Six Arab States Join Rush to Go Nuclear

Looks like everybody wants to be in the club. Should make life interesting for my children (and yours).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology

THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

“Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest [in using] nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,” Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a “security hedge”.

“If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],” he said.

The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.

Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices.

The case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world.

Since then, however, the Iranians have accelerated their nuclear power and enrichment programmes.

It will be interesting to see if they are all now included in the "Axis of Evil".

If one country has nuclear weapons, they all have to have nuclear weapons - why noone should be allowed them,

they've certainly become candidates for the "axis of evil" :2thumbsup:

Saudi Arabia seems to be the worst amongst that list.

And some people were like "Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" Well, here you go. :book:

I take it Middle Easterners shouldn’t be allowed nuclear power. I guess they’ll just have to go back to the Stone Age when the West has sucked up every last drop of oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

And some people were like "Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" Well, here you go. :book:

---

And some people were like "why shouldnt America have nukes/" Well, here you go :book:

I'm with Dariush on this one

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I take it Middle Easterners shouldn’t be allowed nuclear power. I guess they’ll just have to go back to the Stone Age when the West has sucked up every last drop of oil.

---

No one should have nuclear power. The US has it, but the US is a stable democracy, where the middle east is a hotbed of instability and they could use nukes irresponsbly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

No one should have nuclear power. The US has it, but the US is a stable democracy, where the middle east is a hotbed of instability and they could use nukes irresponsbly.

---

The US should stop having it, the problem with nuclear power in any country, its that if one country has it, then every other country feels they need to have it for self protection, by having nulcear weapons a country gains huge plitical leverage - even if they never intend to use nukes. The only option is for noone to have nuclear weapons, although i dont like countries in the Middle East having nukes, as long as other countries in the Western world do, i find it hard to find fault with their nuclear ambitions. :2thumbsup:

This might explain why Faisal has been busy lately...
Hmm, Germany also has nuclear power but no nuclear weaponry.
Once everybody has nukes, we're all completely safe anyway since until then all our WLANs and cellphones have killed us with their waves.~;)

It's very, very hard to repress scientific knowledge. So I think we're going to be living in a world where just about every nation that wants nukes can have 'em. Should be interesting. What sorts of politics will make sense in a world where every little nation under the sun can cause mass damage? Will this require more conflict (put the mad dogs down early) or less (back off, man, he's got nukes)?

It seems to me that the U.S.A.'s policy has been to slow the process down, keep nukes from showing up everywhere for a while. But it's a temporary policy, with a good-by date that is soon to be past. I wonder what the eggheads in Washinton have on their plates for how to deal with an Everybody Can Nuke Everybody world? Actually, I wonder if they have any policies in mind at all.

It's just a little unneverving that they all want it at the same time. Sure, now they have the leveraging power to go through it, but I'm not exactly thrilled w/ how suceptible their governments are to radical elements... Pakistan has managed so far, I suppose.


Anyway, If there's going to be nuclear war, it may as well be on a grand scale. At least we'd be able to say we were smart enough to be able to start our own mass extinction, it is pretty hard to do. Start making the space probes now so that we can load the videos on when the time comes: "look at us, we used to freaking rule.":clown:

Lemur: We've still got the Cold War "under our belt" (that's a shady allusion isn't it, who came up w/ that?). More nuclear Submarines.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

...but I'm not exactly thrilled w/ how suceptible their governments are to radical elements... Pakistan has managed so far, I suppose.

---

Most of them pretty specifically try to sit on their religious elements you know. Which, as most of the regimes in question are rather undemocratic, totalitarian and not terribly popular among their subjects, has duly resulted in said religious elements being rather popular among the populace.

That the regimes can't stomp on such movements too hard - so as to avoid looking like they're actually attacking the religion itself - the rads are also often about the main opposition groups around.

