The D-Day invasion as a metaphor for today's anti-nuclear fight.

As anyone who read my "Dragon's Tale" post knows, I'm very fond of metaphors and analogies. This post is another one, as part of my effort explain why I think that now would be a good time for anti-nuclear activists to consider moving their energy on to other, IMO much more important, battles.

During the invasion of Europe in 1944, special forces were sent in advance of the main force in order to secure high value targets, reduce the enemy's fighting capacity, neutralize critical defenses and to some extent prepare the citizens of occupied countries - all in order to pave the way for the coming invasion. These units were specialized, highly skilled and trained, and very highly motivated. As such they were extremely valuable assets. When the main force troops arrived, the special forces units were not generally committed to set-piece battles, which were handed off to the main force. Since the special forces' objectives been accomplished, they were moved on to other places where their specialized skills were needed, leaving the main force do the grinding.

In this situation I think of the nuclear industry as the German occupiers of Festung Europa. Their tame and purchased politicians are the Vichy-style governments of the occupied territory. The main force troops are the anti-nuclear politicians and members of the general public who have minimal training but are committed to the cause in very great numbers. The special forces units are the cadres of anti-nuclear advocates and activists who have been fighting "behind enemy lines" for over 30 years since TMI.

I see that the main force has finally arrived on the scene, and the fight has turned from isolated skirmishes around specific nuclear plants to set-piece battles - nation-wide anti-nuclear referendums and commitments by national leaders to reverse the nuclear course.

I think the particular skills that anti-nuclear advocates bring to the arena - skills including analysis, rhetoric, creativity, deep caring, devotion to truth, persistence and dedication -are too valuable to be ground up and exhausted in fights that can be carried forward by the main force of citizens. In the battle now underway the force of numbers at the ballot box is called for rather than individual acts of rhetorical heroism from deep specialists.

Of course, as with the SAS and Rangers of WWII or the Green Berets and LRRPs of Vietnam, fighting tends to get in the blood of those who become specialists at it. It can be very difficult to disengage - especially when one has committed themselves heart and soul to a particular objective that has not quite been achieved yet. But it's a mark of maturity to know one's own capabilities and where they might be best applied.

I understand that many of you want to keep fighting this battle, and that you may see suggestions like this to consider moving on to other fights as suspicious and counter-revolutionary. I really do think that skills like yours are too valuable to be wasted in what has now become a ballot-box battle.

If the forces of nuclear darkness begin to mount a counterattack, we'll hear about it in enough time to come back into the fray. Until then, we might want to consider that this battle against nuclear power is just the opening skirmish in what is going to be a very long and and hard-fought war. The majority of the conflict is still in front of us. The nuclear industry is small compared to the entrenched power of the fossil-fuel interests. We have won an important fight - if we choose, we can use the lessons we learned and the momentum we have generated to take the fight to the enemy that truly threatens all life on the planet.

Humanity's future depends on having our best minds committed to the fights that count.

Dude, you've been pushing nuclear for years.

Now your *focus* is to persuade people to stop thinking about the problems of nuclear when those problems are front and center on the public stage.

I'll make my own decisions based on my own assessment of the situation.

And for some strange, inexplicable reason, that assessment is not the same as yours.


ETA: unrec for patronizing BS.

I posted my first pro-nuclear piece on October 7 last year. At the time I couldn't accept that we probably won't stop global warming, and I was looking for anything at all that might offer a weapon against CO2 buildup. My focus on that goal took my eye off the larger picture when it came to nuclear power. I reversed my position on March 12. I've repeatedly said that my short-lived support for nuclear power was a major mistake on my part.

I know your assessment isn't the same as mine, but that's fine. We all have the right to our own opinions. I'm utterly convinced that CO2 is the largest problem humanity will ever face, and I'm promoting that viewpoint with the aim of convincing people to give it the consideration it deserves. I make no apologies for that.

The fact that the world won't be spending any more money on a further expansion of nuclear power is a great victory. It should free up large amounts of capital and regulatory opportunity for dealing with the problem of global warming.

Thanks to TRMS. When I heard the tape of this call I immediately thought of you, GG.

I'm calling to let everyone know that Presiden Obama and Governor O'Mally have been successful.

Our goals have been met.

