2016-12-14 at 5:25 AM UTC
This is some scare tactic headline bullshit. They're going to develop nuclear powered ships. Not weapons. This is not against the treaty. The US didn't "violate" the treaty. Trump just said he's going to look it over. Calling this retaliation is ludicrous since they've been developing this program since 2012.
2016-12-14 at 5:28 AM UTC
Nuclear reactor ships are very uncommon and are essentially only a military design that enables you to stay operation for extended periods of time without having to refuel. It also allows you to carry extra supplies such as food or weapons because you don't need to carry fuel.
Pretty much the only guys who used reactors in non military ships were the Soviets, and that was in government owned icebreakers used by the military to rescue ships stuck in ice.
So technically they were navy ships.
2016-12-14 at 5:31 AM UTC
Or you know like, they're a very cheap source of fuel as well. You don't have to go on extended missions. Iran probably won't be using it for that purpose.
Nuclear energy is a very powerful, very untapped, very feared source of energy which when recycled and disposed of correctly, leaves less waste than our current dinosaur burning machines.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2016-12-14 at 5:40 AM UTC
Yeah that's the thing though.
It is military technology. It is not civilian technology.
You have to make the determination that that is the case to be able to understand why this stuff is BAD. I'm not in favor of legalizing SAM's. I have no problem with private ownership of bulletproof vests and assault rifles.
You don't have a nuclear reactor in your backyard.
2016-12-14 at 6:07 AM UTC
Nuclear research is not supported by climate change people so I think the whole world can go fuck itself, I'm glad Iran, North Korea, Russia and China are the ones dominating the field now because otherwise we would be lost. If it wasn't for the Russians there would be no ISS.