Quote:

---

Six Arab States Join Rush to Go Nuclear

---

Now that is shocking , for a start I never envisioned him joining with arab states , and secondly I thought with all the gas and hot air he has in abundance I didn't think Rush would need to go nuclear .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's very, very hard to repress scientific knowledge. So I think we're going to be living in a world where just about every nation that wants nukes can have 'em. Should be interesting. What sorts of politics will make sense in a world where every little nation under the sun can cause mass damage? Will this require more conflict (put the mad dogs down early) or less (back off, man, he's got nukes)?

It seems to me that the U.S.A.'s policy has been to slow the process down, keep nukes from showing up everywhere for a while. But it's a temporary policy, with a good-by date that is soon to be past. I wonder what the eggheads in Washinton have on their plates for how to deal with an Everybody Can Nuke Everybody world? Actually, I wonder if they have any policies in mind at all.

---

It's been discussed in IR/government circles for some time (1960s on). Look up the "Unit Veto" concept and you'll see what I mean. The two points of view that crop up most are:

1. the chance of a nuclear exchange approaches unity under such circumstances since too many unstable governments would have access to an "ultimate" weapon during time of crisis.

2. with everyone armed equally, comparative peace will break out through mutual deterrence (the analogy of the American West, where gun violence was comparatively rare despite virtually every male packing heat, is brought up in this context).

Which view is closer to the truth.....?

Well, I'd be the world's worst hypocrite if I abandoned my sovereignty philosophy now, just because it's inconveniant. While I'd like to see these countries limit their nuclear technology to energy production, not weaponry, I cannot honestly make an argument against any of them that aren't threatening to use them for offensive purposes (as opposed to North Korea, which has threatened Japan and South Korea on more than one occassion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now that is shocking , for a start I never envisioned him joining with arab states , and secondly I thought with all the gas and hot air he has in abundance I didn't think Rush would need to go nuclear .

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now that is shocking , for a start I never envisioned him joining with arab states , and secondly I thought with all the gas and hot air he has in abundance I didn't think Rush would need to go nuclear .

---

Those were my first thoughts too.:laugh4:

Tunisia shouldnt count:thumbsdown:

It would all be much easier if every nation was granted nuclear weapons. In such a situation, every country would be equally heard and represented in the world community.

Quote:

---

Tunisia shouldnt count

---

Any particular reason for that statement Strike ?

I wonder if Israel will consider a "Kennedy-esque" view of the situation?

"We will consider any nuclear attack upon Israel from any Arab country as an attack by them all, and in retaliation, Israel will destroy all Arab countries who possess nuclear weapons."

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Tunisia shouldnt count:thumbsdown:

---

?

Quote:

---

It would all be much easier if every nation was granted nuclear weapons. In such a situation, every country would be equally heard and represented in the world community.

---

Surely it would be much better if no country had nuclear weapons.... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I wonder if Israel will consider a "Kennedy-esque" view of the situation?

"We will consider any nuclear attack upon Israel from any Arab country as an attack by them all, and in retaliation, Israel will destroy all Arab countries who possess nuclear weapons."

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

---

It would be hard for Isreal to retaliate after being nuked considering its surface area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

It would be hard for Israel to retaliate after being nuked considering its surface area.

---

Well, I'm sure some "genius" will then realise that a policy of "pre emptive defence" is required: anything that looks as though any country might soon start a nuclear war is the trigger for Israel to nuke the lot.

We really need to invest more in renewable energy...

~:smoking:

If America can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If so bloody regime like Soviet Union and Russia can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If great death camps like China and North Korea have nuclear weaponm, why other can't?

I can't tell that Iran government commited bigger crimes that Russian or Chinese. So these countries can't ban nuclear weapon for others.

Iraq - no WMD: invaded
NK - WMD and awkward: safe
Iran - potential WMD & awkward too: safe

So logically, be awkward, have a big army and nukes, and no one will invade you.

Bit of a waste of money though (not that some oil-rich places will even notice).

Tangent... is this a hint that the oil fields aren't quite as well stocked as they say?

