Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
The left: The Climate is so bad right now that we don’t have the ability to fix it!
Me: I don’t have the ability to fix my dead grandfather. That doesn’t mean I lecture to politicians about the need to fund technology that can bring people back from the dead.
The left: We didn’t mean it like that. We want to fix a unfixable problem!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You are correct, but the land being stolen doesn't mean I'm going to move off of the land or learn Cherokee.
A lot of people claim the land being stolen means they should move off. In this context, it doesn't. I'm living in one of the freest place on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
For me, I don't care about the connontations of labels but only their accuracy.
Like if you define, "anti-vax" as someone that is against COVID vax mandates, then I'm anti-vax even though I got 2 boosters. Most people in that situation would be scared of being labeled an anti vaxxer. I'm fine with that title if that's how you define it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So where do you live?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Technically true, but taxation is needed theft because the alternative is public schools get no funding, which means the computer wouldn't have been built.
Cutting government spending and tax revenue means low income children suffer and die so the globalists can get richer. Understand that if you advocate cutting government spending.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your profile says you are a conservative. This is synonymous with a republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Where do you live? Nvm, it's Japan. Are you Japanese or a foreigner?
Created:
Posted in:
While they are technically correct, the information is irrelevant. I'm not going back to Italy anytime soon. It would be a horrible idea to only let Natives live in the USA.
Created:
Posted in:
Unblock me over an accident that I did if you want to respond to my posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yeah, we know. Because you know, party of law and order right?
The GOP is not consistently the party of law and order. When republicans say, "Law and Order", they are bandwagoning.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Alright, so then what makes you a republican?
Created:
Posted in:
Wiki's examples:
Reparations can take numerous forms, including practical measures such as affirmative action; individual monetary payments; settlements; scholarships and other educational schemes; systemic initiatives to offset injustices; or land-based compensation related to independence. Other types of reparations include apologies and acknowledgements of the injustices;[1] the removal of monuments and renaming of streets that honour enslavers and defenders of slavery; or naming a building after an enslaved person or someone connected with abolition.
I underlined what I disagree with; I bolded what I agree with. But I need rednecks to be on board, so maybe remove the racist Lee statues and replace them with gun toting cowboys and bald eagles with a strapped AR 15 on their back. Replace the confederate flag with a Harley Davidson Flag.
America Fuck Yeah!
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It makes your original claim about how much average car drives false, since your claim was about per car, not per person.
So then per person would probably be a better metric.
# of licensr holders in the US: 230 million
# of km/licence holder/year: 20k
# of km driven/year in the US: 4.6 Trillion
Kilo Watts/km of an electric car: .2 KWh
KWH/year: 920 Billion KWH
Total US energy consumption/year: 4.05 Trillion KWH
This is about a 22% increase.
My family has 5 people with licenses and 3 cars. A lot of families may be my family's size and only have 1 or 2 cars (or 0).Sorry, but I prefer to trust sources rather than personal examples which may not apply generally.
Do you really think there are that many families with 5 people that have 8 cars to offset all the families with 3 cars? It seem unrealistic.
Again, no one will sell all the stock market to help people buy cars.
People may sell some of their stock so they personally can buy a car.
If you are saying that its impossible to preach what you dont practice and not change your speech, then what are you accusing me of?
I was saying Incorrect when you said one can do neither.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you support Roe V Wade? That was an American tradition for 50 years.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
well to be fair there is too much labeling in the political scene and it pains me that in order to gain support you ought to perpetuate that because americans are morons.
This is true, but unfortunately, if I run for POTUS, then II have to pick a party.
Maybe that is why I chose physics, a field where labeling actually makes sense, than political science.
I think it's stupid to major in poly sci. I majored in Actuarial math.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats why they probably dont do it at once.
Lets say there are 2 people; Person A and Person B. They both drive 80 km a day. Person A owns 1 vehicle; Person B owns 2. Person A is getting all their driving done with their 1 vehicle; Person B splits it up. I don't believe there is too much correlation between how much driving in total you perform vs the number of cars you own; but I believe there is a strong negative correlation between how much driving per vehicle vs the number of cars you own (assuming you own at least 1 car).
