Nuclear power relies on stable, safe, and advanced nations not like, I dunno, starting a land war in Europe that threatens to flood the continent with fallout.

[–] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

A concern of mine is the increasing prevalence of natural disastors as global warming worsens. Our plant and storage location may be safe now but natural disasters will be way worse and in unexpected locations as we're already seeing.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The US better be careful of all those land invasions from Canada. All those NATO countries that live in the largest defensive alliance ever, that are threatened by Russia who couldn't invade one of Europe's poorest countries. China could be invaded at any moment by the Mongols.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We just had a failed insurrection four years ago, wtf are you doing pretending like this can’t happen

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A bunch of idiots is not a war with tanks, artillery, and planes.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That bunch of idiots are the ones who control the tanks, artillery, planes, and funding for infrastructure that is required to keep nuclear plants from melting down

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Oh the military did Jan 6? Must have missed that. You know the tanks rolling toward Congress.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The sitting president did it…the commander in chief. I get you like nuclear but this is embarrassing

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The sitting president told... wait for it... A bunch of idiots. I get that you don't like nuclear, but this is embarrassing.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don’t dislike nuclear, I dislike bad arguments and bad decision making. The president wields enormous power over the stability and infrastructure required for nuclear to be safe and sustainable. You cannot have watched the debate last night, or the events of Jan 6, and feel confidence that anyone involved can be trusted with a goldfish, much less consistently providing a stable nation capable of securing nuclear plants.

If your argument is “don’t worry a sitting president may have staged an insurrection, but it was incompetent so it’s totally ok to leave him in charge of nuclear plants” then yeah, I think that’s a bad argument. And embarrassing

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bad arguments like portraying a bunch of idiots as an actual military force and a war? And you're still (kinda) at it. Now a strawman. Yup, you're everything you project about bad arguments. Ciao.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bad arguments like “the president of the United States tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.” Man the gaslighting from you is wild.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Speaking of strawmans (a weird one at that). And gaslighting. And wild. Projection in case you don't get it.

Why am I bothering. Ciao.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

You keep using all the classic rhetorical terms reserved for people who have argued themselves into a corner. You’re not very good at this. cIaO CiAo