If so are they hoping to get cheap Uranium so that they can use it for internal energy needs and sell the oil for external use.

Fission plants have their uses. Not just military...there are medical, research and energy production. While oil on the other hand really shines in mobile uses such as cars, uranium is a far better choice for a static energy grid.

As long as the countries sign the nuclear weapon non-proliferation treaty (unlike India) then I see no harm in them going down the nuclear power path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

If America can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If so bloody regime like Soviet Union and Russia can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If great death camps like China and North Korea have nuclear weaponm, why other can't?

I can't tell that Iran government commited bigger crimes that Russian or Chinese. So these countries can't ban nuclear weapon for others.

---

Self Interest, Krook, that's why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks like everybody wants to be in the club. Should make life interesting for my children (and yours).

---

It'll be a hell of a lot more interesting for their children than mine I can tell ye.

Quote:

---

It would all be much easier if every nation was granted nuclear weapons. In such a situation, every country would be equally heard and represented in the world community.

---

What the hell is the UN for??

How difficult would it be for a “coalition” of countries that do not support more nuclear powered countries to buy up or secure all the available uranium or other critical components needed for a nuclear program?

Quote:

---

How difficult would it be for a “coalition” of countries that do not support more nuclear powered countries to buy up or secure all the available uranium or other critical components needed for a nuclear program?

---

I like this idea. its responsible and it reminds me of how i used to win Age of Empires. Build a fence around all the resources so the bad people can't get them.
The only problem is that other countries not in the coalition would be seriously pissed off.

Nothing quite says "Death to [country X]" like a mushroom cloud. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

What the hell is the UN for??

---

That is a very good question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

How difficult would it be for a “coalition” of countries that do not support more nuclear powered countries to buy up or secure all the available uranium or other critical components needed for a nuclear program?

---

Very hard considering the following.

USA and UK are the main partners in the coalition of the willing.
Australia is in the coalition as well and is friends with both USA and UK. Australia also plays cricket with Pakistan and India... more on this later.

USA has made trade deals with India. This includes helping them with their nuclear program. USA wants Australia to sell Uranium to India... why?

Because over 40% of the worlds easily accessible and cheap Uranium is in Australia. OPEC supplies a simliar percentage of the worlds oil.

But India and Pakistan has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As such Australia will not sell uranium to either of them.

So until the US stops pushing for countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty there is not much hope.

And this is between nations that get along fairly well, it is a lot more difficult when nations are not allied to the US.

Would Australia ever consider filling in all their mines and leaving the uranium where it belongs?

There is a semi-official policy only to ever have 3 mines operating.

Until fusion or thorium reactors become a power source I think uranium is going to be utlised. The alternatives are not viable to look after overpopulated regions. I doubt Europe could be run on green energy and keep the current population at the current lifestyle levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

There is a semi-official policy only to ever have 3 mines operating.

Until fusion or thorium reactors become a power source I think uranium is going to be utlised. The alternatives are not viable to look after overpopulated regions. I doubt Europe could be run on green energy and keep the current population at the current lifestyle levels.

---

I betting Europe could, just look at Ireland and its wind farms. Wind turbines are becoming more and more efficient and productive, I think its just a matter of time. Now to mention I saw a brilliant european inventor create a small wind turbine, that instead of sprawling the blades out, he spirawled them up. Creating a cheap (A little less then $1000) wind mill that could fit ontop of any roof. Was going to be marketed by next spring. Not to mention larger windmills are becoming more and more popular among Texans living out in the more rural parts.

As for the topic, this is why we cannot let Iran get nukes, and why we must have N Korea eliminate their nuclear weapons. They cause proliferation, I'm not saying they can't have nukes, but they cannot have them right now when their governments are unstable, when their breeding terrorists. The more countries that build nukes the cheaper and easier they will be for terrorists or worse yet an actual covert action by another government setting off a nuke in a major city. Iran already funds and gives safe havens to the many terrorist networks they've created, do you think they wouldnt give them a nuke if they had a chance? :yes:

I'd like to see hybrid wind and solar... have the blades coated with thin panel solar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I'd like to see hybrid wind and solar... have the blades coated with thin panel solar.