There are 230 million driving licenses in USA, and 270 million vehicles.
My family has 5 people with licenses and 3 cars. A lot of families may be my family's size and only have 1 or 2 cars (or 0).
Yeah, so expect more inflation in the future.
Supply and demand adjusted for inflation (the stock market rises faster than the inflation rate on average).
Sure, I dont drive, but I do use public transport from time to time.
That public transit is powered either with gasoline or electricity. So you use energy more than the average North Korean from the public transit you take.
So is everybody else! Practice what you preach or change your speech!One can do neither, so that is a false or.
Incorrect. You can merely become pro energy consumption.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If you want to call it that, then that's understandable. Although I'm 2 issues away out of 72 from being a right-leaning centrist.
It's just ever since I became political, I've always seen myself as right wing, so I might have to do some self reflection on that.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Some people own multiple vehicles, not all vehicles require driving license.
But it's impossible to drive multiple cars at once, and I don't know if your 2nd claim is correct.
Prices have consistently increased over time.
Inflation
The supply doesnt always follow the demand.
Not always, but there has been a mistake in the car making industry that they are fixing as we speak.
Its nothing like my computer. Car battery is over 1000 times bigger than a computer battery, and battery for trucks and airplanes even bigger.
Well do you drive or take public transit?
But I am greedy.
So is everybody else! Practice what you preach or change your speech!
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I wouldn't say that. It's kind of like how I prefer someone who is Jewish that takes their religion super seriously over someone who is Jewish that eats pork and doesn't take their religion at all seriously. The former actually believes in what they say they do; the ladder is just a bandwagoner. I'm not religious, but I respect people that have values and stick to them over bandwagoners. I'm not a leftist (although I agree with the left 50.6% of the time (OTI - Google Sheets) but this is akin to calling Georgia a blue state in 2020; Georgia barely went for Biden in 2020). Leaning left/right is agreeing with the left/right between 60% and 67% of the time. Far left and far right are 80% or higher. Standard left/right is between 67% and 80%. I'm really in the center.
I can respect the left for having a consistent ethos; I can't say this about the right. Just like how Kyle Kulinski respects Rand Paul for having a consistent ethos, but doesn't respect the corporate dems (even though he agrees with the corporate dems more).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are over 270 million vehicles in USA
There aren't even 270 million people in the US with driver's licenses. Some things you read on the internet are just wrong.
Average electric car costs 30k to 50k. Multiply that by 100 million and thats 3,000,000,000,000, which is 3 trillions. However, there are 260 million vehicles in USA, and the ones such as trucks would be much more expensive. So it would amount to at least 6 to 12 trillions under current prices, assuming that price doesnt go up due do demand.
The only time people would replace their cars is if they have too due to their current car being too old. If they have to replace their car, then they are spending $40K roughly if it's a new car, whether it's electric or gasoline. If demand goes up, then price goes up, but this leads to supply going up (because more cars would get produced) leading to the price per car decreasing by roughly the same amount that demand caused it to increase, leading to the price being about the same.
Yes, but average car uses 5 liters of fuel per day, multiplied by 100 million is 500 million liters of fuel per day. So planes which use 16 per 100 would still use a lot.
It wouldn't be a significent increase to the vehicle production needs for energy if all cars eventually become electric.
However, they can become cheaper if technology makes cost of production lower. But that wont happen in case of batteries, as raw materials needed to make them are expensive.
How much are the raw materials for batteries? It's basicly a bunch of metals and alloys. It's like your computer (which has an electric battery). It used to be very expensive, but things became cheaper as the technology production gets better.
As I said, North Korea already solved it with plan economy. Apparently, not letting your population waste fuel comes with its advantages.
I think you have lost this exchange by saying the US population should use the energy levels of North Korea. But if that's really what you believe, then never go to DART again; you are using too much energy. I'm merely wanting my computer's energy supply to eventually come from nuclear sources. You want to basicly abolish energy consumption.
