Should we still be testing nuclear bombs?

[geo]

Potatoes are energy too. So which is better, mashed potatoes or F fries?

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Potatoes are energy too. So which is better, mashed potatoes or F fries?

I hope you mean FREEDOM fries, commie!

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Potatoes are energy too. So which is better, mashed potatoes or F fries?

I'd be happy to dicuss my potato preferences via PM.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just a thought

scotrace, too true about the number of things that suck energy, even when we aren't using them. Heck, I used to work on a manual typewriter, now my computer is on all day. So... conservation?

The big question all this brings up for me is this -- have we reached a point in our technological evolution where we can simply no longer sustain the kind of society we've built? Is there a practical limit to technological progress, and are we approaching that limit?

And more to the point, are we, as a people willing to make the kind of sacrifices we'd have to make for energy conservation to really make a difference? Would we be willing to go to sleep on a hot summer night with an electric fan and a bowl of ice as opposed to a high-powered air conditioner? Would we be willing to move out of the suburbs and back to towns, villages, or the inner city in order to eliminate the need for energy-consuming long commutes? Would we be willing to shut our lights off and go to bed an hour or two earlier every night? Do we really need all the home-entertainment devices we tend to have, and do we really need to have them all running at once? Would we be willing to turn our backs on the whole idea of a culture where consumption is king?

Are we willing, in other words, to walk the walk as opposed to just talking the talk? If not, as a society, well, we're going to have to accept the consequences.

And back on topic, no, I'm not real keen on testing anymore bombs.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I am also opposed to testing with or for nuclear bombs.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Potatoes are energy too. So which is better, mashed potatoes or F fries?

Fries, all the way. Preferably mixed with cheddar cheese curds and doused with hot chicken gravy. If you want to store up lots of energy, that's the way to do it.

 

[geo]

have we reached a point in our technological evolution where we can simply no longer sustain the kind of society we've built? Is there a practical limit to technological progress, and are we approaching that limit?

No, there's still room for pushing the limit, but there are consequences. We've reached the point where choices have to be made. To keep going forward necessitates to increase energy production by building nuclear powerplants, or the alternative is regressing, i. e. less computers, less TV, less microwave, less air conditioning, less cars. To me, it seems that the choice is already made, as nobody wants to go back, so the only alternative is increased energy production.

The same goes for nukes. The best nukes guarantee world supremacy. Who has the best nukes wins. Stopping research while others continue theirs would mean regressing in the world hierarchy, and nobody wants that either.

As a last point, fries are better by themselves or with steak, but mashed are superior when paired with turkey.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

No, there's still room for pushing the limit, but there are consequences. We've reached the point where choices have to be made. To keep going forward necessitates to increase energy production by building nuclear powerplants, or the alternative is regressing, i. e. less computers, less TV, less microwave, less air conditioning, less cars. To me, it seems that the choice is already made, as nobody wants to go back, so the only alternative is increased energy production.

The same goes for nukes. The best nukes guarantee world supremacy. Who has the best nukes wins. Stopping research while others continue theirs would mean regressing in the world hierarchy, and nobody wants that either.

I see conservation as progressive and enlightened, not regressive. Also, how much "better" can our nukes get when we can blow up the entire planet how many times?

 

[LizzieMaine]

\

As a last point, fries are better by themselves or with steak, but mashed are superior when paired with turkey.

On this, we agree completely. Add some seasoned butter and a little milk, and they won't be lumpy at all.

 

[scotrace]

On this, we agree completely. Add some seasoned butter and a little milk, and they won't be lumpy at all.

A little garlic and cream cheese, plus leave some of the jackets on the potatoes. I like 'em a bit lumpy, but prefer the term "rustic."

 

[PrettySquareGal]

An odd thing, but I love institutional mashed potatoes best. Lunch ladies know how to whip them up, I guess.

 

[geo]

I say "regressive" because people would have go give up things, like having 1 TV in a house, 1 car per family, etc. Some people define progress by the amount of technical gadgets they accumulate, and all the gadgets are energy-consuming. So, giving some of the toys up would be seen as regressing by most.

Nukes get old and have to be replaced at some point, that's why research is needed. Anyway, there is a moratorium on testing of nuclear weapons in effect, so nobody's testing, at least officially. The weapon in the article isn't a nuke.

All this potatoe discussion reminds me that it's almost lunch time.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I say "regressive" because people would have go give up things, like having 1 TV in a house, 1 car per family, etc. Some people define progress by the amount of technical gadgets they accumulate, and all the gadgets are energy-consuming. So, giving some of the toys up would be seen as regressing by most.

I understand what you mean.

 

[Andykev]

We need nukes, unfortunately. And a lot of other bad things.

Wow this really got off topic, so...to the issue.

Nuclear Weapons Testing. Above ground, or below ground, it is very bad for the enviornment. So was war, all our wars. So are fossle fuels. So is the crook on the street with a gun. So are house fires.

We need Nuclear Energy, without it, we are in trouble. They need to continue to refine the technology. The only horrible accident at a plant was Chernoble. It will kill for years and years. Second. the USA has safeguards...never had a breach. Terrorists? What I've read, the nuke plants are not easy targets. The Three Mile Island accident never released outside radiation. Can't say the same for the release of hydrocarbons from the Shell, Tosco, Tesoro, and Union Refineries here in the Bay Area. Ever hear" Stage II" release? Alert Environmental health and O.E.S.!

Alas, we need Nukes, as the other guys have 'em. We need Fossle Fuels. Wreck the economy if we didn't. Fires, guns, all necessary depending on use.

But to blast off a Nuke for testing...geez. How big a bomb do you need?

What if they developed some "Star Trek" kind of orbital lazer system where it could "surgically" burn say, just one square block. With nothing the people on the ground could do about it?

Who would you want to have that weapon first? Russia? Germany? Saudi Arabia? The USA?

 

[Serial Hero]

The real answer is SOLAR power.

But that will never happen because you can't make a buck off the Sun.

 

[Feraud]

But that will never happen because you can't make a buck off the Sun.

If we can get people to buy bottled water you can make a buck from the Sun.

 

[Benny Holiday]

What if they developed some "Star Trek" kind of orbital lazer system where it could "surgically" burn say, just one square block. With nothing the people on the ground could do about it?

Patience, Andykev. In good time, once the cost of constructing and and powering a linear accelerator in space comes down due to improved orbital construction techniques, there's bound to be a free electron laser (FEL) or two floating about in the sky. There have been attempts to build an FEL scaled to fit on a naval destroyer, because such a device can drill through 100 feet of armor-plated steel in half a second, but so far, the technology isn't advanced enough to make it viable.

LizzieMaine's questions and thoughts are an issue well worth exploring all on their own. She's got to the crux of a very important issue for the Western World.

 

[Briscoeteque]

Why do we need to test new Nuclear bombs? Why would we need to blow up the planet eleven times instead of ten? The US has enough nuclear firepower to blow up all the land on earth multiple times. So we're done. Put the money in the schools and the roads already.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Test put on hold!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/26/nevada.bomb/index.html

 

[Twitch]

Hey without nukes what are we gonna shoot at that Earth-killing asteroid that's barreling across the solar system for us right now?