---

That'd be interesting but you'd have a problem being able to draw the energy from the solar panels becuase you can't have a cord attached. They are already coming out with electrolosys based hydrogen combustion engines for car's. Hopefully they'll have a generator like that soon, would beat both idea's.

Same way the power goes to a generator or a small electric engine... brush conductors.

Solar panels are useless anyway. They only provide power when it isn't needed (ie during the daytime in summer).

You could use it to pump water up into reservoirs or something, but still...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Solar panels are useless anyway. They only provide power when it isn't needed (ie during the daytime in summer).

You could use it to pump water up into reservoirs or something, but still...

---

Air conditioning? Daytime in the summer, IIRC, stresses the power grid more than any other time here in the States.

Batteries, capacitors for storage.

Things that are left on during the day:
Clock Radio, DVD Player and other 12:00 blink devices.
Fridge, not so good when it goes off for the day.
Climate control systems...

I've often thought that this would be a good solution to our energy crisis-cover all roofs with solar panels, and put a wind turbine of every house. Everyone would feed into the main grid. It would be expensive to set up, and it will never happen, but I imagine it would provide a decent amount of juice if you could get national uptake.

I wonder if Isreal is ever going to forcibly stop Iran. I remember hearing a quote from Tehran (The prime minister of Iran I think) saying he will "Wipe Isreal off the map".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I've often thought that this would be a good solution to our energy crisis-cover all roofs with solar panels, and put a wind turbine of every house. Everyone would feed into the main grid. It would be expensive to set up, and it will never happen, but I imagine it would provide a decent amount of juice if you could get national uptake.

---

Still fairly pointless. Main issue with wind turbines is they are very loud, and pointless unless you get a massive one. They also need to be in an open area and high up - so in a neighbourhood where every house has a big turbine on it, they would be pretty useless. Noisy, unproductive, an eyesore, and very very annoying. Expensive to set up too. Millennium-Dome style useless.

The solar panel issue is slightly more complex. Even if the power generated does take the edge off air con (less of an issue in the UK), what happens on the cloudy day? Or evening? You still need just as much backup power, so you have to keep all your power stations running anyway. So you generate just as much CO2 as before. Unless you live somewhere with 24 hour, guaranteed sunlight, or have guaranteed sunlight and a good way of storing the power, it's not all that useful.

With wind turbines, ones that can fit on houses can be 2.5kw or more. That quickly becomes significant.
Noisy? Ones that I have been close to in London have been to all intents and purposes silent.
Ugly? Yes, to current tastes, and with current designs. One argument is that people will probably change their views as more appear, and more are used to them being there. The other is that designs may alter making them more appealing.

So, not noisy, potentially producing electricity, and about as ugly as satellite dishes, TV aerial masts, and mobile phone masts.

Solar panels. The latest ones are 45% efficient. If buildings had them (and even windows UV and IR photovoltaic cells) the amount of energy that would be gained would be significant - obviously mainly in the summer. There is also the issue that if one is preventing rooms heating up, the need for air conditioners also decreases, and energy that is required from the grid also drops, as some can be gained locally.

I've been to holiday recently in Trinidad (the point comes later, OK?) There electricity and water can shut off suddenly, without warning.

Guess what? People there survive. They are used to it (even I did - 30+ degrees without even a fan...) They have reserves of water, and just don't use electricity till it comes back on.

I'd imagine that in the UK we would be able to alter the flow of electricity better than they do. Possibly work out the mean production of electricity by renewables, and then assume only 50% of that. Or dynamically alter the amount we get from France. Or have different grades of electricity user: the interruptible supply, going down to home users during the day / middle of the night.