Created:
-->
@Mall
If the law calls for deporting anybody, then change the law. Stupid laws shouldn't exist.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Wouldnt you say that the right is a set of beliefs, as opposed to having one standard?
But what defines the right's set of beliefs like as a moral code? If you don't have a moral code and aren't an independent, then how does the right consistently oppose the left in all issues that are controversial? Are they closet sadists?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, Tate is also associated with right-wing and far-right ideologies
He has a few left wing (Andrew) Takes. Like, he would be willing to have sex with a woman who has a dick.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I prefer the centre.
That's fine, but how do you define the center? What center in my country (USA) is often far right in yours (UK).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Price of uranium sometimes increases by 90%.
Where is your source for this?
Electric car buying: 6 trillion to 12 trillion dollars currently for 200 million cars, could double in 10 years, which means it could cost up to 24 trillion by the time nuclear power plants begin producing.
I don't know where you got these numbers, but it's not like people would buy electric cars all at once and How Many Vehicles Are There in the US? | Bankrate states there are only 100 million electric cars in the US. But people would merely have the next car they buy be electric; so they would spend the $30K on a car regardless of if it was electric or gas powered.
USA uses about 4000 terrawatts of energy.
U.S. electricity consumption 2023 | Statista states basically that.
Having all cars as electric cars would add another 4000 terrawatts to consumption, which means 10 trillion dollars would need to be payed for power plants currently, however, if people wait, the price of powerplant could go up.
how much energy does one electric car use per mile? - Search (bing.com) states that the average car uses 394 kwh/month. 100 million cars is 39.4 tw/month for the nation. Per year, that is 472.8 terrawatts/year. It's not a radical increase.
Industry converted to electric would add another 1000 terrawats.
Industry is already mostly electric. When was the last time you went into work and saw gasoline powered lights? Lights are already electric.
Maintaining nuclear power plants is where the new problem rises.
After nuclear power matenience (including workers) companies still get a 14% of their investment back every year. If someone wanted $100 from you and in exchange, they would pay you $14 every year for the rest of your life, then you would be a fool to pass that up.
Converting planes to electric: This is right now probably even impossible with huge planes, but big airplanes would require huge batteries which would cost a lot to make. They would also add a lot to electricity consumption.
Planes do use a lot of fuel, but they are incredibly rare compared to cars; so much so that for every 100 liters of gasoline the collective of cars uses, the collective of planes uses only 16. The collective of ships (which you mention) uses about 8 on this scale.
Converting trucks to electric: Trucks require bigger batteries than cars do
The collective of HD trucks are about 36 liters on the same scale.
But if tanks and airplanes were converted to be powered by batteries, they would not only require much more expensive batteries than the ones in cars
Right now, battery cost is a huge issue; but that's why cheaper batteries inevitably will be produced. The computer you are typing on used to be a lot worse and a lot more expensive. But technology makes leaps.
The population doesnt want electric cars.
They won't consume them immediately, but as time goes on, they will become more common.
But what's your solution? You don't want oil, coal, or nuclear. We need energy in this society.
Created:
I did change a lot since I first got on DART. When I first got on here, I was a conservative. Now, I don't affiliate with any party, but I respect the left more than the right simply because they have a consistent ethos that they stick by even when it's not convenient (being anti unwanted pain). ALL of their beliefs are designed to reduce unwanted pain. They want legal abortion because it prevents unwanted maternal pain (late term abortions produce pain unless you give the fetus painkillers, which is done in states that legalized abortion until the moment of birth). They want to ban AR 15s because of the pain inflicted on by mass shootings; they want to abolish ICE because of the pain from deportations. They want to stop anti Semitic hate crimes that happen to Hasidic Jewish individuals; this is despite 83% of Hasidic voters or so voting for Trump in 2020. The left is consistently anti unwanted pain even to groups that don't return the favor with votes.
The right on the other hand, has no consistent ethos.
They stand for "tradition" (a euphemism for the status quo) until it's Roe V Wade (a 50 year old American tradition that their party got rid of).
Or they stand for, "life" (unless it's universal healthcare).
