This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The number one fossil fuel producer in the world is the US which is also the number one nuclear producer.
Russia is the third largest fossil fuel producer in the world and has over the past decade been the number two country in building new nuclear.
UAE has fossil fuels as a main export yet has built a large nuclear power plant.
Sure, and the US is also a nuclear weapons state. Anyway, the question is not the total fossil fuel production but rather what's produced versus what's needed.
I'm pretty sure that the argument being made is that (1) Iran has far far more fossil fuel reserves than what it needs for domestic energy consumption; and (2) Iran claims not to be developing nuclear weapons; therefore (3) Iran has no need to enrich Uranium.
Neither (1) nor (2) applies to the United States.
More options
Context Copy link
Both the US and Russia are nuclear powers.
The UAE is not enriching nuclear fuel domestically, but importing it from the US.
https://www.framatome.com/medias/framatome-and-enec-sign-nuclear-fuel-supply-agreement-to-diversify-and-strengthen-uae-clean-energy-security/
And why not refine it yourself if you can? Being dependent on imported fuel is a risk and a cost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Both the US and Russia very much were initially developing nuclear weapons from the outset, so they kind of prove my point here (the civilian sector was in some ways a byproduct) and in any case in the early days of the atomic age there was a lot of uncertainty about capability and the US was much more reliant on imported oil and it was theorized that nuclear might become far cheaper than it did (see the “it won’t even be metered” quotes from the ‘60s). The UAE’s nuclear power is largely about domestic politics because they’re governed in many ways semi-independently and 5/7 Emirates actually have no oil (almost all of it is in Abu Dhabi).
Lastly, the key developmental measure here isn’t “owning a nuclear power station”, it’s “enriching uranium allegedly for civilian nuclear power purposes”. The UAE doesn’t enrich its own uranium. The whole fuel rods are shipped from South Korea and then installed. So the situation is very, very different. And again, Iran is very poor compared to the UAE; there is no reason for the huge investment in its enrichment program if not for weapons.
Anyway, I am pretty confident that Iran could work out a deal where (1) it turns in all its enriched Uranium; (2) it destroys all of its enrichment facilities; (3) energy grade fuel rods are shipped in from South Korea or whatever; and (4) they are carefully monitored by international observers. If Iran has no interest in a weapons program, that would be a pretty good deal. But of course they wouldn't voluntarily agree to that, because they desperately want nuclear weapons.
As a side note, I'm also pretty confident that there is near 100% correlation between (1) people who deny that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons; and (2) people who hate Israel. Yes, this is bulverism, but I think it's worth keeping in mind the source of peoples' delusions.
I'd heard "however much free uranium you need to run your plants if you dismantle your enrichment facilities" was indeed an offer prior to the shooting (that was refused), but of course, it's nigh impossible to tell what anyone has actually put on the table, it seems.
I agree in the sense that in situations like this people have a tendency to lie about what was offered and what was refused. Each side wants to spin things so that it appears reasonable while the other side appears unreasonable.
That being said, Iran has a track record, as does Israel. For many years now, Israel has had uneasy peace with Egypt and Jordan and has refrained from military strikes against them even though Israel has more than enough military strength to do pretty much whatever it wants to either or both of those countries. At the same time, Iran has been aggressively and viciously attacking Israel (and Jewish people in general) by means of proxies for decades now. Its leadership regularly leads chants of "Death to Israel," etc. Even though it could easily have the same uneasy peace as is enjoyed by Egypt and Jordan.
With this context, I am reasonably confident that Iran was presented with reasonable offers and refused them. With "reasonable" meaning a deal along those lines.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link