Yes, we might have to alter our habits. Possibly use less, and in extremis even think "damn, I can't have the oven on as I'm using the hoover at the moment".

Can we adapt? Of course! If we as people can stop acting like grasping toddlers that throw a tantrum when we don't get everything we want immediately I' sure we'll cope.


~:smoking:

Quote:

---

The solar panel issue is slightly more complex. [...] what happens on the cloudy day?

---

They continue to work, just less effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

With wind turbines, ones that can fit on houses can be 2.5kw or more. That quickly becomes significant.
Noisy? Ones that I have been close to in London have been to all intents and purposes silent.
Ugly? Yes, to current tastes, and with current designs. One argument is that people will probably change their views as more appear, and more are used to them being there. The other is that designs may alter making them more appealing.

So, not noisy, potentially producing electricity, and about as ugly as satellite dishes, TV aerial masts, and mobile phone masts.

Solar panels. The latest ones are 45% efficient. If buildings had them (and even windows UV and IR photovoltaic cells) the amount of energy that would be gained would be significant - obviously mainly in the summer. There is also the issue that if one is preventing rooms heating up, the need for air conditioners also decreases, and energy that is required from the grid also drops, as some can be gained locally.

I've been to holiday recently in Trinidad (the point comes later, OK?) There electricity and water can shut off suddenly, without warning.

Guess what? People there survive. They are used to it (even I did - 30+ degrees without even a fan...) They have reserves of water, and just don't use electricity till it comes back on.

I'd imagine that in the UK we would be able to alter the flow of electricity better than they do. Possibly work out the mean production of electricity by renewables, and then assume only 50% of that. Or dynamically alter the amount we get from France. Or have different grades of electricity user: the interruptible supply, going down to home users during the day / middle of the night.

Yes, we might have to alter our habits. Possibly use less, and in extremis even think "damn, I can't have the oven on as I'm using the hoover at the moment".

Can we adapt? Of course! If we as people can stop acting like grasping toddlers that throw a tantrum when we don't get everything we want immediately I' sure we'll cope.


~:smoking:

---

As a "practicing medic" I'm sure that you're excited about the posibility of loosing power at a major hospital. Can we adjust? Sure we can, we used to live in caves after all. :dizzy2:

I was under the impression that most hospitals had back-up generators, uninterruptible power supplies, emergency battery packs for equipment, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

They continue to work, just less effective.

---

So you need power-plants to supply the difference. So they need to be kept on all the time. So in the end, you save hardly any power.

Solar cells are still only about 20% efficient too. Plus it's worth remembering that whilst your turbine works fine when it's alone, surround it with hundreds of other ones and suddenly it doesn't work too well.

Now this will all improve - but it's never going to actually solve that much. It's just PR to make people feel better. People won't put up with interruptable power supplies, at least not whilst there's still coal in the ground. Annoy them enough and they'll even accept nuclear power.

I see much more future in wave and tidal power tbh. Far more reliable, and far more energy available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Now to mention I saw a brilliant european inventor create a small wind turbine, that instead of sprawling the blades out, he spirawled them up. Creating a cheap (A little less then $1000) wind mill that could fit ontop of any roof. Was going to be marketed by next spring.

---

I saw a similar one from a Canadian company about a year ago, they are very cool and don’t depend on the wind direction because they are in a vertical helix, able to catch wind from any direction (coincidentally I can make wind in any direction ~D).

The weird drawback to wind power (at lease in MI and some other states I know of) the buyback for energy created by wind is less than for solar, making it too expensive to generate on a farm type scale like in CA (stupid IMO, but not for the energy company). Some legislative tweaks and some industrious capitalists and I think wind will be a good future power option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

So you need power-plants to supply the difference. So they need to be kept on all the time. So in the end, you save hardly any power.