Or they stand for, "victimless liberties" (honestly my moral code) unless it's undocumented immigration, weed, or Qualified immunity.
Or they stand for, "Law and Order" unless the law calls for repealing the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment (which lets be realistic; if Trump acted tyrannical in a way that benefitted the right, then they wouldn't take up arms about it) or if the law mandated COVID updated boosters, then these people would be calling the government tyrannical.
Or they stand for western civilization, until Andrew Tate trashes the west for being woke, then they hate western civilization (western civilization is very left wing compared to Latin America or the deep dark Sahara).
You can't advocate for, "freedom" and, "law and order" at the same time; the whole point of the law is to take away liberty in the pursuit of some form of safety (whether it's safety from death, pain, or inferiority[example: we force kids to do to school to save them from being inferior versions of themselves]).
I can respect the left even though I don't always agree; this is not nearly as true for the right.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Correct, but you can't deport them even if they vote for a different party than you do.
Created:
I got 2 main concerns with this. The 1st is easily solvable. The 2nd isn't:
- Gender integrated campouts have the potential to lead to underage sex and unplanned pregnancies. This is easily solved with all girl or all boy tents.
- Pretty much no girl wants to go camping in the woods with dudes. They would rather hang around a bear than a strange dude that they don't know. It doesn't make any sense to rational men, but it makes sense to emotional women (a left wing transwoman said this, so I can't get called sexist for it). If they would rather hang around a bear than a random dude, then they want nothing to do with men. If women hate men this much, then I'm a guy; I don't want to make women uncomfterable and I don't hate them back; I will try and keep my distance. But any woman who says they would rather hang around a bear than a man and is willing to go camping with literal teenage boys (I would rather hand around adult men than teenage boys; I like hanging around smart people and adults tend to be nicer than teenagers since adults have suffered more, although many exceptions exist) doesn't believe a word they say and will follow the big influencers. The influencers of women should not be some random celebrity online that has no vested interest in the women's success; the primary influence that should affect a female are her parents and when she marries; her husband. Any woman that wants to camp outside with teenage boys while rather being with a bear in the woods than a man is not clerly fit to run her life needs to take medical THC, relax, and understand that the world isn't out to get her like what left wing politicians want her to believe because more scared women are more likely to vote democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Normies: I'm not racist; I have a black friend.
Me: I'm not racist; I think every confederate flag should get lit on fire and replaced with the 2nd amendment flag!
Normies: I'm not anti sematic; some of my best friends are Jewish.
Me: I'm not anti sematic, I think literally every Jewish person living in Israel should move to the US to escape bombings from Hamas!
Normies: I'm not homophobic; I got a gay friend!
Me: I'm not homophobic; I literally think a company should not be allowed to fire you for being LGBT (or unvaccinated).
Normies: I'm not transphobic; I'm not afraid of transgenders.
Me: I might be transphobic depending on your definition of transphobia. If it's believing that you can't just identify as a woman and become a woman, then I'm transphobic in that regard. But I also think it's possible to be a woman with a dick. So if your definition of transphobic is believing that only men have dicks, then I wouldn't be transphobic.
The normie is afraid of unpopular labels; I care more about truth than agreeableness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Not always. Most American republicans are not any type of farmer.
About half of blue collar votes go to democrats; about half of white collar votes go to republicans. It used to be blue collar went democrat and white collar went republican (taxes since white collar people tend to earn more), but Trump really made the correlation weaker.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Can you be more specific?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So does the price of a power plant.
On average, stock prices go up 10% per year; inflation is like 1-3%.
If all cars become electric and all military goes electric, that consumption rises 100 times, which is 100 trillions.
What makes you think electricity demand would shoot up 100x if the whole world used electric cars?
And this is when not counting all the money used to replace fuel cars, fuel jets, fuel trucks, fuel tanks...ect.
These items would only get replaced when they are broken down, ie they would get replaced whether or not the next model is electric.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They cant afford to give you their income so that you can build nuclear power plants.
There are investors and venture capitalists that are willing to invest in the company.
