that's what the military industrial complex in America wants. Many Americans, hell, maybe most Americans aren't in favor of keeping that many lying around. Because I think it's insane to have more nuclear weapons then we could ever possibly need.

So please, next time try to actually think before you start spouting off with more of that blatant anti-American sentiment.

@75 Oh fuck manifest destiny with a rusty garden hose, seriously there has been no more damaging a concept than that useless puddle of fail.

^^ I don't want all those strategic nuclear warheads. I'd rather have a military with 5 times the manpower and equipment than 5000 operational nukes we'll never use.

edited 18th Oct '10 6:53:03 AM by MajorTom

What YOU want doesn't matter at all, it's about what your government wants, which is exactly the same as North Korea. Name me how it's more hostile now than say when it invaded South Korea? What actual evidence have you that they are "insane" because they are going to use the nukes? The only country that has ever used nuclear weapons is the United States and I would not define the state as crazy.

I am a European that has a bug up my ass about America because I disagree that North Korea is crazy?

The idea is this.

Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, European Union, United States, whatever country you want to look at it wants to have the best technology at hand to increase its state power in the realm of international politics. Different forms of government may handle its decisions differently but ultimately, over the long term, the general trend is attempts at gaining power. Venezuela wants nuclear power plants because it's the best energy option it can take and if Russia is offering you would be crazy to refuse. North Korea has/is getting nukes because it's the best damn option in keeping its state alive, as well as the dictatorship, against American invasion. There is nothing insane about it.

America took down Iraq and it wasn't even involved in anything for a long time against the UN wishes. So I don't find it surprising that North Korea plays around in diplomacy enough so that the domestic population feels it is the Americans who are the aggressive 'crazy' people. And at the same time it's trying to get workable nukes. It's all just political games.

Maybe you should actually try informing yourself if you're going to talk about American politics. Or even NK politics. Because you sound seriously ignorant.

In the 90's NK and SK were finally opening up peaceful negotiations and you know what? Reunification seemed like it was actually possible. Then NK fucked that idea up in the last decade and decided acting like a hostile military power ready to cross the 54th parallel was more important.

And, please, don't even start talking about what "The government" wants. You don't know a damned thing about how the American political system works or how defense contractors have been influencing American budget allocations since the Cold War, getting us to buy weapons we never needed in quantities we'll never use.

And by the way. The American use of atomic weapons is incomparable to their use today. Because we did not live in a world where global thermonuclear war was possible. And we did not decided to use our weapons wantonly. Because, you see, the atomic bombings were a comparatively less costly waste of life then a direct invasion.

There's everything insane about allowing a hostile power with no apparent care of restrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's bad enough they have chemical weapons.

By the way. Iraq was all about the wishes of GWB, Cheney, and securing oil interests. Just like Desert Storm was. It had nothing to do with protecting America, as such is hardly something most Americans support.

Desert Storm - You referring to the first Gulf Live Fire Exercise we held back in '91? I think that had a little something to do with Kuwait getting invaded, but I could be wrong, I was only 14 at the time.

^ Agreed on the two uses of a nuclear weapon. Japan wasn't in a mood to surrender, and based off of hwo bloody Okinawa had been, it was estimated that we would've lost upwards of a million troops trying to take the rest of the Home Islands, not to mention the devastating impact that such an invasion would've had on the Home Island population, remaining industrial centers and dragging the war on for even longer.

edited 18th Oct '10 10:30:31 AM by pvtnum11

Foreign nations get invaded all the time by rouge powers, so why doesn't the US get involved in those? Well, unlike Kuwait GB sr. didn't have business assets in those countries, like he did in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Which is what America was afraid Iraq would invade next. And shit that would just mean bad business for Haliburton.

Lemme see if I understand your logic right. Kuwait gets invaded. No big deal, it's a teeny little country of little significance. Oh, wait. They're right nest to Our Interests, which leads us to You Can Panic Now?

Kuwait had all those nifty naturally-pressurized oil wells that ended up being a royal pain in the butt for Red Adair (and others) to stop up.