---

I don’t think power-plants are and an on/off type of thing, they can control the amount of energy they produce. Just by watching the weather reports they can determine the capacity they will need to run at because of the amount of anticipated juice generated from solar or wind, even if they could cut back 5% on a day that would save how many rail road cars of coal?
Great now I’m trying to put the coal miners out of business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I don’t think power-plants are and an on/off type of thing, they can control the amount of energy they produce. Just by watching the weather reports they can determine the capacity they will need to run at because of the amount of anticipated juice generated from solar or wind, even if they could cut back 5% on a day that would save how many rail road cars of coal?
Great now I’m trying to put the coal miners out of business.

---

Enough to save the amount created for however many thousand square km of solar panel and wind turbine? Which will need to be repaired/updated pretty often anyway...

And I suspect that power plants probably get much less efficient if you keeps messing about with them. Hence why you use hydroelectric power to tide over when you have surges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

As a "practicing medic" I'm sure that you're excited about the posibility of loosing power at a major hospital. Can we adjust? Sure we can, we used to live in caves after all. :dizzy2:

---

As a practising medic, I am aware that ALL hospitals have backup generators... Great example :laugh4:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As a practising medic, I am aware that ALL hospitals have backup generators... Great example :laugh4:

~:smoking:

---

They pollute though. You'll have angry mobs outside demanding you suffer like the rest of society during the blackouts...

People are idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As a practising medic, I am aware that ALL hospitals have backup generators... Great example :laugh4:

~:smoking:

---

And they tend to be on specialised grids for the entire neighbourhood too... I live within one of those grids so the rest of Sydney will have a blackout, the local hardened grid will continue (it won't just fall over domino style and has some sort of generator supply) and once that is exhausted only then will the hospital have to revert to its own dedicated generators.

At work we have a diseal generator, UPSes for the entire server room and independent backup power supplies for dedicated comms equipment.

For instance standby generators by sector for 2005 NSW
Data/Telcos 180 MWs, 52%
Office Buildings 86 MWs, 25%
Retail 23 MWs, 7%
Broadcast 20MWs, 6%
Hospitals 10 MWs, 3%

Obviously anything that can locally reduce the load would be of interest to them. At our work putting in LCD monitors rather then CRT ones is cost effective... LCDs take less power and generate less heat... so directly they use less energy and they also reduce the amount drawn for airconditioning. It also extends how long the generators can last at the site.

Likewise most power plants do not run constantly at full capacity. They run far below that and only ramp up as demand goes up. There is no way that the energy companies want to expend fuel for energy that they do not then sell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As a practising medic, I am aware that ALL hospitals have backup generators... Great example :laugh4:

~:smoking:

---

It's a great example because not only are you advocating less efficient, dirtier forms of electricity generation you're also suggesting that we lower our standard of living to that of some backwater republic. Very :clown:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It's a great example because not only are you advocating less efficient, dirtier forms of electricity generation you're also suggesting that we lower our standard of living to that of some backwater republic. Very :clown:.

---

Very New Labour perhaps?

Hehe.

Last time I looked, backup generators are there in case the normal supply fails. Apologies if you are unaware of the meaning of this word.

Yes, shock horror, we might have to alter the way we live slightly. Possibly the concept of thinking of others is a novel one, but you'll have to trust me that it is neccesary from time to time.

~:smoking:

Excellent news !

So, here's what we do.

1. Sell them all the tech they want.
2. Diplomatic pressure once they start nearing completion of their programme.
3. Fix up some massacre or other 9/11 type situation.
4. Attack and destroy their capacity to wage war.
5. Leave the place in a shambles.
6. Repeat after 20 years.

Basically just sell them everything and then hit em. The send our companies to rebuild and then ht em again. They'll have to keep paying for it. And the fact that there are six of them will provide MUCHO DINERO and MUCH training for the military.

Hmm should I aim to become CEO of that large security firm or join the reserves ? Interesting, but difficult decision. Tell you what I'll join the firm and after the war I'll go in as a contractor. That way I get to shoot and blow stuff up.



/sarcasm