Making abortion difficult is causing mental health problems for American women. Thermonuclear fusion as a source of electricity faces another predicted hurdle.
Thanks for this post Peter. I'm especially glad that you included the paragraph about fusion's nuclear weapons proliferation potential. Placing natural uranium around a fusion reactor would bombard it with neutrons and create U239, the stuff of n-bombs. This information never appears in the mainstream press promotional articles about fusion.
To follow you in understatement, let me say that I think that we have agreed for a long time on what that pattern might be. It is something Chomsky has repeated frequently: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." (Adam Smith—http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300—An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)
Indeed, agreed. There is the madness of narcissism devolved to a degree known as malignant which Is said to be the description of evil. Dr. M. Scott Peck has quantified the process in his work : “People Of The Lie” explaining that literal exorcism might be the only viable intervention.
\We hvebeen saying for 60 years if you want nuclear power, then you havbe to end all nucvlear war programs. otherwise we just assume y0u want to kill everyone.
Not that I disagree, but the same technology underlies both bombs and energy production for peaceful purposes. Separating this Siamese twin is virtually impossible. Joseph Rotblat made that argument a long time ago. The international structure that might prevent this, if indeed it can be done, was destroyed on August 6, 1945. The Franck report made that point even before that. The pertinent quotes are here https://peternightingale.substack.com/p/nukes-for-proliferation-and-industry
Martin Sherwin wrote in 'Gambling with Armageddon:' "NEWS OF the atomic bombing struck Stalin like a 'thunderbolt,' another leading historian of the Soviet Union, Vladislav Zubok, wrote. The fact that he should have expected it seems to have made little difference. It was not the bomb’s development or even the news of its successful test that jolted him; it was the manner in which it was introduced: 'on an essentially defeated enemy,' in J. Robert Oppenheimer’s words. It was that fact that led Stalin to interpret Hiroshima as a calculated threat, “a gauntlet thrown down by Truman...that he had to respond to,” Holloway concluded. Whether the use of the atomic bomb was motivated in whole, in part, or not at all as a warning to Stalin, that is how he understood it."
Rotblat left the Manhattan Project when he heard General Groves say that the Soviets were the real target of the bomb making, something Groves repeated in his testimony at the Oppenheimer hearings.
Thanks for this post Peter. I'm especially glad that you included the paragraph about fusion's nuclear weapons proliferation potential. Placing natural uranium around a fusion reactor would bombard it with neutrons and create U239, the stuff of n-bombs. This information never appears in the mainstream press promotional articles about fusion.
Thank you. I think I see a pattern developing here…
To follow you in understatement, let me say that I think that we have agreed for a long time on what that pattern might be. It is something Chomsky has repeated frequently: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." (Adam Smith—http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300—An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)
Indeed, agreed. There is the madness of narcissism devolved to a degree known as malignant which Is said to be the description of evil. Dr. M. Scott Peck has quantified the process in his work : “People Of The Lie” explaining that literal exorcism might be the only viable intervention.
\We hvebeen saying for 60 years if you want nuclear power, then you havbe to end all nucvlear war programs. otherwise we just assume y0u want to kill everyone.
Not that I disagree, but the same technology underlies both bombs and energy production for peaceful purposes. Separating this Siamese twin is virtually impossible. Joseph Rotblat made that argument a long time ago. The international structure that might prevent this, if indeed it can be done, was destroyed on August 6, 1945. The Franck report made that point even before that. The pertinent quotes are here https://peternightingale.substack.com/p/nukes-for-proliferation-and-industry
Martin Sherwin wrote in 'Gambling with Armageddon:' "NEWS OF the atomic bombing struck Stalin like a 'thunderbolt,' another leading historian of the Soviet Union, Vladislav Zubok, wrote. The fact that he should have expected it seems to have made little difference. It was not the bomb’s development or even the news of its successful test that jolted him; it was the manner in which it was introduced: 'on an essentially defeated enemy,' in J. Robert Oppenheimer’s words. It was that fact that led Stalin to interpret Hiroshima as a calculated threat, “a gauntlet thrown down by Truman...that he had to respond to,” Holloway concluded. Whether the use of the atomic bomb was motivated in whole, in part, or not at all as a warning to Stalin, that is how he understood it."
Rotblat left the Manhattan Project when he heard General Groves say that the Soviets were the real target of the bomb making, something Groves repeated in his testimony at the Oppenheimer hearings.