Saudi had an amry much larger than Kuwait did.

And Iraq had a larger one then even them. Because the Saudi's expected the US to protect them.

It was all about the oil. That's all it's ever been about over there.

Iraq's oil production now is pitiful compared to their pre-war levels, and when Iraq left Kuwait, they torched a bunch as they were leaving. I guess the logic on that was "If I can't have it, no one can" or something.

War for oil strikes me as a pretty stupid idea, considering that it is highly likely that the wells and refineries and all that stuff will be damaged or destroyed by collateral damage.

I would think it woudl be more prudent to do some offshore oil drilling or gosh, reducing our dependence on the crap, than going to war over it, and end up dumping tons of material into the trash-heap of broken war toys.

History indicates that resource wars are, sadly, a fact of life. Water, food, space, oil, ore, whatever. Mugging on a grand scale.

Wait a sec here, I'm not even sure what you guys are disagreeing with me about.

I'll forget the insults but what you are saying is that it is the military-industrial complex, a situation in which private military contractors and defence corporations collude with American politicians, to push you to purchase weapons and pointless conflicts is the source of the wars in question. I stated that it is not your wishes being extolled by the American regime but rather by a power clique, which I generally termed the American government. So isn't your statement just being more specific to the causes and mine being more vague?

South Korea screwed up that reunification plan just as well when the hardliners got voted to power and they vowed never to negotiate with the evil north regime. My contention is not that North Korea is actually our friend, merely that his actions have been largely rational. Regimes tend to want to stay around and his actions point toward this.

The ship sinking by the North Koreans was likely due to a trigger happy ship captain. It's not like it hasn't happened with other militaries before. You look at the situation and you see North Korea denying it happened. That indicates they believe it was wrong and thus don't want to be held responsible and furthermore that they did not want it to happen. So that shows me that the North Korean regime wants a cold war to justify it's shitty government but doesn't actually want a real war.

Also, let's keep the personal attacks out of the thread. Claiming my non-american-ness automatically leads to complete ignorance of American politics is not an argument.

edited 18th Oct '10 1:23:16 PM by breadloaf

I should have been more specific; I was more or less discussing a point with Commando Dude.

Actually so was I. I don't think he actually disagreed with anything I said.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you want to discuss North Korea, shouldn't you make the relevant thread? Same goes with Iraq.

Yeah fair enough I was off topic.

Well to make my point more concise about Venezuela, nuclear energy is a very good option. Solar and wind power is likely too expensive and difficult for them to obtain. They might be able to get tidal power (I have no idea about their geographics) or geothermal... maybe someone who knows more about Venezuela's available energy sources can comment.

If you were worried about political stability then I would suggest the USA and other big countries (EU, Russia, China) to cooperate and work together through the IAEA to monitor and run all nuclear power plants, including the ones in America. If USA lets the UN touch their nuclear power plants, then Chavez would have domestic pressure in letting the UN ensure safety at the nuclear power plants and prevent any diversion of nuclear material to any weapons programs.

The thing about wind is that it doesn't pose a problem of weaponized turbines or anything like that. However, to best utilize wind, you need to place them in some pretty specific locations. Hydro power is the same story - and it would create an artificial lake behind it, and that messes up the environment in other ways. Plus - you need a river and specific conditions to support it. There's also solar - boil up some water or other working fluid and use that to spin a turbine, versus using radioactive material to heat up the working fluid to spin a turbine. Kind of need lots so sunlight to use it, though, but it's clean.

We're looking at wave-activated generators here in Hawaii - hydro is no good, geothermal might work, wind could work if everyone didn't get the Not In My Backyard argument, but nuclear is right out, unless one of the subs docked at Pearl Harbor sells of some power to the local grid. Solar would be good here, too.

Nuclear doesn't have those problems, per se, but depending on the design, you could need access to large amounts of water. Plus - security. Not sure that a wind farm has much to worry about for security concerns.

