A comment piece. Please refer to my earlier post. You can find 'comment pieces' claiming everything from Obama being a Kenyan communist muslim Illuminati member to there being a global conspiracy to make sure that the author always ends up buying stale bread.
The point is that reprocessing would be obvious, and it's not something that could be done in small facilities by iranians. Since they already have access to proper uranium sources in any case, this is a case of ignoring the larger picture, namely that Iran and North Korea will need to be dealt with in the future, energy crisis or not.
While yes, ideally then any risk would be too far, the truth is that humanity's population is still growing. If you had absolute decision making authority, would you execute 5 billion humans or leave them to die from starvation and exposure to move the world onto wind/solar? Would you implement a controlled reduction over many generations of both population and resource use? If so, how would you address the requisite transition?
It seems a little hypocritical to me to talk about how potential mitigations are bad while acting as if the opposite will magically solve everything. If you do have a concept of a strategy for it, I would be genuinely interested to hear it, and in your own words rather than a copy/paste or link, as it would even potentially be something I would agree with - I just consider myself pragmatic in that overpopulation can not be solved overnight, and util it is no longer a problem, efficiency must be given equal consideration to end effect. I would honestly be interested in discussion of this point.
__________________
...
|