You’re comparing technology of the 1980s to today’s technology. Nuclear power research has come a long way since then.

Part of the reason NPPs (as in, conventional PWRs, as we use in the west) had to be so big is the giant containment structure to keep pressurised water inside the reactor. Molten salt does not need to be pressurised and is much more efficient because it runs at much higher temperatures than water does. So these two technologies combined definitely have the ability to reduce the size of NPPs.

I think only China and Russia have ones that generate power. Other than that, test reactors.

There are plenty of countries that have nuclear power plants but no nuclear warheads or intention to get them. Like Japan and many European nations.

Nuclear is costly, but its the only green form of electricity production that is both feasible everywhere and can provide baseload power. As of yet, an energy transition towards renewables does not seem feasible without it. On top of that, SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs.

Well the sanctions haven’t been cutting it that’s for sure. But once again the biggest successes have come from Ukraine themselves, taking matters into their own hands and crippling refinement and shipping of Russia’s biggest export product. That won’t take any immediate effect on the war effort but it’s a big hit for sure. We will just have to wait how that pans out.

That’s all true but not the topic of discussion.

The topic is closing the strait of Hormuz being a better deterrent to the attacking forces than having nuclear weapons.

So, staying on topic, again: how is Iran’s control over the strait of Hormuz going to deter the US or Israel more from bombing Iran than Iran having nuclear weapons does?

Goods are taken from the poorest first.

Yes. That is what I already said a few comments ago. If you’re going to have a serious discussion you can at least have the decency to read what is written.

I am talking about the US and Israel because they are attacking Iran, so they are the ones who would have to be deterred from attacking Iran by either closing the strait of Hormuz or getting one (or multiple) of their cities wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear weapon. That is the problem that was posed.

So let me ask you this: how is people in Africa dying going to deter the US or Israel from attacking Iran? And how would that deter them moreso than the threat of getting nuked?

Do you honestly think that 20% of the population of the US and Israel will die when Iran closes the strait or do you just hate to admit you were wrong?

Good thing only 20% of it comes through the strait then!

And the people who freeze and boil are not the ones attacking Iran. Nor do the ones attacking care about what happens to people in other countries.

I already acknowledged it was an important product, but if you really think that one product has the same power as a nuclear bomb I don’t know what to tell you. Especially in a time with plenty of alternatives, where the most populous and powerful country is moving towards those alternatives –and away from said product– at breakneck speed, while also pushing the rest of the world towards those ever more affordable alternatives.

So once again, no, I don’t think I’m the uninformed one.

I can’t say I agree. The strait, as significant as it is, is just a very small piece of the earth. The only thing that is transported through there are oil and oil products. It’s a widely used product and a large portion of the product goes through it, but there are alternative places to get the oil and alternative ways to generate the energy it provides. We’ve seen oil prices go up shortly because of a scare, but we’ve also seen them come down again.

The strait is not a deterring force. They can still get bombed and the only bargaining chip that the strait provides is a financial one. That is a far cry from the mutually assured destruction that a nuclear weapon provides. I can’t remember the last time a war was started against a nuclear power. Maybe some small conflicts between India and Pakistan, but nothing major that comes to mind. I think the war between Russia and Ukraine is now the first time a nuclear power has been bombed on a somewhat larger scale.

In other words: 92% of US adults are enslaved by a system that does nothing for them and only takes from them and are too afraid or apathetic to rise up.

A lot of people think the pain comes from the spine when it’s actually just the muscles that run along the spine. A common cause of lower back pain is weakened muscles in the lower back due to a sedentary lifestyle. That causes instability and a reduced ability to deal with stressors that normal muscles can usually deal with without issues.

So I’m guessing that that is the issue here, although I’m making some assumptions here about the average Lemmy user :)

The fifth… so far!

Possibly. Anything to keep the oil flowing!

Exploding cows!!!

But cows contain methane so they will explode

Oh well, guess we will have to manually capture the carbon then

That could help and they should do this wherever they can. But it may not be an option for many city hospitals.

I also know some hospitals that have shuttle buses between the metro station and the hospital.

But the thing is, those kind of solutions don’t scale well. They work when a few people are taking public transport in an otherwise car-centric place. But if cars were to be banned and everyone would have to take the train or bus, it would be chaos. And there wouldn’t be enough volunteers to help even a fraction of the patients.

Jesus Christ, people who are too ill to walk should take a taxi or call an ambulance. I am not saying they should use a bike.

Yeah you did. I said some people need a door-to-door solution and explained further who those people are. If you then call the bike a door-to-door solution we’re still talking about those people.

And disabled or sick people can sit in a car and drive it, or sit in the passenger seat. You don’t have to assume their mental status.

cannot see well, may have dementia, or severe circulatory problems. They should not drive a car.. Period.

Whoever said anything about that? Not being able to walk and dementia don’t have very much to do with one another, except for occurring at an older age.

from people which are objectively unable to drive safely.

Yes, I already mentioned the ride-sharing or robo-taxi solutions.

Do you think we can continue like that for 20 more years?

Uhh. No. Where did you get that idea? I already said we mostly agree. I simply disagreed with your point about elderly people not needing to be driven in cars.

It seems you’re doing the exact same thing you accused the other guy of. Trolling, bad faith arguing, moving the goalposts, ascribing ideas to me that I never had (a.k.a. straw man). Knock it off man.