No matter what they end up doing to reduce their dependency on fossil fuel for electricity, they'll have a lot of jobs created to build the facilities, and depending on what type they get, you'll have jobs for the guys who maintain it.

The thing about wind is that it doesn't pose a problem of weaponized turbines or anything like that. However, to best utilize wind, you need to place them in some pretty specific locations. Hydro power is the same story - and it would create an artificial lake behind it, and that messes up the environment in other ways. Plus - you need a river and specific conditions to support it. There's also solar - boil up some water or other working fluid and use that to spin a turbine, versus using radioactive material to heat up the working fluid to spin a turbine. Kind of need lots so sunlight to use it, though, but it's clean.

Venezuela has magnificent locations to make use of all three of these. Hydro power is our main source of electricity, to the point of causing another problem; dependency. Our energy crisis was caused by adverse weather (as well as lack of maintainance for our main dam).

They might be able to get tidal power (I have no idea about their geographics) or geothermal... maybe someone who knows more about Venezuela's available energy sources can comment.

Both are out of the question.

So, they're pursuing nuclear to fill out their clean energy portfolio? No problems here, as long as it goes smoothly.

Then that sounds like exactly the problem facing my area here. We ran out of spots to put in hydro, basically used up all available water supplies. As for wind and solar, we were getting some but its both really really expensive and nobody wants it near them.

So we were rounding it out with nuclear, it's up to around 20% of the energy supply with I believe 4 nuclear power plants (they take a long time to build so I don't think it's changed since the last time I looked).

We also put a ban on any further coal plants but despite promises to close them down, we need new power plants to replace them before that can happen. Since the recession trashed any sort of budget, getting new power plants quickly is out of the question.

Well... I'm just scared about what that nutjob might do with anything that has the word nuclear in it, as phrased by a previous troper. One thing that Just bugs me about this is that there are various posts saying that "Chavez isn't that big a deal" and that he's "run of the mill" and talking the talk without walking the walk.

I don't believe you've been in Venezuela, anyone who made those comments. The crime rate, the poverty, the power outages, the lack of food, the death... That man took a great country, one that is full of oil, natural beauties and climates, beautiful beaches, the tallest waterfall in the world. And destroyed it.

Sure it never was what it could have been, but it's getting worse. I am fourteen, I shouldn't be in a forum that discusses international politics, and yet I am because that is my home land, it's dying, and I want that to be taken seriously by someone.

I went to visit my family last year. I wanted to go to the kid's museum, I think it's five stories tall, last time I went I was 10. I couldn't. I was too afraid to leave my grandma's apartment after we went to go buy groceries the first day I was there. Half of the ones in the list weren't in the store.

Anything that can damage Venezuela even more scares the crap out of me. About 20 of my cousins still live there, if not more.

In most places, celebrating a birthday is just an excuse to party. In Venezuela, it's an amazing feat that you lived for one more year. At least in the parts I lived in. I love my country. I hate what it's become, but I love what it could be.

I don't believe you've been in Venezuela, anyone who made those comments.

You believe wrong.

That man took a great country, one that is full of oil, natural beauties and climates, beautiful beaches, the tallest waterfall in the world. And destroyed it.

Venezuela was never a great country and has been decaying for decades. Chávez' government is just a continuation of that.

Yeah, of the Venezeulans I know, which granted aren't many, they despise Chavez. But as for the social decay, the poverty, the crime rate, all of them have to admit that Chavez didn't cause those, they were pre-existing problems. And if you look at statistics, they got much much better under Chavez. He still sucks and you can do better... but so can every other nation on this continent or world.

You're 14 and you can talk international politics on a forum. Just think about the freedom you have right now that you didn't under the non-democratic regimes that preceded Chavez and the other guy who was elected... his name slips my mind.

edited 26th Oct '10 8:03:30 AM by breadloaf

The last non-democratic regime preceded Chávez' by then 40 years or so. A bunch of guys were elected in between.

Edit: I'll take the fact that I can't do basic math right now as a sign that I should go to sleep.

edited 26th Oct '10 10:31:11 PM by Stormtroper