Not exact matches
Expect the US to push for sanctions, diplomatic talks, investments in missile defenses — the types of measures taken
against other
nuclear powers — but don't expect a
nuclear exchange.
For instance, organizations trying to assist Haitian and Salvadoran refugees to avoid repatriation, or organizations urging boycott of banks doing business with South Africa, or organizations counseling young people
not to register for the draft, or organizations protesting increased military expenditures, or organizations demonstrating
against nuclear power or
against mineral exploration in wilderness areas, are all in danger of losing their tax exemptions for violating «public policy.»
For example in North Korea, the max range of their
nuclear arsenal, is very unlikely further than South Korea, which means, that they can't reach all the
powers, which would, in a potential
nuclear attack, would start
nuclear strikes back
against them.
This all could have been precluded if 30 years of hysteria promoted by these groups
against the use of
nuclear generated
power had
not occured.
Mind you, I'm
not saying I'm
against nuclear power.
This does
not mean that those nations, whose populations and governments have already been scared out of their wits by decades of fear mongering
against nuclear power by green lobby groups, etc. will follow suit right away.
Not a lot of people on the right are
against CO2 emission free
nuclear power, nor do they want to tear down hydroelectric dams to help 3 inch long fish.
The main reason why very few new
nuclear power stations opened around the world after the mid-1980s was cheap natural gas (plus double - digit interest rates, which favoured quick - to - build gas - fired
power stations
against slower - to - build
nuclear and coal),
not Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
• Those who are scientifically literate and oppose
nuclear power, do
not, for the most part, articulate arguments
against nuclear power.
This has
not prevented advocates from pursuing their campaigns
against the use of fossil fuel,
nuclear, and hydro
power at all levels of American government.
California turned
against nuclear power in the 1970s and has
not looked back.
No — what's holding back
nuclear is
not decommissioning costs, but the immense financial and political
power of fossil fuel interests, which are able to stack the deck
against nuclear energy.
The barista claims he pursued this
nuclear option only after a number of complaints from customers and after trying to confirm that he had the «
power as a Starbucks employee to pull the plug,» including «asking supervisors, calling managers, and even looking through the employee handbook (which
not only said nothing about this act being
against policy but actually explained how to do it) before cutting the public Wi - Fi.»