It would not amount to 100 trillions, as you said that stock market is 45 trillion in total.
But the stock market rises, and it wouldn't cost $100 Trillion.
1 nuclear power plant costs $4 billion to build. It would take 300 power plants to offset coal and fossil fuels. This costs $1.2 trillion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
GDP is a sum of products sold in total in a country.
GDP is the average annual salary * the number of salaries in a country.
as most people are living near poverty.
Depends on how you define, "near".
Do you really think everyone will sell their stocks to buy nuclear power plants?
Not entirely. I think companies with excess cash and stocks might agree to sell a portion of them to get their hands on nuclear energy stock.
And to who would they sell them to if everyone is selling? To China?
Not to China; but to whoever wants to buy the stocks (usually, private Americans).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Private buisnesses cant afford to spend 100 trillion dollars in USA by 2050.
The US GDP is about $25 trillion/year. In 25 years, the cumulative GDP would be $625 trillion. This measures salary, not net worth.
The stock market is $45 trillion last time I checked and stocks go up 10% a year on average. This is about $500 trillion.
This totals to about $1125 trillion collectively.
This is without inflation.
There would be investment firms that are willing to invest $100 trillion in something that delivers a 14% annual rate of return (more than generic stocks). It is also an investment that has a low beta (meaning it's not risky) because people will need energy, like consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then what is the difference between communism and socialism?
And I'm not liking my own comments; that's someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Socialism = Communism - censorship of conservative hate speech.
Communism = Socialism + censorship of conservative hate speech.
I can tolerate socialists; I despise communists. There is a reason McCarthyism just went after communists, and not socialists. America has had socialist presidential candidates before. But we never had a communist candidate before as communism and communists are evil.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It takes 5 to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, which means not only you must pay insane amounts of money to build it, but you still have to depend on other sources for the next 10 years.
You can't get off of fossil fuels immediately, but starting now, there should be enough nuclear power plants built to completely replace fossil fuels. All funds would be privately financed as nuclear energy is profitable.
However, if everyone switched to electric cars and if we had electric military, the electricity consumption would increase by over 100 times, which means it would cost 100 trillion dollars to switch to nuclear power, as you would need to build not 100 power plants, but 10,000 of them to cover the new consumption.
It's all privately financed (not a single government dollar has to go to nuclear production); and there would be incentives to do this because according to some math I did, nuclear energy pays for it's self in 7 years; and after that; it's pure profit.
Some sources even say that electric cars break down 10 times more often than cars which run on fuel.
I don't think this is true. My Dad has had an electric car for 5 years and the average gas car lasts for 8 years.
But renewable is only 20% of energy, but gets 46% of subsidies.
This is true, but I'm not an advocate of renewable energy; I'm an advocate of nuclear energy (and no federal funds; all privately funded). The vast majority of nuclear plants in this country are privately owned. They aren't too common in some states due to government bans or restrictions on their production. There is a reason why nuclear energy is a libertarian idea; they don't want to subsidize the plants; they just want to remove government caps on how many plants can exist.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
But what if technology doesnt improve nearly enough in the next 30 years? Because you are arguing for the classical "lets spend as much as we can and hope that something comes up and saves us" mentality.
Then we go without electricity. It is something I don't want to happen, but I'm not going to stop using energy in order to have there be a nominal extra amount of energy for everyone else.
Nuclear power plant takes 5 to 10 years to be built.
Then build the power plants in 5 to 10 years. We got enough time.
Is it? Because we arent finding new sources of uranium right now. What we have are just theories about how it could be found.
Right now we have enough of a supply to where it's not too essential to find new uranium. If you have 100 cooked burgers and you have to work to find a way to increase it to 10000, then you mainly focus on getting more burgers when your initial stash goes down to a low enough level.
Wait, how does government subsidies fuel?
Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI states the US government spends $20 billion/year on fossil fuel subsidies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump is the reason the base became so anti vaccine/booster.
He endorsed the COVID vacciene/booster and his base booed him for it. Meaning, they don't see Trump as someone that can't be challenged no matter what
And if Trump had any position on the Confederate flag I've never heard it and certainly don't but it as anything more than lip service to whomever was accusing him of being a racist.