The polls were correct and we took it today.

We're okay.

Relax.

Everything is fine.

The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight.

Congratulations, and thank you.

MP3: http://www.wbaltv.com/download/2010/1102/25611304.mp3




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-suppression-in-the-maryland-governors-race/2011/06/17/AGlvtYZH_story.html

I've only been stopping by here since about March 12 and you do seem like one of the more pro-nuke supporters in my limited experience. The appeal to "call of the dogs" and the weak D-Day shock troop metaphor doesn't work for me either.

But then so is being "pro-nuclear" in the way some others are.

My top concerns tend to be planetary/civilization scale threats. In order of priority I would list:

1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is my top concern by a long shot, along with the litany of troubles that devolve from it: water and food security, the destabilizing effect of climate refugees, ocean acidification etc.
   
   
2. Peak oil and its potential to destabilize the economics of our globalized industrial civilization by throwing us into a sudden and permanent economic decline that would hamper our ability to address any of the other problems.
   
   
3. The knock-on effects of global industrial agriculture: toxic runoff, the excessive consumption of ground water (especially from limited-recharge aquifers), declining soil quality, habitat destruction and our screwing with agricultural genomes;
   
   
4. Overpopulation in general, which has led to the ballooning of urban populations, the over-concentration of power and wealth, the centralization of energy and resource requirements, all of the pressure placed on the planet by agriculture, and the increase in social complexity to the point where its marginal return as a problem-solving mechanism is now decreasing;
   
   
5. All the above are interlocking into a clusterfuck that is threatening the entire human experiment (and much of the other life on the planet at the same time).
   
   
6. Then comes my distaste for complex, centralized technologies, especially those that are dangerous when active control is removed. This is where nuclear power fits into my scale of priorities. I think it was one of the worst energy ideas we ever had, and I hope enough people have figured this out by now to keep us from ever building any more of the stupid things.
   
   The one thing that reduces my level of angst is the fact that the "threat gradient" extending out from a failed reactor is so steep. The threat is enormous at close proximity, but drops off very fast as you move away. As a result, one area where I probably differ from the more ardent "anti-nukes" on this board is that I think this means that the 400 or so reactors in the world do not present an immediate existential threat to planetary life. I think that as long as we can continue to apply sufficient control and oversight to any reactors currently operating in geologically safe areas we can take our time in decommissioning most of them.
   
   That said, the two provisos in that last statement are very important. Any reactors in geologically unstable areas or areas that present any other risk due to physical siting (such as access to cooling water) should be shut down sooner rather than later. The second proviso is that if civilization starts to crumble (as I think it may) the probability that we can continue to supply the active control that nuclear power needs will decline along with it. If that starts to happen we should agitate to shut them all down immediately.

So that's my position. I don't think I've ever organized it like this, but your comment prompted me to lay it out.

you don't dissolve your track record for months by posting a couple of lists.

But it's all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see you can't please everyone so
You got to please yourself...

No hanging about for you - accuse your opponents of being like Nazis right from the title of the thread!

Well played. But if the pro-nuclear people are the Nazis, who are you going to compare the fossil fuel industry and their customers to? Satan and his worshippers? Darth Vader, the Galactic Emperor and a bunch of Imperial Stormtroopers? I worry you've left yourself with nowhere to go.

It works for me...

Undead nazi zombies from outerspace?

They're sitting in their ivory towers, lighting $100 cigars with $1000 bills, laughing at the stupidity and gullibility of the throngs of people who fight so hard against the very thing they should be embracing: nuclear power.

"Look at all those idiots," one says to the other. "My coal plants have killed over a million people each and every year and they're fighting for my profits because WE control the so-called environmental groups! If only they knew that nuclear power hasn't killed that many people since it was invented!"

They have one more laugh at the expense of the gullible and the dying, then don their robes and adjourn to the marble and gold balcony for a snifter of brandy.

So how about none of the above?

Nuclear power was a great weapons technology, but a not-so-swift civil energy technology. It's like a dancing circus bear. It's quite amazing when things are going right, but if you lose control of it, it can do a whole lot of damage in its immediate vicinity.

Fossil fuels are a whole other dimension of evil, though. Even when things are going right they do a lot of damage - everywhere.

even while they are killing them at the same time.