More importantly, is Rand Knight the most public figure you’re aware of who has attacked nuclear energy on “peak uranium” grounds. Could he represent “peak uranium doom mongers” to the public, as Caldicott could represent “radiation fear mongers” or as Lovins could represent “renewable energy wishful thinkers”?

        George Carty said:

No, it would only be an act of war if the Swiss government had endorsed the attacks or protected the attackers – in fact the perpetrators were arrested in Berne in 1994.

Do you think that the RAF had a right to bomb Irish neighborhoods of New York and Boston in revenge for Irish-Americans funding of the IRA?

They would have the right to bomb any sites in the US that were being used to launch missiles at the UK. The US and British have a pretty good diplomatic relation and in general if you blow something up in London and then run to the US, then you’ll quickly find yourself handcuffed to a couple of Federal Marshalls and on your way pack to the UK to be prosecuted.

I was unaware that the Swiss had taken any action against those who attacked the French with rockets from Swiss territory. If they provided safety to those involved and didn’t actively prosecute them then that would be an act of war. It would be no different than if a brigade of the Swiss military attacked France and then returned to Switzerland without any kind of repudiation of their actions or arrest of those involved.

Firing missiles is an act of war or an act of terrorism, depending on the context. If it’s an irregular force that is not associated directly with a government then it’s terrorism. If it’s a group approved by the government and acting within government approval, protection or implicit protection then it’s an act of state-to-state war. If the Swiss don’t approve of their actions then the act is also an act of high treason against the Swiss for an attempt to provoke state to state war by attacking another sovereignty from within their territory.

I;m very suspicious that it took twelve years to apprehend just four individuals. The appropriate response by the Swiss is not only to condemn the action and allow for an open international investigation with the end goal being the apprehension of all those who were directly involved or had direct knowledge of the attack (not just sent funding to anti-nuclear groups but funded it knowing it would be for a missile attack). Those responsible have committed some of the highest crimes in existence (international aggression, high treason, terrorism) and as such it’s impossible for this to require anything less than life in prison.

Failing to do so, the Swiss are identical in capability for providing safe harbor to them to the Taliban for providing safe harbor and implicit support to Al Queda. Any group that has funded these actions can see this in two ways: A) These people acted as rouges without any connection to the group and took money which was intended for other use. In such a situation, the group could be absolved. B) They approve of the actions and support the individuals involved. In this case the organization is a terrorist organization, it is identical in culpability to Al Queda, the Al Auxa Martyrs Brigade, the Colombian drug cartels, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Tokyo Death Cult and any other international terrorist group.

        drbuzz0 said:

As for the rocket attack, that later was found out to be the Swiss Green party. It’s amazing to me nothing happened from that.

That’s a very obvious and blatant act of war. For a freakin POLITICAL PARTY in a foreign country to fire rockets at you and have the foreign government do nothing to stop them?

No, it would only be an act of war if the Swiss government had endorsed the attacks or protected the attackers – in fact the perpetrators were arrested in Berne in 1994.

Do you think that the RAF had a right to bomb Irish neighborhoods of New York and Boston in revenge for Irish-Americans funding of the IRA?

        GAGirl7 said:

Also, if uranium really was so common then why are we not all dead from being poisoned by it?

Because “uranium” isn’t all that radioactive.

Hint: crack a physics textbook. Then crack a geology textbook. Note the difference between uranium isotopes. Then bang your head repeatedly against the wall in arrant shame.

        George Carty said:

IIRC, The very reactor (Superphénix) which was the subject of the missile attack you mention was later shut down under a Socialist minority government (which needed Green support to avoid a dissolution of parliament).

Yeah. It was a real shame. The whole thing with Superhenix is that the entire anti-nuclear movement in France, realizing they couldn’t have a prayer of a chance at actually hitting nuclear power in general threw all they had at shutting down that one plant.

It was in part due to political backhanded tactics, like you mention, the minority government appeasing the Greens to get an effective coalition government that they could hang onto.

They cited events that caused shutdowns and cost overruns. However, in its defense, it was basically a prototype/experimental plant that was never really allowed to develop to its full potential.

As for the rocket attack, that later was found out to be the Swiss Green party. It’s amazing to me nothing happened from that. That’s a very obvious and blatant act of war. For a freakin POLITICAL PARTY in a forign country to fire rockets at you and have the foreign government do nothing to stop them? To even allow them to continue to operate as a legitimate political party? Christ! The French should have fired a few cruise missiles at stratigic targets in Switzerland for that. It’s amazing they didn’t take a stand there.

Anyways, it’s been too damn long since Switzerland has had to actually take a stand about anything and face repercussions. How long as it been? A few thousand years? Oh yeah, that’s right… they’re such a pacifist nation, they’re always sure to stay neutral while they smelt the gold teeth of Holocaust victims or launder the money of drug lords and terrorists.

        drbuzz0 said:

Even France suffers from the Greens coming out of the woodwork and trying to gum up every new reactor they construct.

However, France has a regulatory structure that tends to shrug off most of that crap, which might be why they have resorted to things like physically chaining themselves to the gates and even firing missiles at reactor construction sites…

IIRC, The very reactor (Superphénix) which was the subject of the missile attack you mention was later shut down under a Socialist minority government (which needed Green support to avoid a dissolution of parliament).

“A week after Russia’s Gazprom cut back gas supply into Ukraine, a growing shortage in Europe has resulted in calls to re-open shut-down nuclear power plants.”

It would seen that expensive energy is better than no energy at all.

        drbuzz0 said:

However, I have to assume that Canada is probably in the same situation as much of the rest of the industrial world, where various groups will throw themselves at any nuclear project to try to delay it, make it as expensive as possible and otherwise use whatever stall tactics, 11th hour appeals, injunctions or anything else they can to, if not stop the project, at least try to make it as much of a pain in the ass as possible to build the reactor.

That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. The difference is is that in our case there is direct proof that it doesn’t need to be this way when you look at the sames company’s projects, building the same product, in other countries. And we are not talking about just one, but several that have been pulled off without major delays or cost overruns.

        DV82XL said:

I will not comment in detail on what is an American paper addressed to an American audience. However as I have noted here and elsewhere, AECL has been building reactors during the U.S. moratorium on new builds, and hard numbers show that they can build plants on time, on budget – in any other country but Canada where they suffer the same cost overruns as US builders do.

I don’t know much about the Canadian system of nuclear regulation and permits, so I will not comment on it directly. However, I have to assume that Canada is probably in the same situation as much of the rest of the industrial world, where various groups will throw themselves at any nuclear project to try to delay it, make it as expensive as possible and otherwise use whatever stall tactics, 11th hour appeals, injunctions or anything else they can to, if not stop the project, at least try to make it as much of a pain in the ass as possible to build the reactor.

I don’t know directly whether or not this happens in Canada, but it seems it happens in the US, Europe and plenty of other places. I’d have to think at least some of that mentality is going to spill over into Canada.

Even France suffers from the Greens coming out of the woodwork and trying to gum up every new reactor they construct. However, France has a regulatory structure that tends to shrug off most of that crap, which might be why they have resorted to things like physically chaining themselves to the gates and even firing missiles at reactor construction sites…