Regardless, this is all besides the point. Every rule can have exceptions.
But your political moral code should not have an exception.
Imagine if someone said, "I am a democrat because I want to reduce unwanted pain, but I want to ban abortion even for rape victims and I don't want to force people to get vaccinated because, "My body, My choice".". This person may be close to a democrat, but they are not. They might be an independent if they also back things like Medicare for all and if they stand with Palestine.
Independents are the only people that don't need a consistent moral code; everyone in a party does.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Electric fighter planes arent as nearly as good as those which run on fuel.
Right now, you are correct. This won't always be the case though as the technology is improving. You need to think 4th dimensionally.
In capitalism, nuclear energy is too expensive and takes long time to build. Also, many people even today arent big fans of electric cars.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar and fossil fuels are only a thing still because of government subsidies. More people will get electric cars as time goes on though; they've only been around 5 years or so. Many people didn't even buy a car in the last 5 years. Around 1/17 new cars are electric cars (and it's growing, especially as the technology becomes cheaper to produce).
You can only replenish them if you find new sources of uranium.
Which is easy enough to do.
Created:
Posted in:
@Amber
I'm going to respond even though you blocked me showing how little you actually care about free speech.
Fallacious comparison.
How? Like with both times?
HRT has nothing to do with liberty, small government and/or a free-market capitalist state.
Incorrect, unless you believe liberty, small government and/or a free-market capitalist state are only valid concerns when the right brings them up.
HRT is being used and abused at the expense of human lives.
The trans people being off of HRT would be worse.
Rape children in school bathrooms.Violently attack and seriously maim other students.Go on mass shooting sprees in schools.
All very rare instances, rape and murder should be punished with death, but this is not representative of the majority of trans people.
Cause serious bodily harm in sports.
They should start HRT before 11 or 12 in order for me to be alright with them competing with the cisgender girls.
Comparing what I said to GOP politicians is asinine and fallacious.
You say that so often (and you will say it of any left wing argument), so I will let the right wing woke mob be triggered.
Wow. I am removing you from my friends list. Why even send one?
I send them to everyone I meet. But I got 127 friends and you got 4, so it shows how irrelevant you are on this site.
You are too undereducated for my tastes. Bye.
I'm almost done with my bachlor's degree (2 classes left) and you have an associates degree. You can't preach to me about lack of education. Also, college educated people tend to vote left, so the educated people are more likely to agree with me. But this is where you move the goalposts and call education, "indoctrination". It's only indoctrination when the left does it. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
HRT does sterilize, not if you only take it for a short amount of time or after puberty; but then that's now how they use it.
I looked it up and you are correct. This is why I think trans people should store gametes before transition in a hospital freezer if they want kids (which usually, they would rather just adopt, especially transwomen because they see it as nurturing).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
From "reversible" to "well sterilized but they consented"This is called "moving the goalposts", it is an informal fallacy.
The gender surgery sterilizes you. The HRT I don't think does, especially if you only take it for a small amount of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You think the person in the link has any of the problems you stated (minus the sterilization; which is true and probably something they consented too)?
Gender surgeries should be legal for anyone that meets at least one of the following criteria:
- At least 16
- On HRT at least 1-2 years
Created:
-->
@Mall
The issue is, "Is it acceptable to ban immigration because immigrants are more likely to vote democrat?" The answer is no. ICE should be abolished even if it leads to more people voting left (or right) because what party benefits under the status quo is irrelevent.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
In terms of military power, its a great disadvantage.
You just have to build new planes. Keep in mind, if nuclear replaces everything except military use, then that's thousands of years of gasoline fuel for the military.
I agree, but thats not really an option. Its not like all countries would ever agree to abolish their militaries.
If the world was one nation and big nations are split up into many different states, then this is more plausible.
"With the world’s current uranium resources expected to be depleted by the end of the century, the search for new sources of uranium has become more urgent."
Key word is current; implying you can replenish uranium supplies.
Created: